Searching Using Family Tree Maker 2006 With Time For: Fill & Download for Free

Not Lata Mangeshkar, though most certainly Asha Bhosle.But we all know what Ashaji can do. She may be the greatest singer of Hindi Film Music, but a third grade human being.What treatment she meted out to R.D.Burman’s late mother Meera Dev Burman after his death, how she treated her own daughter-in-law Sajida Bhosle (estranged wife of her eldest son Hemant Bhosle), how she tortured the great actress of yesteryear late Sadhnaji,how she rebuked late composer Jaidev Vermaji in 1971 once she learnt that he had got a song recorded by Vani Jairam -a fact that has often quoted by Anwar Hussain- and how much trouble she gave Naushad when she was told to record ‘Kaho to aaj bol doon’ for the film Aaina (1977) with Vani Jairam is a part of music industry folklore. As a result of her high-handed behavior, Asha’s portion was recorded at Film Centre and Vani’s at Mehboob Studios. Finally, Vani’s portion did not find a place on the music album. She even threatened B N Sharma Studio for having recorded Vani Jairam.See link below for what Sajida Bhosle have to say about great Ashatai :https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjOvIK0ypreAhULs48KHYq7A-cQwqsBMAB6BAgDEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DiOf0LwWu1nU&usg=AOvVaw1VYM2UBrIw2MhPJtNk1u0GFor how much care she took of late Meera Dev Burman click on the following link :A Bungalow, A Ma-In-LawIn 1969 Naushad had said to a journalist ‘Asha mein who baat nahin jo Lata mein hai, unki awaaaz se bazarupan aaj tak nahin gaya’.When that journalist brought this statement in public domain albeit late in 1981, Asha had the guts and gumption to ask for explanation.Naushad had to issue a clarification stating that may be his ears were closed on her music. This incident taught Naushad that Asha-who was a dark horse till Lata rule the roost-can be more high-handed, dominating,ruthless, and authoritative compared to her elder sister.Distraught, Naushad never took playback from Asha Bhosle once he made his comeback in 1990s. Neither in Aawaz De Kahan Hai (1990), nor in Teri Payal Mere Geet (1993), nor in Guddu (1995) and certainly not in his swan song Taj Mahal :An Eternal Love Story (2005). Ironically, in 2 of these score (no. 2 and 3) he went back to Lata Mangeshkar despite her degraded vocals. Please don't be confused as to how Asha features in two of Naushad’s movies post this episode : Dharamkanta (1982) and Love and God (1986). The songs of the first movie were recorded by 1980 and that’s how we find 4 songs by Mohammed Rafi. As for the second, its songs were recorded well by 1971 (its director Karimuddin Asif died in 1971).She has always been a highly selfish person, an opportunist, the one who wants to eat cake and have it too.She has always been jealous of her elder sister Lataji and till date makes fun of her way of talking and singing in interviews and in concerts, not to talk of backstabbing her whenever the opportunity arises. A few examples :1) At the age of 15, she eloped with Ganpatrao Bhosle, bringing immense shame and disrepute to the family, since an inter-caste marriage between a Brahmin and Kshatriya (Bhosle) was not very much acceptable 70 years back.To top it all, it was a fatherless family of 1 lady (Mai Mangeshkar) and 4 girls ( Lata, Meena, Usha and one cousin) and the oldest male member was an 11 year old child (Bal or Hridaynath). Since Asha was also a bread-earner, her elopement made 19 year old Lata still living in chawl at Nana Chowk the sole breadwinner of the family.2)Between 1948-60 she would not talk to Lataji, not even in the studio, though would call all else in the family. Media at that time had believed that it was Lata’s fault, given that she was more successful.3) In mid-1950s, she sat outside Salil Chowdhuri's recording studio for the whole day. When he could not meet her, she famously taunted 'Chamatkar ko Namaskar'. Nobody knew whether she referred to Lataji as Chamatkar (miracle) or was it Salil Chowdhuri who deserved the word.Fact remains, Asha for all her vocal virtuosity could sing only 31 songs for Salilda as against 128 songs sung by Lataji. For the record Ashaji had sung in the last Hindi Film of Salilda ‘Swami Vivekanand’ (1998). The song was recorded in 1994 and it goes ‘Sanyasi Talashi Jiski Hai’ and it was a duet between Ashaji and Yesudas. In the same movie Lataji was also offered 2 songs, which was rendered by Kavitha Krishnamurthy.4) Because of her illicit relationship with late O P Nayyar (which was very necessary for the advancement of her career since Lata and OPN did not see eye to eye), quarrels started between her and Ganpatrao and one fine day in 1960, she left her marital home to land in Prabhu Kunj. Lata had gone out for recording. Once she came back, she did not want to let Asha stay next to her. After all besides bringing disrepute to the family and not being on speaking terms with her for 12 long years, she was known to befriend any person with whom Lata had a fallout. Case in point : Raj Kapoor ( once Lata refused to sing Main Bazaron Ki Rani for his Boot Polish(1954), Asha conveyed to him her willingness to sing that song and in turn snatched the entire soundtrack from Lata. Similarly, when she learnt that Raj Kapoor and Lataji had fallen out once again after the former’s refusal to pay royalty for the songs, she conveyed her desire to not only sing for Mera Naam Joker(1970) but with as many rehearsals as required)O P Nayyar (1952–1972), S D Burman 1958–1961) and C Ramchandra.However, upon requests from her mother and seeing how heavily pregnant Asha was with her third child, Lata reluctantly let Asha in. Later on, when Lata confronted her for not speaking to her for the last 12 years, Asha very conveniently put all the blame on Ganpatrao.5) Slowly Lata's anger against Asha started to evaporate, more so after the birth of Asha's son Anand in 1960 itself. Lataji treated the newborn like her own.6) In 1962, Lataji was given slow poisoning, due to which she had to forego recording for 3 and a half months. It had a permanent detrimental effect on her vocal chords also for her highest high ‘Woh Ek Nigah Kya Mili’ (Half Ticket, 1962) -where she hit B6 (in staccato portion) effortlessly and without strain for the last time, proving that she was the real soprano -was recorded around the same time. Her ability to hold breath reduced from 11 seconds in 1963 ( she had held it for 15 seconds at the end of Pyar Kiya To Darna Kya, Mughal-e-Azam, 1960) to 9 a year later. This incident was underreported by media for it went counter to its narrative of Lata Mangeshkar’s monopoly. It is clear which singer would have gained maximum mileage had Lataji’s vocals become unfit for SINGING.IT also does not need telling which singer had access to Lataji’s kitchen and food. After this incident, Lataji a born introvert turned more aloof, reclusive and elusive.7)In the same year, Lata approached Asha who was living just next to her to support her on royalty issue. Her decision was prompted by her frequent sinus problem coupled with recently administered slow poison.Being the 2nd best female singer in Hindi films after Lata (at that time), Asha's support would have mattered a lot. Asha refused to support her sister point blank,leaving her alone at this crucial stage which led to her fallout with Rafi.8)After this time came Aye Mere Watan Ke Logon (January 27, 1963). Asha had already rehearsed with C Ramchandra. Lata was not there in picture at all. However, poet late Pradeep was not at all in favour of her singing, given her sensuous image. He approached Lata. Lata not been told that it was first designed as a solo by Asha agreed. When Asha learnt that she would have to 'share' this song with didi, she felt cheated (of course anyone would), her ego hurt (which is natural) and then her inferiority complex got the better of her.She would be sidelined in the same way,she was sidelined on May 01, 1960 when on the formation day of her own state Maharashtra, the same Lata Mangeshkar and not she was called in to sing 'Bahu asot sundar sampanna ki maha, Priya amucha ek Maharashtra desh ha' in the presence of same Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. If she was overlooked in her own Mumbai, she would be neglected in Delhi as well. But she would not yield yet, just yet. She would teach such a hard lesson to mighty Mangeshkar that she would not forget for a lifetime. Let Lata rehearse the song as if it is a duet, same way as she has been duped into believing that it was to be her solo song. And finally when it came to go to Delhi she refused to accompany Lata at the 11th hour leaving from Lata to C Ramchandra to Pradeep in a quandary. It is to Lata's credit that she rehearsed Asha's portion in flight and did such a justice to the song that nobody had a clue as there was to be an Asha Bhosle too in the song.Unexpectedly, the song touched Nehru's heart. What Asha had presumed would be an embarrassing moment for Lata turned out to be her moment of pride.Thus began the theory, the sob story and the self pity as to how Lata snatched the song from Asha, which resurfaced in 1997 once Lata was called in parliament to sing ‘Saare Jahan Se Achha’ at the beginning of 50th Independence Day celebrations. With her daughter Varsha Bhosle, being a journalist this lie was repeated time and again on web portal rediff, The Sunday Observer and even Times of India and as we know a lie repeated hundred times gets credence as truth.The next year, Asha too was called in the parliament at the insistence of Sharad Pawar. However, world at her feet, with her being the first Indian singer to have been nominated for Grammy Award, to winning MTV award to Channel V award to Screen Videocon award for her album 'Jaanam Samjha Karo’to singing from Khayyam (Asha aur Khayyam, non film Ghazals,1997) to Salil Chowdhuri (Swami Vivekanand, 1998) to Ustad Ali Akbar Khan (Legacy, non film classical,1997) to Bhupen Hazarika (Darmiyaan,1997) to Vanraj Bhatia (Sardari Begum,1996/7) to Ilayaraja (Aur Ek Prem Kahani,1996) to Bappi Lahiri (Agnichakra, 1997) to Rajesh Roshan (Yuhgpurush, 1997/8) to Raamlaxman (Luv Kush , 1997) to Anand Milind (Daayra,1997) to Uttam Singh (Dil To Pagal Hai,1997 )to Viju Shah ( Aar Ya Paar, 1997) to A.R.Rahman ( Daud, Iruvar, Kabhi Na Kabhie(all 1997))to Karthik Raja (Grahan, soundtrack released in 1997 and film released in 2001) to Aadesh Srivastva (Salma Pe Dil Aa Gaya,1997) to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan (Aur Pyar Ho Gaya,1997)to Vishal Bhardwaj (Chachi 420, and Betaabi 1997) to Santosh Nair (Chand Grahan, 1997) to Leslie Louis (Jaanam Samjha Karo, non-film, 1997) she rejected the offer stating her prior commitment for concerts abroad (rightly so). Her voice had launched two actresses who would rule the moviedom in the next decade : Rani Mukherji ( Raja Ki Aayegi Baarat, 1996) Aishwarya Rai (Iruvar and Aur Pyar Ho Gaya, both 1997). [Lataji had to wait for 6 long years to sing for the former (Mujhse Dosti Karoge,2002) and 3 years to croon for the latter (Mohabbatein,2000) till they were signed by Yash Raj Films. ]Why to play second fiddle to someone you have already surpassed ? Why to live under the shadow of a banyan tree, if you have overgrown it?In the war of roses, it is Anuradha Paudwal who got the maximum mileage. After Asha refused to sing in parliament, it was Anuradha who was given this privilege and Ashaji missed the opportunity. Anuradha, by the virtue of Asha’s blunder not only got to bypass Asha in parliament, but also managed to more than equal her score with once-a-Devi-now-nobody Lataji (did not Raamlaxam to utter shock of many of the blind fans of Lataji reiterated in May 1998 issue of Filmfare ‘Lataji is not God, God is God’) in at least one respect, for what took 55 years of her career for Lata Mangeshkar to enter the citadel of Indian democracy, Anuradha managed to travel the same distance after 24 years of her debut.As for Lataji, her output had been reduced to just 4 films that year (1997) : Luv Kush, Salma Pe Dil Aa Gaya, Betaabi,Dil to Pagal Hai and one non- film album Chand Grahan ( Lataji’s 2 songs were recorded way back in 1973 under the baton of late Jaidev Verma). She could never get a song from Viju Shah, Karthik Raja,Santosh Nair and Leslie Louis, Khayyam never approached Lataji after Ek Naya Rishta (1988), Salil Chowdhuri passed away in 1995 to offer any song to Lataji, Ustad Ali Akbar Khan too did not feel the need to collaborate with her after Humsafar (1953), she had not sung a single Hindi song for Ilayraja till then,she could not sing any of Bhupen Hazarika song after Rudaali(1993), Rajesh Roshan did not get any of his songs sung by her after Karan Arjun(1995), Bappi Lahiri did not feel the need of her vocals after Policewala Gunda (1995), Anand-Milind had abandoned her post Lootere(1993, they got her to sing a song in 2006, but the movie never got released) and Vanraj Bhatia did not work with her after Tarang(1984), such low was her acceptance among music directors by this time- from classical stalwarts to seniors to contemporary ones to new comers all of them seemed to have abandoned her, deserted her. Of course Lataji sang for Rahman in Jiya Jale (Dil Se,1998), it never got the kind of popularity which Asha’s 2 songs in Rangeela (1995) and 2 songs in Daud (1997) got. While Ashaji’s songs in Rangeela were the most popular in the album, Lataji’s only song in Dil Se was next in popularity after Chhaiya Chaiyya. Lataji sang for Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan’s compositions as well in Kachche Dhaage (1998), only to let Sukhwinder Singh and Kumar Sanu overshadow her in Oopar Khuda and Dil Pardesi Ho Gaya songs respectively.Though Dil To Pagal Hai (1997) was the best selling score of 1997 , Lataji sang 8 out of 9 songs in the album (1 song ‘Chanda Ki Chandni’ with Kumar Sanu was released in 2008 by Yash Raj Films) and won Zee Cine Award for Best Female Playback Singer too, the facts remains that it was Asha who was noticed the most for her single number ‘Le Gayi Le Gayi’despite it being the weakest melody in the album. This song too was composed with Lataji in mind. However, Yash Chopra believed that Ashaji was better suited for the song. Such was her standing then. And, Yashji’s stand stood vindicated by her song delivery. While Lataji’s off-key rendition of the title track further established the fact that she can no longer always be trusted to sing tunefully - even for her ardent admirer Yash Chopra.Such low was Lataji’s standing in industry that she was not even allowed to speak when she went to collect her ‘Lifetime Achievement Award’ trophy in 1999.9) Once Lata-Rafi stopped recording with each other, it's Asha who got the maximum mileage apart from Suman Kalyanpur. This went on till 1965, when Rafi's ego was hurt by none other than Asha Bhosle, when she surpassed him in Aaja Aaja Main Hoon Pyar Tera (Teesri Manzil, released in 1966).Actually it was the same ego hurt that had made him have a fight with Lata, since Salil Chowdhury had favoured Lata's rendition over Rafi's in 'Tasweer Teri Dil Mein' song from Chaaya(1961).But at least Lata had kept quiet. In Asha's case, she started boasting her new talent (of pulverizing a singer as great as Rafi)to whosoever cared to listen, much to embarrassment of late Rafi. She proudly mentions this in her interviews till date as to how there was a bet of Rs. 500 between Nasir Hussain and R.D. Burman and how the former had to pay the latter. Rafi, like Naushad 6 year later realised that given a chance Asha was more ruthless than Lata Mangeshkar and patched-up with Lata Mangeshkar at the earliest available opportunity.Suman Kalyanpur be damned, for now she was of no use to Rafi.10) In 1989 Subhash Ghai- who is considered as a Movie Director having an ear for Music-first signed R D Burman for his next film Ram Lakhan (1989) and then unceremoniously announced that his regular Laxmikant- Pyarelal would be giving music for the film which had shocked R.D. Burman to no end and he mentioned the same in an interview with Filmfare.Though there were solid reason for the same, like LP's songs from films like Mr. India (1987), Sindoor (1987),Biwi Ho To Aisi (1988),Dayavan (1988), Charnon Ki Saugandh (1988),Bees Saal Baad (1988) and Tezaab (1988) were constantly on the top of the charts, while RD's songs were not appealing the audience. After this incident RD met with a heart attack.Asha talks about RD in public now and then and feels sadness for his non-recognition during his lifetime. However, the same Asha did not blink an eye once the same Subhash Ghai called her to record a song for Taal (1999) and Yaadein (2001). She even went to his Whistlewoods.11) In 2007, Himesh Reshammiya passed some negative comments about RD Burman’s nasal voice and Ashaji said he should be slapped.Next, she sang a song for him in Aap Ka Suroor (2007).12)Unlike Lata, Asha does not take her defeats so easily.She made such a hue and cry and passed indignant comments on Sunidhi Chauhan and Ram Gopal Verma, once she learnt that Sunidhi has sung the remix version of Mehbooba from Sholay (1975) in his movie Ram Gopal Verma Ki Aag (2007) as she firmly believed that it was her birthright to remix R.D. songs.She forgot the fact that when other moviemakers of his generation turned their face from her, it was he who would give her songs in film after film from Drohi (1992) to Rangeela (1995) to Daud (1997) to Satya (1998) to Mast (1999) to Pyar Tune Kya Kiya (2001) to Love Ke Life Kuchh Bhai Karega (2001) to Company (2002).13) In 2009 a song recorded by Asha in the movie Raavanan/Raavan (2010) were not retained either in record or in the movie. She did not like it one bit and made her displeasure known to everyone who cared to listen.14)While Lataji is known to be supporting her family, commemorating her father’s death anniversary since 1943, doing concert in Hirabaug Pune on May 02, 1954 to support Goa liberation, arranging marriage of her younger sister Usha Mangeshkar in 1963, instituting Dinanath Mangeshkar Award, doing concerts for Indian Army, Indian Cricket Team (1983),Gujarat Earthquake Relief (2001) or through donation to Kashmir Earth Quake Relief Fund (2005) , Asha has started such such charity work in January, 2013 after the death of her daughter Varsha Bhosle.Too late, too little. See link below :Asha Bhosle sets up charitable trust in memory of late daughter | BizAsia | Media, Entertainment, Showbiz, Events and MusicSee link also of Lataji’s patriotism :Story of Goa's freedom, a forgotten fight of independenceDadra and Nagar Haveli: When an IAS officer became the instrument of accessionHear How Lata Mangeshkar Helped Liberate Goa in Her Own VoiceWhen Lata Mangeshkar Performed for 1983 World Champion team IndiaA Champion Speaks | Lata Mangeshkar's Concert Helped Players Financially After 1983 Win: Kapil DevLata Mangeshkar to sing at quake fund raiser - Times of India5 unknown facts about Lata Mangeshkar | The Times of India15)In 2003, Lataji completed 75 years of her illustrious life.A huge function was held in Mumbai by her family. The entire film fraternity was present. The person conspicuous by her absence was Asha Bhosle.16) She herself in a candid interview admitted of having fought with Pancham over giving his best romantic songs Didi Lata Mangeshkar.Click the link below.Pancham gave best songs to Lata: Asha - The Himalayan Times17) One would think that Ashaji would be possessive about Pancham’s music only,given that he was her lover and husband. However she could not digest the fact that late Madan Mohan would prefer Lataji over her and would voice her opinion very loud and clear.See the link below to read his son’s statement.http://www.madanmohan.in/press/filmfare_dec07.pdf18)Many a times Lata Mangeshkar has left a song to be sung by her for other singers. Many a times it was due to illness like ‘Ek Baat Kahoon Mere Piya’ (Amar, 1954) and 7 songs of Rukhsana (1955). Some other occasions due to double meaningful lyrics (according to her) like ‘Abhi Na Jao Chhodkar’. At other times due to obscenity like ‘Ang Lagja Balma’ (Mera Naam Joker, 1970). Most of the times Asha Bhosle has been the beneficiary. In 1954,she left all her songs rehearsed for late Mohammed Shafi-who had earlier arranged a Moulvi for her to learn Urdu- for the film Mangu for Suman Kalyanpur, since Shafi after hearing to Sumanji in Marathi film Shukrachi Chandni (1953) opined that she was a talented girl and should be given a chance. Not only that Lataji came to Sumanji first Hindi film song recording.Bad luck for Suman, after she recorded her songs, O P Nayyar replaced Shafi as a music director and only one of 3 songs (Koi Pukare Dhire Se Tujhe) featuring Suman was retained.The movie did not work as well. This episode has always been underreported. O. P. Nayyar later employed Sumanji as a chorus singer in Aar Paar (1954) song ‘Mohabbat Karlo Ji Bhar Lo Aji Kisne Roka Hai’, while her other song ‘Kabhi Aar Kabhi Paar Laga Teer-e-Nazar’ was mercilessly dubbed by Shamshad Begum- a lady would always hold Mangeshkar sisters responsible for her downfall.The people who accuse Lata Mangeshkar of ruining Suman Kalyanpur’s career either forget or deliberately gloss over the fact that her downfall came in 1980s when Lata Mangeshkar had already reduced her workload substantially (she would be given one song in most of the films) and even composers have started avoiding her (Kalyanji-Anandji and Ravindra Jain recorded very rarely with Lataji throughout 1980s) due to her deteriorating vocal prowess combined with lack of dedication towards perfection & final quality of output, lack of professionalism (she would learn, rehearse and complete recording in one shift starting at 09:00 AM and ending at 03:00 PM and would not wait a moment to listen to finally recorded song), high fee (₹ 25,000/song),royalty, her being out of Mumbai for at least four months a year for concerts and holidaying not to talk of her weekend trips out of India, her extremely low opinion about music being composed those days et cetera, but Asha was still going strong. They also gloss over the fact that one of the reasons for Suman Kalyanpur’s self imposed exile was that a song sung by her was dubbed by Kavita Krishnamurthy- who preached Anuradha Paudwal when the latter dubbed Alka Yagnik’s 3 songs in Itihaas (1997)-in Love 86 (1986) and another by Asha Bhosle in Allah Rakha (1986).In fact in a Jaymala programme on Vividh Bharti, Suman Kalyanpur openly praised Lataji and played 2 of her songs. In what came as a surprise to many, she did not talk about Rafi/ Asha at all nor did she play any of their songs. See the link below :Lata Mangeshkar even invited Sumanji for the premiere of ‘Lekin’ (1991), which she happily attended. After she was presented Lata Mangeshkar Award-2009 by Government of Maharashtra in January 2010, she denied that Lata Mangeshkar had any role in obstructing her career. She said, ‘I would not have achieved whatever I have, had such things been in place.’Second instance dates back to 1963 when Lataji refused to dub title song of ‘Mere Humrahi’ sung by Mubarak Begum (with Mohammed Rafi) despite numerous request from the composer Jaikishan Dayabhai Panchal of Shankar-Jaikishan team.Third instance of helping out a new singer came was in 1980, when she left a song, scratch version of which was sung by Kavita Krishnamurthy as a dummy artist under the music direction of Bappi Lahiri. Kavita Krishnamurthy had herself stated this in an interview with Harish Bhimani. According to her, this event was mis-reported in a Telugu magazine and she got afraid that she won't be getting even dummy singer’s job. However, everything was clear after she read a report in a Hindi magazine wherein it was mentioned that Lata did not record the song despite being repeatedly told by Bappida and the filmmaker.You can go through the book ‘In Search of Lata Mangeshkar’ by Harish Bhimani to read more about the episode. Later on Asha Bhosle recorded the song. Read from Kavita’s own interview:Computer software has robbed the magic of original voices and most songs sound clinical: Kavita KrishnamurthyFourth instance dates back to 1982/3, which was narrated by Anuradha Paudwal in an interview with Kavita Chhibar. According to her, she had recorded 2 songs in Hero (1983) as a dummy singer, which were to be sung by Lataji later. Lataji decided not to sing these 2 songs and as a result Anuradha Paudwal got the first major hit of her career. The songs were ‘Tu Mera Jaanu Hai’ and ‘Ding Dong’.Ashaji has never shown such generosity in her 76 year long career.Please see the link below to see Anuradha’s version.http://www.cinemasangeet.com/hindi-film-music/interviews/dil-hai-ki-maanata-nahi.htmlLataji even praised Anuradha along with Alka Yagnik and Sadhana Sargam in an interview in 1984 with Society Magazine. See link below :http://magnamags.com/society/sepia-memories/lata-mangeshkar-s-rare-old-interview/1491It’s sad that same Anuradha levelled such vicious charges of monopoly on Lataji, threatened to dub all her three songs sung in Radha Ka Sangam (1992), brought out cover versions of all the popular Hindi film songs of Lataji by taking a backseat from playback singing for 5 years just to insult and humiliate Lataji and poisoned Gulshan Kumar against Lata Mangeshkar so much that T-Series company stopped paying any royalty to Lataji leading to Lata Mangeshkar’s inserting a term in her contract that the copyright of her songs should not go to Super Cassette Industries Limited (T-Series) as a result Gulshan Kumar could not get copyright of music of Dil To Pagal Hai (1997).In fact, when Runa Laila came to Mumbai in 1974 to perform in what would be her first concert in India organised by ICCR, it was Lata Mangeshkar who was present as the chief guest, not Ashaji. In Runa’s own words :“The organizer asked me if I wanted someone to be at the event, I mentioned that I wanted Lata Ji.It was my lifelong ambition to meet Lata didi. They told me that it is very hard to manage her because she does not attend many events. So I had very little hope that this would happen. I was rehearsing back stage, when I saw a woman in white sari with a rose at a far distance. I felt it was her but was not being very hopeful, because the organizers would have mentioned to me if she came. Later, when she actually came closer I could not believe my eyes. I was surprised to see her.I ran up to her and greeted her by touching her feet. She held me and gave me a hug and photographers were taking pictures. Lata Ji gave a speech, presented me a garland necklace and stayed for the entire performance which was a very big thing for me! Having her in the audience was quite encouraging.”This generous act of Lata Mangeshkar was taken as an alibi by her detractors, including Raju Bhartan who went on the extent of saying that Lata came to gauge how Runa Laila sang. According to him-in his bundle of lies called ‘Lata Mangeshkar : A Biography’, once Lata was confirmed that Runa Laila was no threat to her musically, she left the programme. Contrast it with Laila’s own account that Lata sat through the programme. According to Mr. Bharatan in the presence of Lataji confidence was missing in Runa. Contrast it with Runa’s own statement that to have Lataji in the audience was a big thing for her and was encouraging.When asked about all those rumours we keep hearing which say the Mangeshkar sisters jeopardised her career she said there was no truth in them. “It wasn't as easy to come to India back then as it is now. That's all there is to it. You had to be in Mumbai to make a career in playback and I simply didn't want to migrate to India.”However, if you read the following lines of one of the same interviews, you would know which sister jeopardised her career:Bappida used the hit single, De de pyar de in the film Sharaabi (1984).It did pinch me then, as Prakash Mehra (director of Sharaabi) said he would like to retain my voice. I don’t know what happened and why Bappida didn’t call me. It’s still not clear. I’m happy that Ashaji did such a fabulous job.”Now who has sung De De Pyar De in Sharabi. Lataji, no.Ashaji, YesAgain,Lataji not Ashaji was even present at her very first song recording with Kalyanji-Anandji duo in 1975 for a film called ‘Ek Se Badhkar Ek’ (released in 1976) on its Muhurat to give her blessing.She even offered her bouquet. The song was title song of the movie which was picturised on Helen.See the links below:https://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-206351Beyond borders Runa LailaThe Nightingale SpeaksNone of the above mentioned grace was shown by Asha Bhosle ever.On the contrary she had the audacity of dubbing the song ‘Jhoothe Naina Boley’ from Lekin (1991) sung by Padamja Joglekar. Listen to Padamja’s version of the song in a video uploaded on You Tube by Padamja herself :Now one can say why Lataji allowed Ashaji to dub Padamja’s song. The thing is as soon as Asha’s children became adult, Lata Mangeshkar did not have the courage to say anything to Asha. Even at Lataji’s prime Asha had the guts to lose her her temper at her elder sister (when both of them were not even at talking terms) when the later was taking too much time in rehearsal of ‘Kar Gaya Re Kar Gaya Mujhpe Jaadoo’ (Basant Bahar, 1956) on the day of recording as well. This happened when even the music makers Shankar-Jaikishan were having great rapport with Lataji and would call her only in Lata’s absence (Boot Polish, 1954) or in a duet (like the one mentioned) or in a raunchy song like ‘Mud Mud Ke Na Dekh’ (Shree 420). Please hear it from horse’s mouth:https://www.glamsham.com/en/when-asha-bhosle-lost-her-temper-on-elder-sister-lata-mangeshkarIt did not stop here. In Rudaali (1993), the song ‘Samay o Dheere Chalo’ was recorded in the voices of Lata Mangeshkar, Bhupen Hazarika and Asha Bhosle. Do you know whose version was retained in the movie : Asha Bhosle’s. For she had sung the song better than her didi and on this count nobody can blame her.Even in televised version of ‘Jana Gana Mana’ (2000) it is Asha Bhosle who got more audio-visual presence than Lata Mangeshkar. In ‘Aaina Hai Mera Chehra’ (Aaina, 1993), Lataji had only a couple of lines to sing.19) Much has been written about Lata Mangeshkar so called blocking of Vani Jairam’s career without much credence. It needs to asked from believers of such gossips as to why Lata Mangeshkar could not stop Vani Jairam from recording for Meera in 1976 (released in 1979), a very prestigious project with direction by Gulzar, the numero uno actress of the time essaying the role of eponymous character and late Pandit Ravi Shankar giving the music, the way she had allegedly blocked Vani Jairam’s other recordings? Had Lata just met Panditji in Mumbai, all possibility of Vani Jairam recording for Meera would have gone into thin air, given the fact that Lata was the first choice to playback for Meera, given her Sati Savitri image (whatever she may be in real life), her Meera Bhajan albums (Meera Bhajans in 1968 and Chala Vahi Des :Meera Bhajans in 1974)being among HMV bestsellers as far as devotional music is concerned, her standing in the film industry (where many of them had still not come to terms with the fact that she was no longer numero uno) and her earlier working relationship with Pandit Ravi Shankar with whom she had worked in Anuradha(1960) and Godaan (1963) not to forget her bonding with the director of the film Gulzar, who still remembers that she was the artist singing his first song and Hema Malini, who despite being a Tamilian herself, was just too keen that Lata should give playback for her in this movie.But Lata did not do that, given the fact that she was stubborn to the hilt. She wanted her only brother Hridaynath to compose the music for a theme, which she believed was his forte as he had composed most of her devotional albums including Meera albums. She wanted this to showcase her brother’s talent. She did not yield to the pressure. Monopolistic people need to be manipulative and manipulative people are not known to be stubborn, they are known to flexible enough to mould themselves according to situation.That Lata could not have her way (have her brother at the helm of affairs of music department of Meera), back in 1976, speaks volumes about the so-called ‘power’, ‘clout’ and ‘command’ wielded by her in the Hindi film industry. This one incident cuts to shred all accusations of her so-called ‘monopoly’ assiduously planted over-the-years by the losers, the ones who could not make it big to hide their failure with great support from film journals/magazines at that time, which was hungry for spicy and sensational stories to increase its readership. At the strongest point of her career she was only as powerful to leave a project not to make someone obey on dotted lines.Same way she could have easily patched-up with O P Nayyar, once Asha fell out with him or with Nadeem-Shravan after Gulshan Kumar’s murder. She did none.20) In 2011 Asha claimed that Lataji would be singing one of the songs in her acting debut ‘Mai’(2013).Lata Mangeshkar agrees to sing in Asha Bhonsle’s debut movieWhen the film released there were no songs of Lataji. Turned out, it was a clever marketing gimmick by Asha Bhosle. It was also discovered that this movie was not her acting debut, for she debuted as an child artiste at the age of 12 in Badi Maa (1945), in which Lataji sang for her. Turned out, Asha wanted Lata ghost off her, once and for all. And to come out of shadow of that great Banyan Tree called Lata Mangeshkar,Asha Bhosle can speak any amount of untruth, ably supported by a media and social media which grind mill runs on lies, which never cross-checks the veracity of a news before bringing it in public domain. Contrast this to Lata Mangeshkar’s production Lekin (1991) where Asha Bhosle had a beautiful number ‘Joothe Naina Boley Saanchi Batiyan’ along with Satyasheel Deshpande.So, for an audience , growing on such staple diet of lies, spread by news hungry 24*7 speaking TV correspondents & anchors and FM RJs having half baked information, believes what the vested people wants it to listen. Today, Asha is calling the shots, with her concerts, albums, occasional film songs, restaurants running all over the world and her appearances on Talent Hunt shows on TV. If one hears about Mangeshkar monopoly, but has no qualms about Asha’s hand in it, it is not just ignorance. It is the 24*7 work of her PR machinery, which is ably handled by her youngest son Anand Bhosle, after the suicide of her daughter Varsha Bhosle.With Lata’s international concert career ended 20 years back, with her last concert in India dating back to 15 years, with her last movie recording dating back to 2014 (released in 2015), her career is over. She does not require PR Machinery and she does not have a child to devote extensively to her career and get his own daughter (read Zanai Bhosle) promoted on the sidelines.Its for the PR prowess wielded by Asha, that nobody dares cross her. Not even Mohammed Rafi’s son whose father she insults every now and then by stating how she out-shadowed him way back in 1966. In one reality show she even claimed that she can turn the contestants into Mohammed Rafi.Before hitting out so hard on Lataji, he forgot that it was Lata, who has given his late father the best obituary ever and till date on her FB and Twitter handles, she remembers each and every great personality on his/her birth/ death anniversary ever so humbly in contrast with Asha who only remembers the movers and shakers of the industry.So, for younger generation Asha’s word is the word of Goddess, Asha being modern-day song diva. For this generation whose definition of music director begins with R D Burman and ends with A R Rahman (or Ilayraja if one is from south), it is notimportant to be inquisitive as to how Lata Mangeshkar was able to ruin the career of almost an entire generation of singers even though she sang only 6,541 songs as against 11,000 by Asha Bhosle and 17,695 by P Susheela.If P Susheela and Asha Bhosle achieve their feat, it is their talent. However, even if Lata Mangeshkar achieve a much lesser feat, it would be for her manipulative tactics. If Rafi/Kishore reign supreme between 1953–1968 and 1969–1987, it was their God like voice and versatility respectively, if Lata reigned supreme between 1949–1974 (career wise), it was due to her monopolistic behaviour.21)With media hype surrounding her, she has become more audacious and has started humiliating Lataji openly in public, who is just a pale and frail version of her past. In most of the functions she would pass snide remarks at Lataji for being a Bharat Ratna.At GIMA award ceremony held in 2011, wherein Lataji was to given Lifetime Achievement Award, she first made fun of her for arriving late despite being born earlier. When Lataji plainly replied ‘Asha has tortured me a lot, but I have forgiven her all the time’, first Ashaji said jokingly ‘You would have to forgive me’. To which her elder sister said ‘Yes I have to do’.Asha suddenly got irritated and snubbed Lataji to the shock of everybody by saying ‘Nobody can forgive.Only a mother can’. Lataji did not say a single word. It happened in front of entire music industry.What a sadist way to humiliate someone at her felicitation. See the link below. Please observe camera focus on Usha Mangeshkar’s reaction, when Ashaji rebukes Lataji. Ironically, it is the same Ushaji who took care of Lataji’s food preparation after she was slow poisoned in 1962.It is worth mentioning that way back in 1997 too when Asha’s daughter accused Lataji of snatching ‘Aye Mere Watan Ke Logon’ from her mother, Lataji had kept quiet. With no offsprings of her own, she has to bear the brunt of humiliation meted out by Asha and her children every now and then either in media or in the family itself, with nobody to stand for her cause, nobody to speak for her.Industry folklore has it-and it has been accepted by Ashaji as well-it was Lataji with whom Asha’s son Anand Bhosle would spend most of his time in childhood. She would take him to her recordings. She would make his favorite ‘pasande Ka halwa’. Asha would not like it one bit. She would tell her younger son ‘go back to your mother, I am not your mother.’ To this, little Anand would exclaim ‘ I am not a Mangeshkar, I am a Bhosle’. Now the same Anand Bhosle makes derogatory comments about Lataji vocal prowess. Blood for sure is thicker than water.22)Of late you would find Lataji making self-deprecating statements like Ashaji was more versatile than her and that what Ashaji can do before mike she can never do.Had anybody heard/read/seen this as being told by Lata Mangeshkar at her prime? No. She is saying this because loneliness, old age, poor health and abrupt end of her career have brought her morale to an all time low.It is the ‘never say die’ attitude of Ashaji, which makes her keep on reinventing herself and to never sit on her past laurels. It is the same indefatigable attitude and unquenchable thirst & thrust do something more, something extra, something better than others, by hook or by crook, that make her so intolerant towards others achievement, so cruel, so cunning and so conniving.23)In November, 2015 Lata Mangeshkar extended help to ailing Mubarak Begum-the same begum who would often accuse Lata of ensuring that she had no work. See the link below:Lata Mangeshkar extends helping hand to ailing Mubarak BegumOde to the nightingale, Lata MangeshkarIn 2009 Lataji offered help to Mehdi Hassan in his last days when she came to know about his strained financial condition. See the link below.Mehdi Hassan to visit India, wants to meet Lata, Dilip KumarSimilarly, in 2013 she visited thespian Dilip Kumar.My 'choti behen, Lata' @mangeshkarlata visited us today. pic.twitter.com/BlhdHuHZ4A— Dilip Kumar (@TheDilipKumar) December 21, 2013Ashaji did not do any such thing for old timer’s sake. She does not have time for such nostalgia.However, she ensured to meet Anu Malik-referred to as pervert by Shweta Pandit- in May, 2016 when he was hospitalised in Lilavati Hospital. And do you know what she got in return, a song in his movie ‘Begum Jaan’ (2017)-after a gap of 11 years-picturised on Vidya Balan. Even if the opening words of the song were strikingly similar to a bhajan sung by Lata Mangeshkar for Pandit Hridaynath Mangeshkar in non-film album Meera, Soor,Kabira (2001). While Lata’s Kabir bhajan goes ‘Na main dharmi’ Asha’s song is ‘Prem mein tohre’. Asha can go to any extent for a song, even now. See the link below :Asha Bhosle visits ailing Anu Malik in the hospital - Bollywood Hungama

One little-understood mystery? Ok:“The Bible is fine by itself—modern day believers don’t need to grab ideological hypotheses which masquerade as science, and force them to fit into the Biblical narrative.”A shocking revelation, right? :-)Anyway, I decided to write about how the human evolutionary origins theory is bogus and therefore unnecessary to be forced into what the Bible says about man’s origin.To start off, we aren't helping the atheist by trying to show that evolution theory is compatible with the Bible. If you say biodiversity is due to billions of years of evolution from the first living cells but God was responsible for setting up the guiding “laws”, the atheist only says back to you “Nope!”, “no need for God.” And what else would we expect? Afterall, the philosophy of academic science is based on methodological naturalism, which assumes that there are only natural causes to everything in the universe. It claims to make no truth claims yet proclaims that universal ancestry is a fact. Evolution theory just gives the nontheist an excuse to not believe in God. Period. It does nothing else for the person. It's also misleading more and more young people into seeing no need for a creator, though they don't realize this is actually a non sequitur. It's sad. Saying "God used evolution" does not help anyone, especially since they know the scientific community doesn't include God in their understanding of evolution (though of course individual scientists have their own personal beliefs about God). If a Divine Foot cannot be allowed into the door, how does mixing Genesis with evolution help those who already have such an a priori commitment?God expects His people to be truthful (Psalm 51:6). As part of our job, we're to tell proponents of goo-to-you evolution that their hypotheses are implausible. At worst, we remain silent and neutral, not meet them halfway by throwing God into their pot of soup. If they admit the implausibilities, great. If they refuse, great.Human evolutionI have a lot to say on this, but I’ve decided to let the evolutionary paleoanthropologists, paleontologists, etc., speak for themselves. I’ve included citations, and links (for instances where the document is available online) so there are no accusations of so-called “quote mining”.1) No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. (Henry Gee. In Search of Deep Time, p.116, Cornell University Press, Dec. 2000 Henry Gee - Wikiquote2) When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor. (Richard Lewontin, Human Diversity, p. 163, Scientific American Library 1995).3) Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. (Henry Gee, ‘Return to the Planet of the Apes,’ Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. Return to the planet of the apes4) Compared to other sciences, the mythic element is greatest in paleoanthropology. Hypotheses and stories of human evolution frequently arise unprompted by data and contain a large measure of general preconceptions, and the data which do exist are often insufficient to falsify or even substantiate them. Many interpretations are possible. (Andrew Hill speaking in a review of Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall’s book ‘The Myth of Human Evolution’ in American Scientist, Vol. 72, No. 2, March-April 1984, p. 189 Review on JSTOR. A free registration was required to read the article).5) At the invitation-only meeting, researchers debated whether this species really was a major player—or no more than a paleoanthropologists’ construct. One researcher began her talk with “a call for a moment of silence for the death of H. Heidelbergensis.” (Michael Balter, ‘RIP for a Key Homo Species?’, Science, Vol. 345, 11 July 2014, p. 129. http://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/11_july_2014_open/MobilePagedReplica.action?pm=1&folio=129#pg176) The study of the evolution of modern humans from hominid ancestors is very speculative. Much of our present understanding is based on very little evidence. (Michael Kent. Advanced Biology, p. 458, Oxford University Press (2000).7) I wanted to get a human soul into this apelike face, to indicate something about where he was headed. (artist John Gurche in reference to his work on Australopithecus afarensis, in the March 1996 issue of National Geographic. ‘The Dawn of Humans: Face-to-Face with Lucy’s Family’. National Geographic. Vol. 189 No. 3, p. 109, March 1996).8) I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling. And this is the result about cladistics because as it turns out, as it seems to me, all one can learn about the history of life is learned from systematics, from groupings one finds in nature. The rest of it is story-telling of one sort or another. We have access to the tips of a tree, the tree itself is a theory and people who pretened to know about the tree and to describe what went on with it, how the branches came off and the twigs came off are, I think, telling stories. (Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, In a BBC interview on March 4, 1982).9) Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens satisfying these criteria, patterns of dental development of gracile australopithecines and Homo habilis remain classified with African apes. Those of Homo erectus and Neanderthals are classified with humans, suggesting that patterns of growth evolved substantially in the Hominidae. (B. Holly Smith. ‘Patterns of dental development in Homo, Australopithecus, Pan, and Gorilla’. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 94, Issue 3, July 1994. Patterns of dental development in Homo, Australopithecus, Pan, and Gorilla - Smith - 1994 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library10) Gradualists and saltationists alike are completely incapable of giving a convincing explanation of the quasi-simultaneous emergence of a number of biological systems that distinguish human beings from the higher primates: bipedalism, with the concomitant modification of the pelvis, and, without a doubt, the cerebellum, a much more dexterous hand, with fingerprints conferring an especially fine tactile sense; the modifications of the pharynx which permits phonation; the modification of the central nervous system, notably at the level of the temporal lobes, permitting the specific recognition of speech. From the point of view of embryogenesis, these anatomical systems are completely different from one another. Each modification constitutes a gift, a bequest from a primate family to its descendants. It is astonishing that these gifts should have developed simultaneously. (Schutzenberger M-P., in ‘The Miracles of Darwinism: Interview with Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger’, Origins & Design, Vol. 17, No. 2, Spring 1996, pp.10-15 The Miracles of Darwinism11) Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture. (Boyce Rensberger. Science Digest, Vol. 89 No. 3, p. 44, April 1981).12) The problem, Harcourt-Smith and Hilton say, is that the reconstruction is actually based on a patchwork of bones from 3.2-million-year-old afarensis and 1.8-million-year-old Homo habilis. (‘Footprints to fill: Flat feet and doubts about makers of the Laetoli tracks’ By Kate Wong, Scientific American, August 1, 2005. Footprints to Fill13) [Regarding Lucy]: “The sacrum and the auricular region of the ilium are shattered into numerous small fragments, such that the original form is difficult to elucidate. Hence it is not surprising that the reconstructions by Lovejoy and Schmid show marked differences.” (M. Häusler and P. Schmid. ‘Comparison of the Pelves of Sts14 and AL288-1: Implications for Birth and Sexual Dimorphism in Australopithecines’. Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 29 issue 4, pp. 363-383, Oct 1995).14) Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear. (J. Shreeve, ‘Argument Over a Woman’, Discover, 11(8):58, 1990.) Creation & Evolution15) Two anthropologists published an article, in which they expressed their concern regarding the way fossils dealing with human evolution are kept by the discoverers from other paleoanthropologists, the meanwhile those same hominid fossils are given names and published in scientific journals without examination from others in the field. The title of their article wonders whether paleoanthropology should be regarded as science. (Ian Tattersall & Jeffrey H. Schwartz. ‘Is paleoanthropology science? Naming new fossils and control of access to them’. The Anatomical Record, Volume 269, Issue 6, Dec. 2002. Is paleoanthropology science? Naming new fossils and control of access to them - Tattersall - 2002 - The Anatomical Record - Wiley Online Library ).16) One would also see differences in the shape of the [Homo Erectus] skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time. (Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind, p. 62. New York: Dutton 1981. The making of mankind : Leakey, Richard E : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive17) Abstract— Nebraska Man was a fossil discovery that was regarded by several leading experts as important in understanding evolutionary history. The only evidence for this anthropod was a single tooth (which turned out to be a pig’s tooth). The discovery and controversy surrounding the Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii hominoidea) fossil find and its importance in history are reviewed. Its supporters' writings reveal the critical role that preconceptions played in interpreting the limited evidence. Nebraska Man provides a valuable lesson on the importance of presumptions in interpreting evidence in the field of human origins. It also stresses the need for careful evaluation of the empirical evidence for new ideas, and the danger of going beyond what the facts warrant. (Bergman G., ‘The history of hesperopithecus: the human-ape link that turned out to be a pig.’ Riv Biol. 99(2):287-306, May-Aug 2006. The history of hesperopithecus: the human-ape link that turned out to be a pig.A new genus and species was invented (H. haroldcookii), based off of an isolated tooth. This “find” of an apeman ancestor to humans was actually published in Science in 1922 (Henry Fairfield Osborn, ‘Hesperopithecus, The First Anthropoid Primate Found In America’. Science, 05 May 1922: Vol. 55, Issue 1427, pp. 463-465. HESPEROPITHECUS,THE FIRST ANTHROPOID PRIMATE FOUND IN AMERICAabove: first page of the articleThe Illustrated London News subsequently reported the discovery, along with an artist's rendition of what Nebraska Man may have looked like:Part of the news report read: “Unlike Columbus, Hesperopithecus is believed to have reached America by land, travelling from Asia by a land bridge enjoying a warm climate.” (The Illustrated London News, 24 June 1922, pp. 942–3). A few years later, archaeologists went back to the site where Nebraska man’s tooth was discovered, and they unearthed other parts of the creature’s remains. It became clear that this wasn’t some kind of apeman, but an extinct pig. One of the promoters of Nebraska man, William Gregory, had to publish a retraction in Science: (‘Hesperopithecus apparently not an ape nor a man’. William K. Gregory. Science, 16 Dec 1927: Vol. 66, Issue 1720, pp. 579-581. HESPEROPITHECUS APPARENTLY NOT AN APE NOR A MAN). Sounds incredible that all this happened on the strength of a single tooth.18) In 1912, Charles Dawson and Smith Woodward found fossils of what was supposedly an apelike ancestor of man. It was a jawbone, a set of teeth, and some scraps of the cranium. They revealed their find at a Geological Society meeting, where the specimen was named Eoanthropus dawsoni (yes, the famous Piltdown Man). There was skepticism coming from some quarters, but the strongest opponent of E. dawsoni (Arthur Keith) finally conceded and agreed with the finders. It wasn’t until 1953 (41 years after the original acceptance in the Geological Society) that Piltdown was finally exposed. The mandible and teeth, which belonged to an orangutan but had been deliberately altered, were combined with a human cranium. Roger Lewin, who was a writer and News Editor for Science, wondered how the majority of scientists could not see that E. dawsoni was a fraud. Here’s an excerpt from his popular book:As a result, says Michael Hammond, a sociologist of science at the University of Toronto, the real story of it all has been somewhat obscured: “namely, what could have led so many eminent scientists to embrace such a forgery?” How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones–the cranial fragments–and "see" a clear simian signature in them; and "see" in an ape's jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data. (Roger Lewin, ‘Bones of Contention: Controversies in the Search for Human Origins’, p. 61, 1987 University of Chicago Press. Bones of ContentionThat last statement by Lewin is essentially what it comes down to: evolutionary paleoanthropologists want to see apemen links, so that is what they see. All the Australopithecines and other “preceding” ancient hominids on record are one species of ape or the other (extant or extinct), not apemen relatives and ancestors. Besides H. habilis and H. rudolfensis, all Homo fossils are only different forms of “anatomically modern humans” (aka H. sapiens), just as we have significant variety in H. sapiens extant today. H. habilis and H. rudolfensis have been suggested to actually belong with the pithecines —“A general problem in biology is how to incorporate information about evolutionary history and adaptation into taxonomy. The problem is exemplified in attempts to define our own genus, Homo. Here conventional criteria for allocating fossil species to Homo are reviewed and are found to be either inappropriate or inoperable. We present a revised definition, based on verifiable criteria, for Homo and conclude that two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, do not belong in the genus. The earliest taxon to satisfy the criteria is Homo ergaster, or early African Homo erectus, which currently appears in the fossil record at about 1.9 million years ago.” “A recent reassessment of cladistic and functional evidence concluded that there are few, if any, grounds for retaining H. habilis in Homo, and recommended that the material be transferred (or, for some, returned) to Australopithecus.” “Thus, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis (or Homo habilis sensu lato for those who do not subscribe to the taxonomic subdivision of “early Homo”) should be removed from Homo. The obvious taxonomic alternative, which is to transfer one or both of the taxa to one of the existing early hominin genera, is not without problems, but we recommend that, for the time being, both H. habilis and H. rudolfensis should be transferred to the genus Australopithecus.” (Bernard Wood, Mark Collard. ‘The Human Genus’. Science, Vol. 284 Issue 5411, pp. 65-71, 02 Apr 1999 The Human Genus ; Wood B, Collard M. ‘Defining the genus Homo’. Handbook of Paleoanthropology, 2015. defining_the_genus_homo*’*19) “Hominoid clavicle” from Sahabi is actually a fragment of cetacean rib. “Hominoid clavicle” from Sahabi is actually a fragment of cetacean rib - White - 1983 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online LibraryImage taken from: New Scientist*’*20) Lucy's fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp. (Adrienne Zihlman. ‘Pygmy chimps, people, and the pundits’, New Scientist: Nov. 15 1984 Pg. 39 New Scientist21) Many recent discoveries have shown that at least some australopithecines really were more chimp-like than used to be thought, and the old idea that fossil hominins were just prototype versions of Homo is now very much dead. (‘Zihlman’s pygmy chimpanzee hypothesis’ By Darren Naish [paleozoologist]. Scientific American blog, October 20, 2012. Zihlman s pygmy chimpanzee hypothesis22) In a recent cover story on human pre-history, Time’s senior science editor, recalling his experience as a high school science teacher telling his students about early man, said, “Just about everything I taught them... was wrong.” (Thomas N. Headland, Current Anthropology, Vol. 38 No. 4, August/October 1997, p. 605 Revisionism in Ecological Anthropology23) We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those. Why? Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates. (Gareth Nelson in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, December 9, 1986)24) The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion. (Gareth Nelson, “Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History” in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, “The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography—25 years after ‘ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law’ (Nelson, 1978),” Journal of Biogeography 31(5): 685-712. April 2004. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229458709_The_reform_of_palaeontology_and_the_rise_of_biogeography_-_25_Years_after_'ontogeny_phylogeny_paleontology_and_the_biogenetic_law'_Nelson_197825) We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh. Yet we cling to it.[my note: “tosh” is British talk, look up what it means](Henry Gee, ‘Craniums with Clout,’ Nature, vol. 478, p. 34, October 2011. craniums_with_clout.pdf*’*Now, some thoughts on the origin of organs and biological systemsHaeckel’s “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” has been firmly debunked, though many still hold on to some versions of this old belief (especially in the evo-devo community). In any case, a developing embryo is secure in the womb or the external egg while its anatomical structures gradually form. We can clearly see that DNA is ‘pre-programmed’ to direct development depending on the type of organism. Embryogenesis should be enough evidence for any person to see that these things are the preconceived ideas of a ‘Mind’; you can clearly see that it requires forethought and planning, as anatomical structures start out with scaffolds and support systems which prepare the construction processes that eventually lead to fully developed organs and organ systems. There’s a universe of a difference between embryogenesis vs building parts and systems from generation to generation. But if you propose that free-living organisms which once never had these systems somehow evolved them gradually, then you have to explain how this could’ve happened at least theoretically. Do you propose that a new organ was suddenly expressed in one generation? An organ which was absent in the parent(s)? Or did a biological system form piece by piece over many generations? Are you suggesting that there were populations of free-living organisms with partially developed tubes and organs? Partial skeletons improving from generation to generation? These are the questions which all the proposed explanations avoid.Some well-studied phenomena which defy evolutionary origins• The Nervous system invalidates evolution.• The Visual system invalidates evolution.• The Auditory system invalidates evolution.• The Olfactory system invalidates evolution.• The Gustatory system invalidates evolution• The Circulatory system invalidates evolution.• The Endocrine system invalidates evolution.• The Respiratory system invalidates evolution.• The Digestive system invalidates evolution.• The Urinary system invalidates evolution.• The Musculoskeletal system invalidates evolution.• The Male reproductive system invalidates evolution.• The Female reproductive system invalidates evolution.• Cellular differentiation invalidates evolution.• Oviparity invalidates evolution.• Complete metamorphosis invalidates evolution.• Pollination invalidates evolution.• Cetaceans invalidate evolution. (some people are convinced that a population of quadrupedal land mammals returned to the water, becoming whales and other marine mammals over several generations through evolution. Einstein once said: imagination is more important than knowledge, but I don’t think he had these wild evolutionary theories in mind when he said that).• Bird flight invalidates evolution.• Insect flight invalidates evolution.• Consciousness invalidates evolution (nontheistic/materialistic evolution makes no sense whatsoever just off of this one item).• Intellectual honesty—a valuable commodity but ever-increasing in scarcity—invalidates evolution.This all of course is granting the first cell(s) already existed miraculously.Someone asked the question here on Quora: How did evolution design the mechanism for breast feeding? The only actual attempt to answer the question came with some attached papers—which, as usual when trying to explain these sort of things, were filled with “unsubstantiated just-so stories.” Does anyone have a legitimate idea as to how such a system could be gradually constructed by evolution over many generations? Of course not. The following excerpt from one of the attached links (part of a Masters’ dissertation) sheds some light on the problem:2. THE ORIGIN OF LACTATION AND THE MAMMARY GLAND - The mammary gland as an organ could not have evolved at once in its complexity. In order for it to evolve, there had to be an underlying developmental pattern or function from which it was derived by cooption (Oftedal 2002a) and a selective advantage gained from its earliest function. There are numerous hypotheses about the original function of the mammary glands ancestor and the tissue from which it is derived. These hypotheses are not mutually exclusive and are often speculative because they cannot be supported with enough evidence although they still offer plausible scenarios (Blackburn 1991). The different hypotheses on the origin of lactation have been reviewed in great detail by Blackburn et al. (1989; 1991) and Oftedal (2002a) but only a selection will be discussed in this review.... Hypotheses … often speculative … cannot be supported with enough evidence...Yet microbes-to-man is peddled as a “fact”.There was a claim in there that the hypotheses still offer plausible scenarios, but there was nothing of the sort, just unrealistic use of imagination.Evolution as a theory for explaining the origin of biological systems is neither factual nor even realistic, so there’s no need to make it ‘fit’ with the Bible.When good people like Walter Uber say things like The story of Adam and Eve is historically, biologically, and physically impossible, a better response would be:“The story of abiogenesis and microbes-to-everything evolution is historically, biologically, and physically impossible.”Methodological naturalism is a sad way to look at the entire picture of things, even as a framework for science. It forces one to accept absurdities and reject obvious realities. It makes a person say things like “a cell only appears to be designed.”

That's not what most people are saying and you know that's wrong, and a cursory search would quickly show you otherwise.The question is just a straw man fallacy, and the article you linked is poorly written and is just cherry picking, anecdotes, and is not a serious article. It's just appealing to ridicule, and the fact they even bothered to write such an article is telling because that's how damage control and propaganda articles are written. Really, the article is no better than tabloids and celebrity gossip, and people would be better off reading the tabloids than that kind pf 'news'. That's how people dismiss racism. They say that it's 99% just coincidences and isolated incidents, and that race doesn't exist, and it's just a social construct in people's heads, and that it's just persecution delusions, paranoia, and hoaxes like Jussie Smollett.Likewise, rumours and anecdotes on Facebook are not reliable, and Snopes is notorious for reframing claims and picking exaggerated claims and strawman fallacy claims that are easy to refute and dismiss.None of the other answers even bothering to do a cursory search, so now I'm obligated to answer this question even though this information is widely available and very easy to find and you shouldn't need someone on Quora to show you.That term “conspiracy theorist” is also just a dismissive term, and it's no better than calling people “social justice warriors”, “commies”, “tree huggers”, “climate change alarmists”, “Holocaust truthers”, “evolutionists”, “Bernie bros”, or anything else like that.So now to answer the question:On October 18 , 2019 , two months before the first reported case of COVID-19 in Wuhan in December 2019, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, along with policy makers, business leaders, and health officials, undertook a carefully designed simulation of a coronavirus epidemic entitled nCoV-2019. N-CoV-2019 was the initial acronym adopted by the WHO before it was changed to Covid-19.Sponsors of the simulation were the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations, and WEF.Center for Health Security Event 201The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the WHO, the European Commission, and the UK government, along with WHO, government, have funded the Pirbright Institute, which owns the patent for coronavirus and ensuing vaccines. The patent was filed June 19, 2015 , and approved Lets quickly look at the definition of a patent: “A patent November 20, 2018.A patent is an exclusive right granted by a country to a person for a monopoly on profits.The CDC started hiring coordinators of its Quarantine Program back in mid November. They also own more than 50 patents connected to vaccinations, showing that they also have a major interest.CDC Members Own More Than 50 Patents Connected to VaccinationsIn 2017, World Bank launched $500 million in pandemic bonds to “cover developing countries against the risk of pandemic outbreaks over the next five years.” even though pandemics are rare and unpredictable.In January, close to Wuhan, a hospital has reportedly been built in just days, specifically to deal with Corona Virus.While built after the outbreak, we know major facilities like that take months or years of planning and funding, means they were exceptionally well prepared.It's also “coincidence” — that a coronavirus outbreak started in the only Chinese city (Wuhan) where a coronavirus study was being conducted.The lab cost $44 million to build, specifically for “studying the pathogen that caused SARS,” which was a type of coronavirus.As an aside, a novel published in 1981 predicted the outbreak of pneumonia-like illness spreading throughout the globe in 2020, originating from Wuhan.Further, the death toll is being misrepresented, as official government and medical sources had openly admitted, and which I have collated.The USA has 5% of the world’s population, but about 30% of COVID-19 cases, despite being the richest nation on the planet. Where did it go wrong?Statistics also show that in places such as Italy 70% of Covid-19 deaths are male, which has never happened before and which makes no sense for a coronavirus.There was also in recent years H1N1, H5N1, Bird fu, Swine Flu, Zika, Ebola, West Nile, and so on, and they're just old news now. Even according to the WHO, most people recover from this virus in two to six weeks.Italy, Great Britain, the US, Canada, the EU and Japan are all 'pledging’ billions to fight the spread of the virus. This has previously meant loaning money to poor countries in order for them to be able to afford to buy the drugs from the drug companies, and pay them back with interest. The IMF also pledged 50 billion USD, so obviously someone is going to make a lot of money.A lot of money is also going to be made of of COVID vaccines. There are 7.8 billion people in the world, and if most people get 2 doses, then that is a lot of vaccines someone is going to have to pay for. It doesn't matter if it “free” under your health care system. Someone still has to pay for it.The CDC was hiring for statewide coordinators of its Quarantine Program all the way back to mid-November of last year across 14 states, with a proposed salary range between 50 and 90K per year.The Federal Reserve has offered $270 billion in loans to Wall Street during the pandemic.CNN has reported that 1.5 trillion coming from the Fed to Wall Street.NY Fed vows to pump in $1.5 trillion to fight coronavirus-linked 'highly unusual disruptions' on Wall StreetBill Gates:Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.I’m Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. AMA about COVID-19.I haven't even had time here to go into Bill Gates' background, which is also full of red flags and he thinks he's better than everyone and he's horribly wealthy with at least 4 homes, while millions of people don't even have adequate food or shelter and live on dirt floors. One of which is at least “66,000” square feet (no surprise there) and worth some $147.5 million alone, while he then preaches to poor people to not hoard and not work and to socially distance, and Bill Gates never actually helps poor people directly by providing food, shelter, or money, he just wants to give them vaccines and 'medical grants' and ‘research’ even though he has enough money to give every homeless person in the US $100,000 and still have billion left over, or to buy the remaining rainforest in Indonesia which has the world's fastest rate of defirestatu or to do other things that are not just going to make him more money, so after just reading what is on here, you might look at those videos of Bill Gates' talking about vaccines and pandemics and “reducing the population” and “the Final Solution is the vaccine” in a new light, not even to mention his other scandals including his employees having CP at his home, and that Bill Gates owns over 500,000 shares worth about $23 million dollars in Monsanto, which is a company that created agent orange that was used to destroy the environment and to harm people in Vietnam.Monsanto - WikipediaMan arrested at Bill Gates' estate for reportedly trading child pornMore polio cases now caused by vaccine than by wild virusAll financial ties between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) have been cut off by order of the Centre, reported the Economic Times on Wednesday.The reason behind this shut out? The report cited possible conflict of interest arising from the foundation's tied to pharmaceutical companies. Further, the report cited sources, saying that objections raised by outfits like the Swadeshi Jagran Manch also factored into the government's decision.Modi govt cuts ties with Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on immunisationTwenty-three thousand girls were administered with the human papillomavirus vaccines to assess distribution in India.An Indian parliamentary committee has recommended legal action against a major US-based NGO that it accuses of violating ethical standards and national law during a study to assess the possibility of launching a cervical cancer vaccination programme in the country.The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare said that the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), a non-profit organization based in Seattle, Washington, and several Indian institutions, failed to follow proper procedures…it called the field test of two human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines, stopped after seven vaccinated children died, “very intriguing and fishy”, and asserted, without evidence, that the goal was to generate profits for the pharmaceutical industry.The first HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006. Two years later, India approved that drug, which is made by Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, as well as Cervarix, another HPV vaccine, made by GlaxoSmithKline, based in London. Both vaccines had been approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration before the PATH project began in 2009. The study, which used donations of these vaccines and was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, aimed to gather evidence as to how an HPV vaccine might best be widely introduced within the Indian health-care system.It involved vaccinating 13,000 girls aged 10–14 in the state of Andhra Pradesh with Gardasil and 10,000 with Cervarix in Gujarat, and analysed, for example, how to raise community awareness of HPV, and whether delivering vaccines was best achieved at schools or in health centres.The study was initially intended to run until 2011, but the Indian government halted the trials in March 2010 after activist groups opposed to the introduction of the vaccine in India alleged safety and ethical violations following the death of seven girls enrolled in the study. An internal government inquiry concluded in 2011 that the deaths were unrelated to the vaccination and that no ethical norms had been infringed.But the standing committee’s report to the Indian parliament, released on 30 August, maintains that the study violated ethical norms and India’s laws and regulations. As well as PATH, the state governments of Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) were also singled out for criticism.Calls in India for legal action against US charityDeaths in a trial of the HPV vaccineOn December 20, 2012, a vaccination tragedy hit the small village of Gouro, located in northern Chad, Africa. According to the newspaper La Voix, out of five hundred children who received the new meningitis vaccine MenAfriVac, at least 40 of them between the ages of 7 and 18 have become paralyzed. Those children also suffered hallucinations and convulsions.The data on the MenAfriVac vaccine is further backed by the World Health Organization’s website [3] and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation website. [4]Minimum of 40 Children Paralyzed After New Meningitis Vaccine ⋆ VacTruth.comTedros Adhanom, known as Dr Tedros, the director general of the World Health Organization is not a physician and he was one of the leaders of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front, which was an ethnic terrorist group.Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front - WikipediaOver 1000 of 6000 children who underwent experimental malaria drug trial funded by Gates' Foundation were left with paralysis, seizures, and convulsions, and over 150 dead.First Results of Phase 3 Trial of RTS,S/AS01 Malaria Vaccine in African Childrenhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/320641479_HCG_Found_in_WHO_Tetanus_Vaccine_in_Kenya_Raises_Concern_in_the_Developing_World2017 study shows that DTP vaccined girls suffer 10 times the death rate of girls who had not received the vaccine.The WHO has not recalled the vaccine and it is still in use today.The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment