The task that Arun and others asked me to talk about, and I really want to build on what you've already heard about, Arun's discussed energy.  And so I'm not going to talk about climate, but they asked me to speak a bit about emissions trajectory, sort of where are we in different greenhouse gas budgets, and how do we know? So I'll talk a bit about carbon dioxide, a bit about methane, as Chris mentioned, and talk a little bit about solutions and give you some examples from our work as well. First, just to build on the climate components, I guess if you remember one thing from my talk today, it's to get involved early. And I'm going to suggest that you find a professor or some topics that interest you and reach out to those professors as soon as you can in your stay. And you have a lot to contribute. We need your input. And I think we have some things to provide for you that can help you learn and increase your skill set while you're here at Stanford too. So this is an initiative that we started this year, and we're doing computer science is really the computer science brains behind this. But it's an artificial intelligence bootcamp for climate, where we work with undergraduates, graduate students, and postdocs, kind of linking the computer sciences up with the earth sciences and other areas, energy, engineering, and such. So this is an example of the kind of thing that goes on here at Stanford. This is a concentrated semester where the undergraduates spend 30 or 40 hours a week working on scientific questions that we put forth. One of them is a global analysis of methane emissions that I'm helping to organize, and that's just one example. So get involved. That's the one thing I want you to remember. OK, the Global Carbon Project. Briefly, well, who are we? What do we do? We're a group of hundreds of scientists, and we publish for carbon dioxide an annual budget of sources and sinks for carbon dioxide from natural sources, because you have to understand the natural system to understand the perturbation to that system through human activity. So we study ocean carbon cycling, land-based carbon cycling, like Chris mentioned, forest, grassland, soils, industrial activity for power plants, vehicles, methane emissions from heating our homes, and pipelines that leak, and things like that. So we put these things together into budgets that combine top-down approaches, satellites, aircraft, tall towers with bottom-up approaches, inventories, chamber-based measurements, accounting valves, and pieces of infrastructure and estimating things this way. And then ask, where do they match? And that's where the basic philosophy is to try and approach these budgets from two directions and see where, if any, discrepancies there are. So we do that for carbon dioxide yearly. Methane, we've just submitted our new methane budget this month. We'll have our first ever nitrous oxide budget out late this year or early next year. And then we work on some other things, urban emissions, and then the broad space of cumulative emissions and negative emissions. So how big is the atmospheric budget for greenhouse gases? When we talk about stabilizing the Earth's temperature at 2 degrees C or 1.5 or 2 and 1 half, how big is that bucket? How much space do we have left? And for those of you who are socially inclined, who gets to fill the rest of the bucket? And based on what criteria, per capita emissions, historical emissions, issues of equity, social justice, historical factors, things like that. So we work more on the physics, the chemistry, the Earth sciences of those budgets, but we're very, very interested in helping people use this information to make ethical decisions. So we'll talk a little bit about cumulative emissions as well. So here's where we are from. So we've released this at the last COP, the conference of the parties. In December, we'll release our next budget in Santiago in the current COP in December. So last year, 2018, we had about 37 billion tons of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions and cement production. We had about another 4 or 5 billion tons from deforestation. So for carbon dioxide alone, the annual budget is now over 40 billion tons a year. I think Chris presented a cumulative budget for you that suggested we got about 500 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions left to stabilize with for two degrees C. So you don't have to have a PhD in math to know that's 10, 12 years at current rates. Now there's some wiggle room in that. Depends how confident you want to be. If you want to be 90% certain, you'll stay below the budget. The budget's got to be a little bit lower. The bathtub's a little lower. If you're willing to take a little more risk, the bathtub's a little bit bigger. But anyway, we are not, as yet, decreasing global carbon dioxide emissions. And I want to talk about why that is. There are signs of progress. Like 2014 to 2016 was the first period in time when emissions stabilized and the global economy grew. And that's really, really quite important because in the past the only time emissions have dropped is when there's been global economic downturn. So we're seeing hints of progress, but they're not fast enough. Let me move ahead. These are current emissions now by year, 1960 to 2018 billion tons of carbon dioxide. India here, growing rapidly. Europe, US, China, and then the rest of the world combined. So you see, 20, 30 years ago, the European Union and the US were equivalent in terms of CO2 reductions. Europe has made more progress than we have in reducing our emissions. India's growing rapidly. Their per capita emissions are still four or five times less than ours in the United States. You've got 300 million people in India who don't have access to reliable electricity. Those people, for first and foremost, interest need more energy, not less. So we need to provide it to them like Arun talked about. And then China was responsible for much of the growth in sort of the 2000 decades. And now their per capita emissions are about the same as Europe's, but still only about half of ours. All right, so we've got declining emissions modestly in the US, even more so in Europe, but not anywhere close enough to make up for the other people around the world who still use less energy than we do. So where do these emissions go? On the left are the sources, about 90%, close to 90% of the imbalance in the global carbon cycle comes from fossil fuel emissions, about 10, 12% from deforestation and land use. And then only about half that carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere. The rest of it's going back into oceans or back into land, regrowing forests, stimulation effects, fertilization and things like that. So really the atmospheric concentration could be rising twice as fast as it is for the same level of emissions. So one thing we study in my group, along with kinds of energy things I'll talk about today, is to what extent will forests continue to provide this benefit? Because if you sort of dial down or if that benefit slows, then atmospheric concentrations will rise for the same level of emissions. So that's kind of an example of a biological feedback with the energy system, that the kinds of things that people here at Stanford and elsewhere work on. All right, so we spent a lot of time thinking, where does the carbon come from? Where does it go? And how much of it stays in the atmosphere? Okay, so the good news, renewables are exploding. And you've already heard about this a little bit. So here's 14% growth for the last five years or so. All right, driven by technology, driven increasingly in the US simply by price, two and a half cents a kilowatt hour wholesale prices. So that's fantastic, the biggest sign of hope. Energy efficiency increases, the greatest benefit we've had for reducing emissions. But what else is happening at the same time? Look at natural gas use, look at oil use, a little bit of a decrease in coal, coal use and coal production. So at the same time, we're adding renewables at record levels, fossil fuels are still going up. All right, so some of that, some of this and some of this is replacing some of this. But that's not all that's going on. Primarily what's going on is that global energy use is increasing. So here's a graph of gross domestic product, a gross world product at the top going back to 1990. You see that that has risen faster than CO2 emissions or energy. So our global economy is becoming more efficient. That's good. What's not happening, and maybe the biggest surprise to me when I see a figure like this, look at 1990, look at the CO2 emissions per unit of energy. They are the same today as they were almost 30 years ago, right? So that means that for all this progress, and I'm serious, this is a fantastic progress in renewables, we're still sort of building fossil fuel infrastructure and emitting that fossil fuel infrastructure sort of in the same proportion. So on average, globally, we're not taking fossil fuel plants offline when we produce a new windmill or a new solar farm. We're adding it to our energy infrastructure. So we need to think about how to take those facilities offline. Ideally, as Chris said, not in a way that takes power plants out of the cycle before their lifetimes are up, we need to figure out ways to decarbonize our transportation sector, which is more different than electricity. But this is fundamentally what's changing, and because that's not changing, and energy use is still going up, emissions are still rising. And now there are different ways, let's think a little bit now about trajectories, different ways to think about how we might stabilize at one and a half or two degrees C. And these are just very much cartoonish, Glenn Peters from Norway, Cicero in the GCP put this together a few years ago. You could imagine, all right, we're gonna wuster along at 40 billion tons a year, and then whammo, we're just gonna stop emitting carbon dioxide completely. And you get this sort of scenario at the top. Or you can say, let's take a really aggressive mitigation scenario, three, four billion tons a year, scale that back down, keep within our budget, or since we don't appear to be willing to do either of those things, maybe we reduce emissions, go beyond what that budget for one and a half or two C would allow, and then we invoke voodoo or technology, or both, to remove that carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. And it's not strictly voodoo, there are technologies underway that might potentially allow us to do this, using trees, using industrial processes. I'll just talk about them briefly. But this is gonna be expensive, all right? This is like a drop of ink. You know, you keep the emissions from going into the atmosphere. It's like blotting a drop of ink.  You're gonna do a lot more work to extract that ink from a bucket of water than from catching it on your handkerchief. All right, so that's what we're facing if we wait for this kind of scenario. Well, what can we do? There are different approaches. So here's a typical fossil fuel plant results in carbon dioxide or carbon being removed from the ground, mined, burned, released to the atmosphere. We could make that carbon neutral by capturing the carbon dioxide, putting it back underground. We can also make it carbon neutral by using plants as the energy source instead of a fossil fuel source, burning that, and then that goes back into the plants. All right, but the only way to go negative is to say, for instance, use plants to take the carbon dioxide out of the air, burn them or use them for energy, and then pump that carbon dioxide underground. So in that sense, you're actually going negative from there to there, or to use an industrial process to go from atmospheric carbon dioxide to a plant to underground. So that's sort of the world of negative emissions. There's a lot of work that's being done in that area too. Just to give you an example, and I'll move on to methane, is a somewhat complicated figure, but these are examples of different negative emissions technologies. So biomass energy with carbon capture and storage in the top left is one. Direct air capture, these industrial processes, growing trees where they weren't, to put carbon back on the landscaper in soils, or restoring forest systems, crushing up a particular rocks that are oxidized, I'm sorry, then weathered in place that remove that carbon dioxide and then re-burying those things. So each of these have a different land footprint, a different cost, a different water requirement. So when we think about managing the world at a billion ton carbon seal, we've got to think about these other things too. So here is biomass with energy capture produces energy. If we want to use an industrial process to remove CO2 from the air that doesn't use plants, we've got to supply the energy to do that.  So anyway, work like this, this is work led by Pete Smith that we did a couple of years ago, but work like this is to help us to try and understand not just the carbon cycle components to this work, but the interactions that affect other things we value in the world around us. And then lastly, this is a paper that I led that came out this year. People haven't talked about removing methane from the atmosphere. So methane's harder because it's less abundant in the air, but it's also more potent, more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2. So we're working on just starting to in a proposed using particular minerals that might allow us to remove that methane from the atmosphere, not easy, will be expensive, but the advantage here compared to CO2 is this is a downhill reaction thermodynamically. So in principle, it doesn't require energy to do that. So that's one thing that my lab's working on. Let me switch to methane just very quickly. Here's a sample of the global methane budget. Now the elephant is carbon dioxide, but methane is the second most important greenhouse gas that we've perturbed. And we have perturbed the global methane cycle far more than we perturbed the global CO2 cycle. So more than half of methane emissions today are human sourced from agriculture and from industrial activity, more than half. So we've more than doubled the natural cycle. So here are fossil fuel production there, agriculture primarily cattle and rice farming. And then here are natural sources, wetlands, natural geologic seeps and such. So our group works on wetland emissions, and then also particularly on the fossil fuel use and production side. Here, this is just a figure that shows you where methane is emitted around the world. The size of the pie is the amount. So primarily in the tropics, where you see green, those are natural sources, blue and gray, are the agricultural and fossil fuel sources. So in the tropics, you have most emissions, primarily or mostly natural, not exclusively. Temperate systems, little smaller, primarily industrially and agriculturally based. And through inventories and such, we can ascribe in that bottom up approach that I mentioned, where these sources are coming from, the number of cattle, where rice is produced, where fires occur from natural emissions and from human sources of fire. Fossil fuel infrastructure, natural wetlands and things like that. This is how we kind of compile some of this information for the integrated, and then look at these sources and what the atmosphere tells us about where methane is being emitted. So if you're concerned about permafrost methane runaway, you're gonna expect to see that up in the north. You go back to this previous slide, there isn't a lot of methane emissions relative to the global cycle in the far north. So we keep an eye on that sort of thing to look for early signs of potential runaway methane production. Okay, let me finish just with a couple of examples from some things we do. In my group, I'm very interested in reducing methane emissions, greenhouse gases from energy infrastructure. So we fly helicopters, we drive cars, we put instruments on top of skyscrapers and take measurements through time to try and attribute sources over cities in different places. I'll give you just a couple of examples. Here's one that was published a couple of years ago, we flew 8,000 oil and gas wells randomly across the United States in a helicopter. This is like a restaurant inspection. You show up unannounced and you film it with an infrared camera, see who leaks, who doesn't and what correlates with those leaks, how big the site is, how old it is, who's running it, what the policy and regulatory framework and inspection framework is for that site. So here's an example, let's see if I can make a video work. So this is using an infrared camera.  So you're in your helicopter, you film it, so there's a leak from the top of a tank. Now that's not normal. What's normal is to show up and see nothing at all. But occasionally 1%, 5%, even 10% of the sites, depending on where you are in the United States, this is what we see. So we try and collect this information and then feed that information back to the companies who are working there and also try and use data to make the system cleaner. So another example, City Streets, my group with colleagues in Boston, Nathan Phillips and others, did the first studies of publicly available data in cities. We put new analyzers in cars, laser-based instruments and drove every block of cities. So I'm maybe, I guess, I think I'm likely to say, I'm the only person who's driven every block in the city of Boston. Some of those blocks many times as you're filling out the grid, if you will.  Then when that spike, when that ping is big, we can hop out of the car, sample the gas and look and see whether it's sewer gas or fossil fuel-based gas and attribute the source to that loss. So when we do that, we see a map like this. This is Boston. Boston's not everywhere in the United States. Boston's old. There are pipelines here still that are 100 years old. Right, red, road miles driven. Yellow are spikes, leaks. Number one predictor of a leak in an old city like Boston is old infrastructure. It's not a poor neighborhood, rich neighborhood thing. It's an old neighborhood, new neighborhood thing. We published this work. It's now about five years old, a little old, but the mayor commented on it the next day. At that time, Congress and Markey, now Senator Markey commented on it the next year, Massachusetts passed an accelerated pipeline replacement bill based not exclusively but partly on our work. This allows the companies to front load expenses and be able to recover the cost of those expenses earlier to clean up that pipeline and make repairs that they would have delayed for 10, 20 or 30 years. So it speeds up that repair and replacement of that old infrastructure. So in a sense, everybody wins. Consumers pay about a dollar more a month. However, one thing that many people don't know is that you and I, consumers pay for the gas that goes leaking out of pipeline systems. So we're actually paying for that gas. Out of these 100 year old pipelines. So the consumers will benefit not just economically but because the system will be much safer. And we can show that by comparing cities that have been cleaned up, if you will, where partnerships have led to replacement of those pipelines over sort of a decade, decade and a half time period. So we drove Manhattan. The city still has a lot of leaks and repairs in Manhattan are expensive for obvious reasons. But you can compare it to cities that have had creative partnerships for a decade or more to get rid of their emissions during North Carolina, Cincinnati, Ohio, compared to say Manhattan. So you get one 20th the number of leaks. 90, 95% reduction in leak densities to these programs. So they do work. They're helping reduce natural gas emissions but the motivator isn't climate change.  The motivator for people is safety. So these are just some of the justifications from a pipeline framework for doing this outside of the environment. Air quality, hydrocarbons catalyze ozone formation. Rare, very rare events. The natural gas system is safe but accidents still happen and cost us money. Jobs, and we pay a couple of billion dollars a year for lost and unaccounted for gas. All right, just one example, I'll stop here. One thing we've been working on for the last year or so is people's homes. Surprisingly, the whole part of the natural gas chain that's the least studied is what happens after the utility brings natural gas to your home or building. And at that point in time when it crosses the meter it's no longer the utility's responsibility, it's the owner's responsibility. So we're sampling homes for water heaters, stoves, furnaces, leaky pipes, things like that to try and again figure out what's, how much is actually being emitted? And there are some real surprises in this that we're finding and then ultimately trying to work with companies and where needed to try and re-engineer some of these appliances and reduce those emissions. And ultimately, we're gonna need also to electrify our homes as we need to electrify our cars using low carbon sources. So I'm gonna stop there and I wanted to leave time for questions and thanks for your attention. Any questions? You guys are ready for break. Got one here. So Arun mentioned that it's about a 4% natural gas leakage rate that makes natural gas worse than coal. You have an estimate as to what the leakage rate is now? Yeah, a lot of people would say it's closer to two and a half or 3%. And that's in the electricity sector. I think it's fair to say that VPA would tell you it's about one and a half percent, 1.6, 1.8%. I think there's pretty much nobody in the research community who thinks that number is correct. So we're up into the two, we're into the low twos at least. So there are other reasons to support a transition from coal to natural gas, right? The number one source of, well, two largest sources of air pollution deaths in this country, coal-fired power plants and cars. All right, so you get rid of, take coal plants offline and replace them with natural gas or especially renewables and we improve air quality. There's no mercury emitted from natural gas and especially from solar and wind and things like that. So there are other reasons for doing it. But the numbers, we have some work to do to bring the numbers down and ultimately we're gonna need to, if we're gonna keep burning and using natural gas, we need to store that pollution underground or switch to no carbon sources. You had showed a graph that had the CO2 emissions per energy had been about the same over several decades. Why hasn't the increase in use of renewable energy sort of reduced that number? Yeah, it's a great, it's a really fascinating, it's a really fascinating issue and it has in places. That's what it has in the United States. It has in Europe, where as particularly old power plants have been taken offline. So probably the biggest trend in energy, as you all know in the United States has been 40 to 50% drop in coal-fired electricity over the last decade or two in this country. I mean, that's an amazing change, but it takes a long time to do that, right? You spend a billion dollars on a power plant, you don't wanna take that plant offline in year 15 instead of year 30, right? So there's a delay in taking those power plants offline. So that's part of the story. In the US, we're using more fuel for driving, especially for air travel and things like that. And right now there's really no zero carbon commercially viable means to get rid of transportation and air traffic in particular. But elsewhere around the world, it's something else. If you're in India, you don't have natural gas resources to speak of. So India's building a lot of new coal plants, they're using, building a lot of wind and solar too, solar in particular. So the real answer is that other places around the world were building new fossil fuel infrastructure for people who need electricity and because of geopolitical and other reasons too. So most of the renewables coming online around the world are not taking fossil fuel infrastructure offline, they're adding new energy infrastructure into the mix. What's going on in the back? So in many of the, most of the talks we talk about a budget of, with the given budget we have around 15 to 20 years to stay under the 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius. Yeah, not 1.5. Right. So. Two, maybe. Given the trend that we have observed over the past years where the greenhouse gas emission has been increasing, is there any possibility of actually meeting those 15 to 20 year windows or what do they mean in that scenario, in realistic terms? Yeah, the 1.5 degree budget is sort of the aspirational target of the Paris Agreement. Maybe we'll finish with this question unless there's a quick follow up. The 1.5 degree target is the aspirational goal of the Paris Accord. Is it still possible to reach that target? Absolutely it is. Is it likely we're gonna reach that target? I mean, I'll be honest, no. It's not likely that we're gonna reach that target short of really, well, if we were to reach that target the most likely way we would do it would be to implement massive carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas removal from the atmosphere in sort of a negative emissions approach. Two degrees C, a little more possible. We're not on track right now. We're not even on track right now to meet the Paris Accord agreements which only got us to about 2.7 degrees approximately. So globally we're not reaching that. Is two degrees still possible? Yes it is. Is it odds on favor to make it? Not the way we're going now. But you can't give up. It's all of our job to change that trajectory. That's what we try and do in the Global Carbon Project with other people and groups here at Stanford and elsewhere are trying to do. But I gotta be frank, I'm an optimist at heart and I believe in what we do and I'm gonna encourage you again to get involved. Take advantage of the time the people here bring your expertise and knowledge to help us. But I'll be honest, right now we're not on track to make two degrees. But I would do anything I could to help us get there. Are we good? All right, thank you everybody. Have a great time. Feel free to stop by. Thank you.


adds her to during the podcast that are not in my voice or placed by third-party agencies outside of my control and should not imply an endorsement by Weird Darkness or myself. Stories and content in Weird Darkness can be disturbing for some listeners and is intended for mature audiences only. Parental discretion is strongly advised. Many theories have been proposed over the years, yet still no known human deformity, illness, or cultural practice has been identified that explains what has come to be known as the Starchild Skull. The bone of the skull is much thinner, lighter, and stronger than normal human bone. It contains unusual reinforcing fibers. The brain of the skull would be 30% larger than a normal human of the same size. The entire Starchild Skull is over ten standard deviations from the human norm, a highly significant statistic. In 2003, trace genetics were able to recover some human DNA from the 900-year-old Skull. However, despite DNA clearly being present in the sample, the technology was unable to identify much of the genetic material as human. More modern DNA testing has found that a significant percentage of the DNA in the Skull appears to not be human. The shape of the Skull, along with the odd characteristics it has, leads many to believe that not only is the Skull indeed not human, but also non-terrestrial, or perhaps even the combination of human and alien interbreeding. What is the Starchild? I'm Darren Marlar and this is Weird Darkness. Welcome, Weirdos. I'm Darren Marlar and this is Weird Darkness. Here you'll find stories of the paranormal, supernatural, legends, lore, the strange and bizarre, crime, conspiracy, mysterious, macabre, unsolved and unexplained. Coming up in this episode. In the 1700s, lifesaving techniques were obviously not as advanced as those we have today. Case in point, one doctor wanted to know if and how a drowned person might be brought back to life. The solution? Go to a hanging and try to revive the executed man. How do you think that went? We've spoken often here on Weird Darkness about shadow people, what their purpose is, where they come from, whether they are malevolent or not, but are they ghosts or something else entirely? A Reddit user shares his true story of hiking in the wilderness and suddenly being tracked and hunted over several days by a stranger with unknown intentions. Within the walls of one of England's most picturesque castles, a queen gave birth to her only child and set in motion a chain of events that would become one of two-door England's most intriguing mysteries. But first, if you're in aliens or conspiracies, you've likely heard of the Star Child skull. A strange skull that appears either misshapen or, as many believe, is the skull of a hybrid between extraterrestrials and human beings. What is the truth behind the Star Child? If you're new here, welcome to the show. While you're listening, be sure to check out WeirdDarkness.com for merchandise, my newsletter, to enter contests, to connect with me on social media. Plus, you can visit the Hope in the Darkness page if you're struggling with depression or dark thoughts. You can find all of that and more at WeirdDarkness.com.  Star Child is the name given to a misshapen skull claimed by some to be an alien human hybrid. You might have seen videos about this skull online or on television. The skull is in the possession of Lloyd Pie, who believes mainstream science has suppressed and tried to explain away his claims. Thus, not surprisingly, the sources for this review are not peer-reviewed journals, but the publicized claims made by those who have examined the skull and the publicized opinions of those like us who have evaluated their claims from afar. A teenage girl found two skeletons in a Mexican mine tunnel in the 1930s. The misshapen skull was reportedly associated with a small skeleton and the normal skull with an adult-sized skeleton, but the skeletons were lost. The skulls changed hands over the years and in the 1990s they came into the possession of Lloyd Pie. Pie dubbed the misshapen skull Star Child and began investigating it. He has had the skull examined by about a dozen people from various specialities, including Dr. Ted Robinson, a craniofacial reconstructive surgeon who reports he searched the literature and found no similar skulls. Other experts have included other surgeons, radiologists, pediatricians, ophthalmologists, and a forensic tooth specialist, as well as geneticists, some of whom remain anonymous. Pie is perhaps best known for his campaign to have Star Child recognized as an alien human hybrid. Central and South American Indian legends tell of star beings descending to Earth to mate with Indian women, so the find fits the legend as well as Pie's own beliefs about human origins. Pie recently authored a book, Intervention Theory Essentials, outlining his beliefs about the origin of humanity. He denies biblical creation as well as evolution, with equal vigor. In his e-book he states, Interventionists, like me, anchor our search for origins on evidence rather than faith, on logic rather than magic. We don't think that God did it, or that life spontaneously generated, he says. Instead, Pie takes an intelligent design position. But his intelligent designers are aliens. Pie writes that these intelligent aliens are non-human, non-Earth-based human-like entities, aliens or gods, but gods with a small G. He believes these aliens genetically engineered primitive bipedal ape-like hairy hominids hybridizing their primitive hominoid genes with their own superior alien genes to create test tube people. He hopes his findings in the Star Child investigation will lend credence to his position. Pie reports carbon dating on the skulls showed them to be about 900 years old. Further investigations addressed both skeletal morphology and genetics. He's currently trying to raise funds to continue the investigation and sequence the whole genome of Star Child. Star Child's cranium has all the usual bones present in a normal human skull. The oddly shaped skull is symmetrical, but the cranial bones are shifted and misshapen and thinner than normal. The frontal sinuses and brow ridges are absent.  The chewing muscles are thought to have been smaller than normal. Examination of a tooth showed it to have a well-developed root consistent with a child of about 5 or 6 years old. Pie, in one of his videos, asserted the tooth indicated the skull belonged to an adult, but several of his experts say the tooth did belong to a child. Several teeth are impacted above this tooth. Although these distortions make the face appear smaller than normal, the overall cranial capacity is about 1600cc, which Pie's experts have described as 200cc above normal. The lack of frontal sinuses and the diminished orbital size account for at least some of this extra volume. The back of the skull is fairly flattened, with the parietal bones sloping sharply downward and without the usual occipital protuberance and the bump on the back of the skull, the anion in the region where the trapezius muscles and a ligament from the cervical vertebra normally attach. Therefore, the neck is presumed to have been thin and attached farther forward than normal. The condeals, bony protrusions that articulate with the first cervical vertebra are somewhat oversized. On first look, many suggest the skull belonged to a hydrocephalic child, but one of the radiologists who examined it said that it could not be the case because there was no erosion of the inner surface of the skull. Also, the sutures between the skull bones were not separated. While modern medicine has fortunately made untreated hydrocephalus a rarity, erosion of the inner skull is described as a common consequence of increased inocranial pressure in Dr. Arter Schuler's 1918 text, Röntingen Diagnosis of Diseases of the Head. Dr. Schuler notes, however, that such erosion is not usually seen when the onset of hydrocephalus is in early childhood, prior to age 4 or 5. Thus, since the age at which this child developed his problems is uncertain, the presence or absence of such erosion is inconclusive. The bone chemistry has a lower content of calcium and especially phosphorus than normal. Pi says cut sections of the bone show some sort of unidentified red residue and durable fibers on scanning electron microscopy, but those findings are missing from the accounts of the various experts describing the skull. Initial efforts to recover DNA from the skulls in 2003 after some difficulty getting the bone to dissolve resulted in finding human mitochondrial DNA. Both skulls were consistent with Amerindian ethnicity, although being of different haplogroups, they are not a mother-child pair. Initial efforts to recover nuclear DNA from the smaller individual skull were reportedly minimally successful, but finally were reported to reveal both X and Y chromosomes indicating human parentage. Pi's online material claims the difficulty extracting nuclear DNA in 2003 suggests Starchild's father was not human and that partial genomic sequencing confirms the presence of non-human DNA. Pi now reports Starchild's DNA has been examined using a different method and found to have some clearly human DNA in addition to a 342 DNA sequence that doesn't match anything in the NIH genetic database. The NIH database currently includes the entire human genome as well as genome sequences from numerous species of plants and animals. His website features a screenshot of the report from the NIH database, inquiring showing the report no significant similarity found. Pi is now trying to raise funds to have the DNA fully sequenced, confident the DNA will prove Starchild was a product of genetic engineering involving an alien or alien human hybrid with a human surrogate mother. Though Pi claims the skull must be something other than human, other suggested explanations have included headbinding and genetic abnormalities. South American cultures that practice headbinding usually bind above the Indian, but this skull is flattened below that level. Pi points out that the shape did not result from cradle boarding as the position required to achieve its shape would have obstructed the child's airway. Most agree the skull is not typical of skulls artificially reshaped. Prominent among Pi's detractors is Dr. Steven Novella, a Yale neurology professor well known as a skeptic of pseudoscience and alternative medicine. Novella published an online letter in 2006 and Pi has, of course, published his counterclaims. Novella asserts that the child probably had untreated hydrocephalus. Hydrocephalus results from a blockage in the drainage of cerebrospinal fluid with a resultant build-up of fluid in the ventricles of the brain. Today, the disorder is treated by surgically placing a shunt to drain the fluid. The cerebrospinal fluid could have built up slowly in this untreated individual expanding the skull while creating many distortions. And as mentioned previous, the lack of bony erosions does not rule out this diagnosis. The lack of frontal sinuses is easily dismissed. One or both frontal sinuses are occasionally absent in normal people. Although no one has been able to point to a single known genetic abnormality or congenital syndrome that causes all the specific abnormalities seen in the star child skull, there are a number of genetic abnormalities manifested by these sorts of findings seen here. Many genetic defects are rare and may produce a group of physical defects that are still compatible with life, at least for a time. When an unusually malformed child was born in the Middle Ages, some would attribute the cause to demons, as any devoted reader of Victor Hugo's hunchback of Notre Dame will quickly recall. Of course, Pi does not claim supernatural demonic influence, but his proposed aliens would certainly be outside the realm of both mainstream science and biblical Christianity. However, the fact that medical literature hasn't reported a child with this particular constellation of symptoms should not cause anyone to leap on the alien bandwagon. Although normal human cranial capacity varies greatly, the capacity of this skull, presumably a child, does exceed the average norm for morphologically normal adult skulls. Increased cranial capacity obviously can arise from hydrocephalus, but it has also been reported without hydrocephalus and children with autism. The enlarged cranial capacity likely results from the lack of frontal sinuses, reduced orbits, and the distorted growth of the skull whether or not hydrocephalus was part of the picture. There are sufficient distortions to explain the enlarged cranial capacity, however without suggesting a larger than normal brain or the conventional sci-fi type of alien portrait some of associated with the skull. The abnormalities in bone chemistry could be related to a genetic disorder, as some of them cause abnormal phosphate metabolism resulting in a rickets-like softening of the bones. The abnormal bone chemistry could also be a result of the skull's exposure in a wet mine tunnel for years. While the durable fibers and red residue Pi describes on video as a mystery remain unexplained, no results of any tests addressing those findings are reported. They may well represent a foreign contaminant or some sort of artifact resulting from the years in the mine. The thinning of the cranial bones may be related to untreated hydrocephalus or to some other underlying syndrome causing the bones to distort. Such distortion can be caused by premature fusion of some of the cranial sutures causing the head to stretch and grow in the dimensions left to it. While some have asserted such a condition would lead to asymmetrical growth, a condition called brachycephaly causes symmetrical distortion of the skull with severe flattening of the back of the skull. In fact, Starchild's skull bears remarkable similarities to brachycelephics. Two experts on craniofacial abnormalities, Dr. Patricia Hummel and Dr. Jeffrey A. Firen, according to reported personal communications, agree that Starchild fits this description. The shallow, low-set orbits would have probably caused the eyes to protrude somewhat. This condition is called exorbitism, and it is seen with some of the syndromes causing premature closure of cranial sutures. One such syndrome is Krausen's syndrome. Children with this mutation tend to have bulging, low-set eyes and an underdeveloped lower face with cleft lip and palate, all associated with premature fusion of cranial sutures. While the Starchild does not fit the full criteria for cruisans, the example makes it clear that genetic defects can produce constellations of abnormalities, such as those seen in the Starchild's skull. Much has been made of the apparently thin, forward-shifted neck, with claims it matches supposedly documented aliens commonly held to exist by the UFO crowd. Given the magnitude of this skull's flattening and distortion posteriorly, however, the neck's muscles and ligament attachments would naturally have to accommodate the head's shape. The impacted teeth are another abnormality commonly seen in children. In short, the skull abnormalities, while not fitting any particular named syndrome, are all consistent with the sorts of abnormalities seen in human children with genetic problems. But the website Starchildproject.com has rebuttals to a lot of the skeptics who seem to think they have the answers to these questions. For example, the shallow eye sockets caused by cruisans or microcephaly. These conditions rely either on abnormal fusion of the cranial sutures or microcephaly, but neither are present in the Starchild's skull, as proven by CT scans and visual examination of the skull. Dr. Robinson and some of his colleagues are on the record stating that the sutures, the lines where the bones of the skull meet like puzzle pieces, were unfused and healthy at the time of death. The missing frontal sinus is often attributed to the rare but very real human condition, progeria. The problem with this answer however is that other features in the skull prove it did not have progeria. The extremely strong bone of the skull explained away by osteopetrosis, the opposite of osteoporosis, or fossilization of the bone is also refuted by the website. The skull didn't have any of these conditions, as proven by X-rays and CT scans, and the Starchild's skull is not a fossil. Fossils are over 10,000 years old. The Starchild's skull is only 900 years old, according to Carbon-14 dating. Much has been discussed regarding the childlike teeth in the Starchild's skull, with skeptics claiming it's a child of about five years old and possibly had progeria which causes dental problems. As indicated before, the skull had no signs of progeria, plus no child could grind its teeth down so much in such a short period of time as those in the skull appear. Those who believe the skull is human claim the actual brain tissue was the same size as a human, it just looked bigger because of hydrocephaly. Fluid inside the brain pushed it outwards and made it look bigger, but it was hollow filled with fluid on the inside. But there is a problem with that answer too. Fluid inside the brain causes pressure that would have pushed out the weakest points, the suture lines where the plates of the skull join outwards, and that didn't happen. There was no evidence of internal pressure at all. Of course, you can't argue against DNA evidence, we believe in it so much we use it in our court cases. But skeptics do argue against it, saying that the DNA collected from the skull could have been contaminated, or possibly a one-off genetic mutation in a human. While contamination is indeed the biggest challenge for dealing with ancient DNA, the sample from a bone buried in earth's soil can be contaminated only with DNA of earthly origin, which could be identified by at least a partial match to sequences in the existing databases. The extent of genetic variation found in the preliminary DNA tests on the star child skull is far greater than normally observed in viable, able to survive, offspring within the human species. It is possible to find a way to explain virtually every aspect of the star child skull if each unusual feature is taken individually. But when you start trying to add all of those up, it soon becomes obvious that no human could survive so many conflicting deformities. And that is the key factor that keeps getting swept under the carpet. Not the idea of whether it is possible in a test tube in a lab, but is it possible to create a live being that can live long enough to wear down its teeth? The most plausible answer here is no. No human could survive all of these deformities. Therefore, it is possible, and some may argue probable, that this is not a human skull. When Weird Darkness returns, a Reddit user shares his true story of hiking in the wilderness and suddenly being tracked and hunted over several days by a stranger with unknown intentions. But first, in the 1700s, life-saving techniques were obviously not as advanced as those we have today. Case in point, one doctor wanted to know if and how a drowned person might be brought back to life. The solution? Go to a hanging and try to revive the executed man. How do you think that went? We'll find out up next. Nothing goes better with chocolate than vanilla, and nothing goes better with the darkness than vampires. So we have combined all of them into a new blend of weird dark roast coffee called Very Vampilla.  So good, you'll want to sink your fangs into the fresh roasted bag itself. Weird Dark Roast Very Vampilla, the only thing at steak, sorry, not sorry, bad pun, is your dissatisfaction with your old coffee. Sip it while the sun is down if you're one of the undead. Or when the sun is up if you just feel dead and need a bit of a boost, get your Weird Dark Roast Very Vampilla at WeirdDarkness.com slash coffee. That's WeirdDarkness.com slash coffee. Is it possible to bring a drowning victim back to life? Given the numerous cases of drowning that occurred in 18th century London and the lack of any proper system of saving drowning victims at the time, the need for a new organization to teach resuscitation techniques seemed desperately needed. Inspired by a rescue organization in the Netherlands that had been founded years earlier, Dr. William Haas and another physician Thomas Kogan founded the Royal Humane Society in 1774 to promote training in first aid and artificial respiration for drowning victims. To advertise the potential benefits of artificial respiration, Haas and Kogan hit on a rather novel scheme. They offered a cash reward to anyone who would bring them a drowning victim that had been taken from the water anywhere within 30 miles of London. Haas paid the reward out of his own pocket. The Royal Humane Society would later serve as a model for similar organizations around the world. As part of their effort to improve existing medical techniques, Haas and Kogan approached the famous surgeon John Hunter for guidance. They highly distinguished medical researcher and surgeon, Hunter was an obvious choice. Being blunt and argumentative by nature, Hunter had no problem challenging existing views on when death occurred and was forthright in presenting the fledgling Humane Society and later the Royal Society with his own views on resuscitation. Dr. John Hunter was certainly the right man for the job. A brilliant anatomist and researcher, his medical expertise was in constant demand. Among Hunter's patients were Benjamin Franklin, who had consulted him for bladder problems and Adam Smith for hemorrhoids. Hunter's unorthodox methods made him the envy of all his fellow surgeons and his outspoken manner earned him any number of enemies as well. Among other things, he has also become an authority on venereal disease and even went so far as to inoculate himself with tissue taken from a patient to test his theories. Hunter contracted syphilis and gonorrhea as a result and unfortunately used his infection to argue that syphilis and gonorrhea were essentially the same disease. They aren't and that misconception would linger for decades. Though the medical science surrounding resuscitation was still in its infancy, Hunter's insights were certainly inspired. He stressed that drowning victims should not automatically be assumed dead and that only the suspension of the actions of life is taken place. In treating the drowning victim, Hunter recommended aggressive measures including using a double bellows to force air into the drowning victim's lungs, applying stimulating vapors to the nose, keeping the body warm and a vigorous massage in essential oils. When all else failed, Hunter advised the use of electrical stimulation to the heart. He also argued that resuscitation should be viewed scientifically with a notebook on hand so that the physician could carefully record what worked and what didn't in reviving the patient. To test his own resuscitation methods, John Hunter turned to a different source. Through his years of dissecting executed criminals, Hunter knew that hangmen were often fairly sloppy with their workmanship on the gallows. This was long before the invention of the Marwood Drop, which ensures that convicts died quickly and cleanly by a broken neck.  Even then, death was not assured and there were cases of executed convicts waking up after believed dead. The notion that an executed criminal could be successfully revived appealed to Hunter and a famous case then working its way through the English courts provided him with the perfect opportunity. The Reverend William Dodd was never your typical clergyman. Ordained an Anglican priest in 1753, his flamboyant lifestyle and manner made him a popular figure in British society and earned him the nickname of the macaroni parson. Macaroni was a popular slang term for fashionable. While being forced to leave England after disgracing himself by attempting to use bribery to gain a lucrative position for himself, Dodd returned to England after a short time abroad. Unfortunately, Dodd's extravagant lifestyle and financial problems continued and he was later caught out in a scheme in which he attempted to defraud a wealthy former pupil of thousands of pounds to clear his own debts. Since forgery and fraud were capital offenses in those days, Dodd was quickly arrested and went on trial for his life. He confessed to the crimes and was sentenced to death despite pleas for leniency from prominent figures such as Samuel Johnson. There was a last ditch appeal for a royal pardon, including a petition with 23,000 signatures, but Dodd went to the gallows on June 27, 1777. Given that William Dodd had been an early supporter of the Humane Society, John Hunter was well aware of the details of the case. As Dodd was being led up the gallows at Tyburn, Hunter and his Humane Society colleagues were waiting at the Undertaker's establishment with all the tools needed for the revival. While Hunter himself never wrote about his attempt at reviving Dodd, a fellow Royal Society member, Charles Hutton, later provided an account of what happened next. Despite Hunter's attempts to get Dodd's body as soon after the execution as possible, the huge number of people in attendance made that impossible. Due to the pressing crowds, Dodd was left hanging for at least an hour before being taken down, while the hearse took an additional 40 minutes to deliver the body to the waiting Hunter. Although Hunter and his colleagues were dismayed by the delays, they proceeded to work on Dodd's body with all means possible for the reanimation. Unfortunately, the attempt was a total failure and Hunter eventually admitted defeat. Dodd's body was released for burial and that was the end of it. Except for years after Dodd's execution, there was a lingering rumor that Hunter had not failed and that Dodd had been successfully revived. The press recorded various Dodd sightings throughout the United Kingdom and stories of the macaroni parson cheating the gallows persisted. As recently as 1794, a Scottish newspaper reported that Dodd was living in Glasgow happily beyond the reach of his enemies. As for John Hunter, he moved on to other things. Along with his legendary fame as a surgeon, he also amassed one of the most amazing collections of medical and natural history specimens in Europe, including the skeleton of the Irish giant Charles Byrne, which he put on display in a custom-built teaching museum at his home in Leicester Square. Following Hunter's death in 1793 due to an angina attack likely linked to his syphilis weakened heart, his collection of papers and specimens were purchased by the government and presented to the Company of Surgeons, now the Royal College of Surgeons. Visitors to the Royal College of Surgeons at London's Lincoln's Inn Fields can still see Hunter's vast collection as part of the College's even more extensive museums. It is quite an experience for those with a taste for the macabre. I was camping in the middle of nowhere in Washington near Mount Rainier, like not an official campground just way out in the forest where I wouldn't have expected another human for miles. One night I wake up and I hear something open my tent and there's a guy sitting by where my fire had been right outside my tent. Nothing particularly noteworthy about the guy, just a fairly regular looking dude just sitting there a couple feet from my tent. No bag or pack or anything with him, just a guy. He saw me open the tent, his eyes got huge like he had just seen a ghost, and he took off. It shook me up pretty badly, but over the next day I managed to put it out of my mind fairly well after writing it off as just some odd occurrence and the guy that was probably high on something, it had somehow managed to set up a camp coincidentally not far from mine. Then, two days after that, and 10-15 miles away in totally random directions that nobody could take the same path as on accident, I was sitting by the fire that night and started hearing noises that I got more and more convinced were a person. I called out to them and out of the darkness someone was like, do you know how to get to Bell's Canyon? I said no, I don't even think that's a real place there. They kept talking from just out of my line of vision. I tried to see them with my flashlight, but they yelled aim that away and kind of spooked and not wanting to tick off a potentially crazy person I did. After like 15 minutes me being very freaked out and them talking and asking completely random questions from the darkness, it sounded like the voice had gotten closer so I shined my light that way again and it was the same dude who'd been outside my tent two nights before. He had to have followed me almost 15 miles over two days because there is no way he could have just accidentally wound up in the same spot as vast as that wilderness is. No possible way. As soon as my light hit him, he took off again. I started to chase him but didn't want to get lost in the wilderness in the dark so stopped quickly after probably only 100 or 200 feet. This one could not be written off because the only way he could have been in both places is specifically if he was following me. I decided the trip was over first thing in the morning and hiked back out over three days constantly doubling back trying to throw anyone following off my trail and occasionally hiding and waiting to see if he would come by following me. I really can't describe how terrifying it was to feel like I was being hunted through the woods and to actually have to brainstorm on things that I could do to best avoid potentially being murdered. On the first night of hiking out, twice I heard what sounded like a person walking circles outside my tent but by the time I mustered the courage to look, nobody was there. On the second night I heard what I thought was an animal making noises at first in the distance but slowly decided it sounded more like a human making animal calls but could have actually been an animal but I didn't actually see the guy again. But it really sounded like a person making howling noises. I literally almost cried when I finally got back to my car, the relief was so strong. To this day probably the most terrifying experience I've ever had. I have no idea who the guy was or what his intentions were and no way of getting an explanation but I really can't articulate just what a terrifying few days that was. Later in the show, shadow people. Are they ghosts or a different entity altogether? We'll try to answer that question. Up next, England's royal family has eyes upon them at all times from those both in the country as well as around the world. We are fascinated with the royal life and it's always been that way. So imagine if the queen were to give birth to a child. The child, just like royal children of today, would be lavished upon, beloved by the people of the world. The excitement would be momentous. With so many attendants, guards and the like, how then could that newborn child disappear in the official records? That story when Weird Darkness returns. There are very few among those with a love for the supernatural who don't also have a passion for Edgar Allen Poe. Poe wasn't simply a melancholy author who wrote about premature burials, sinister black cats and talking ravens. He was much more. If you've ever read a modern mystery or horror novel, you can thank Poe. Poe invented the modern mystery story, mostly invented science fiction and was the first writer to take the horror stories of the Gothic era and set them in modern times, starting a trend that continues today.  He invites listeners along to delve into the strange and bizarre world of Edgar Allen Poe, from his early life to his tragic marriage, his insane grief, his dramatically failed career, his links to an unsolved murder and the mystery of what happened to the writer in the five days before his unexplained death. Even more than a century and a half later, no one knows what happened to Poe before he was found delirious on the streets of Baltimore, Maryland or what killed him. Why did he disappear and then show up in an incoherent state wearing another man's clothes? Where did he go when he vanished and who was the mysterious Reynolds that Poe whispered about in his dying breath? And perhaps strangest of all, does he haunt the mysterious graveyard where his body is buried? Nevermore, the haunted life and mysterious death of Edgar Allen Poe, written by Troy Taylor, narrated by Darren Marlar. Find a link to the book on the audiobooks page at WeirdDarkness.com. Within the walls of one of England's most picturesque castles, a queen gave birth to her only child and set in motion a chain of events that would become one of Tudor England's most intriguing mysteries. The birth had been much anticipated and much talked about. The baby, a little girl, was immediately taken off to a nursery decked in scarlet and gold where a string of attendance awaited her every demand. And yet within days, this child's life was turned upside down and just a few months afterwards, her whole future was called into question. For later historians, her very existence has led to endless speculation and now only scraps of evidence remain to tell the story of Mary, the queen's daughter. Mary Seymour was the only child of Catherine Parr, Henry VIII's last wife. She was born at Subtly Castle in Gloucestershire after a long labor which ended a pregnancy that had come as a great surprise to her parents.  But just months after her fourth wedding, that same year, to Thomas Seymour, she became pregnant for the first and only time. The news was as welcoming as it was surprising. Catherine had been stepmother to the families of two husbands and their children were all genuinely fond of her. But her first adopted family, the Latimers, were now grown up themselves while her second brood, the royal children of Henry VIII, were apart from her for different reasons. Maybe Mary would be the start of a new era in Catherine's life. Mary's father was Thomas Seymour, Baron Subtly, whose secret marriage to Catherine just months after the death of Henry VIII had caused shockwaves at the Tudor court. Thomas was the brother of Jane Seymour, Henry VIII's third wife and the queen who provided the longed for Tudor heir who was now reigning as Edward VI. Thomas and Jane's brother Edward served as Lord Protector, running the boy king's government. Thomas wasn't happy about this and wrote to Catherine in the summer of 1548 that their child will revenge such wrongs as neither you or I can. Thomas and Catherine felt they should have a say in the government of Edward VI, but they had been effectively sidelined by those in power. The first mystery of Mary's life is whether both her parents really thought their child could help unpick the power of Edward Seymour or whether this line just won in a long letter is more indicative of the headstrong Thomas' attitude to life. Speak first and worry later. The arrival of a girl stemmed those ambitions to a certain extent, but Thomas seems to have been overjoyed at Mary's birth, writing to his brother about the prettiness of his daughter. The baby was named in honor of Catherine's eldest royal stepchild, Mary, daughter of Catherine of Aragon, and on her birth she became one of the most eligible women in England. Her mother may not have been born of royal blood, but she was a queen. The boy king, Edward VI, had long called Catherine his mother, while the Dowager queen was also held in great respect by the people most likely to succeed him on the throne, and with the eight daughters, Mary and Osobeth. Mary Seymour was connected to some of the most important people in England and beyond. She looked set to grow up enjoying power, wealth, and privilege, and with the future filled with opportunity ahead of her. In less than 48 hours, everything changed. For while Catherine seemed well, if tired, after the birth, she soon began to show symptoms of poor peril or child-bed fever. Catherine had employed the best medical team she could find, including her trusted doctor, Robert Heike, but there was nothing any of them could do, given the medicine of the time. Records show that Catherine railed against her husband as delirium took hold of her, accusing him of keeping her doctor from her. But when she realized she was going to die, she became calm and dictated a will in which she left everything to him. This is another mystery in Mary's life, for the little girl wasn't mentioned at all, as Catherine distributed her worldly possessions. She was left in the complete care of her father, and if anyone realized how reckless and foolhardy Thomas Seymour could be, it was Catherine Parr. During the five years that they knew one another, Catherine saw plenty of examples of Thomas' rash and impetuous behavior. They had first met at the court of Henry VIII in early 1543 when she was a widow, and he was the man every woman wanted to marry. He was handsome, charming, and uncle to the princess of Wales, while she was pretty, clever, and determined to climb even higher in society after an already impressive and meteoric rise. Almost straight away there were rumors of a relationship between Seymour and Lady Latimer, as Catherine was known then, but when Henry VIII decided to marry her, all of that came to an end. On Henry's death, Catherine and Thomas had married with almost indecent haste, but the groom had caused his new wife huge problems. The Dowager Queen had brought her stepdaughter Elizabeth to live in her household, and her husband's behavior toward the teenager soon became inappropriate. He flirted with her, came into her bedroom, dressed only in his night clothes, and tickled and slapped her. In the end, Catherine had to send Elizabeth away, and the pair would never see one another again. Set against his backdrop, the Queen's decision to leave her newborn daughter completely dependent on a man known for his reckless behavior is perhaps even more mysterious. Catherine died on September 5, 1548, and was buried in the Chapel of Suddenly Castle. As was customary at the time, Thomas did not attend. Very soon afterwards, he took the Queen's daughter to London and left her with Edward Seymour. But while this gesture might indicate brotherly affection, Thomas's other actions of the time were anything but friendly. As Mary was raised with her Seymour cousins, her father began to plot the overthrow of his brother and gain influence over Edward VI. He had always been a passionate, ambitious, headstrong man and was known to deeply resent his brother. In January 1549, he was caught trying to break into the King's chambers while armed with a pistol and in the fight that followed, he killed his nephew's favorite pet dog. He was quickly accused of treason and many other things, including his past indiscreet behavior with Elizabeth was investigated. He was executed in March 1549. Mary was now an orphan. She was also technically a poor one for traders like Thomas lost all their possessions and as her mother had bequeathed everything to her father, Mary was left with nothing. Her uncle Seymour certainly didn't want his treacherous brother's offspring in the house and set about making arrangements for Mary's care. In just seven months, Mary had gone from being the Queen's daughter to an aristocratic inconvenience. Catherine Brandon, Duchess of Suffolk, was appointed guardian to Mary soon after the execution of Thomas Seymour. But this wasn't the first time that this Catherine had played an important part in the affairs of Catherine Parr. For in 1546, the last of Henry's wives found her position under threat. The King was apparently tired of her religious interests and opinions and the Duchess of Suffolk, recently widowed and about seven years younger, was reported by some at court to be in line to become wife number seven. Clever Catherine Parr talked her way out of an execution and the Duchess of Suffolk became the Queen's friend rather than Queen herself. That doesn't mean she was happy to bring up Mary. Most of her woes were financial. Mary had nothing, but as the daughter of a Queen, there was an expectation that she would be royally looked after. Catherine Brandon was soon writing to William Cecil, an important man at the court of Edward Seymour, asking for funds, with which to care for her baby, Mary. She persisted in pressing for Mary's estate to be made available, and finally, in January 1550, her father's lands were restored to her by an act of parliament, but this is where the story of the Queen's daughter becomes even more mysterious. Because no claim was ever made on that estate. Mary was entitled to use what was left of her father's possessions and money, but no one ever attempted to spend a penny of it on her behalf, and that has led many historians to conclude that the Queen's daughter must have died young. In an age when many children succumbed to illnesses, it seemed clear that Mary Seymour became poorly and probably didn't live beyond the age of two. No record or even mention of her death is found around that time, which might be explained by the fact that although parishes were meant to keep records of all events by then, many still only managed to register a portion of the births, deaths and marriages that took place within their boundaries. It could be that the record was lost, as so many were in the centuries since. Or, as some have argued, the record could maybe never have existed at all. Those who believed Mary lived far longer point out that such an important child as the daughter of a Queen would surely have merited some kind of memorial. The Victorian writer Agnes Strickland claimed that Mary lived to adulthood and that she married, while others have speculated that the decision not to claim on Seymour's estate, by then quite small, was to keep Mary safe by making people believe she was dead. By the time the estate was released, the Seymour family had fallen from power. Edward was arrested in October 1549 and imprisoned in the Tower of London. There were plenty of people who wanted to see the Seymours suffer, and Mary's position was even more precarious with her uncle in such deep trouble. But in 2010, Linda Porter argued that a poem by John Parkhurst published in 1573 probably takes Mary as its subject. The verse is an epitaph for a child who died young and who had a queenly mother. Whatever the reason, Mary disappears mysteriously in 1550 and is never officially heard of again. Her fate remains unknown today. The only thing we really do know about Mary is that she was the daughter of a queen. It's easy to speculate that had her mother been able to provide some counter to the chaotic influence of Thomas Seymour, Mary's life might have turned out very differently, or that had she emerged as an adult at the court of one of the later two-door monarchs, she might have played a great part in the dramas that unfolded. Her disappearance from the records only deepens the intrigue around her. Mary Seymour was born to a glittering life but sank into the shadows almost immediately. She is a real royal mystery. We've spoken often here on Weird Darkness about shadow people, what their purpose is, where they come from, whether they are malevolent or not, but are they ghosts or something else entirely? We'll find out when Weird Darkness returns. Do you keep a journal or diary? If not, maybe you should consider it. It's been shown that journaling can help you reduce stress, help relieve depression, build self-confidence, it boosts your emotional intelligence, helps with achieving goals, inspires creativity and more. In fact, my friend, S. N. Lenees has created a Weird Darkness-themed journal just for you, full of blank pages for you to use as a diary, make notes for class or office meetings, jot down ideas for that novel you want to write, use it for keeping a mileage long if you travel for business, whatever you want. In fact, she has numerous styles of journals to choose from. Along with the Weird Darkness journal, there's one for dealing with grief or teacher's notes, for medical residencies, keeping track of your meds or health routine and several others. Journals make a great gift for others, but it's also a great gift for yourself and your own mental health. No matter what you might want a journal for, my friend Anne has it, and you can see all of her journals, including the one for Weird Darkness, on the sponsors and friends page at WeirdDarkness.com. In the world of paranormal research, there are two distinct types of non-corporeal creatures, ghosts and shadow people. In many instances, it can be nearly impossible to tell the difference between ghosts and shadow people, but after some exhaustive research into these scary monsters and super creeps, here's a handy guide to help you figure out whether you're dealing with an energy-sucking shadow creature or a full-bodied apparition. Are ghosts and shadow people the same things? It's a question that has bogged down believers in the supernatural for a long time. While they do share similarities, they are definitely not the same thing. Not only are there different classes of shadow people, but the types of ghosts that you're likely to bump into aren't anything like the ominous figures cut by a shadow person. The following guidelines will teach you how to see if you saw a ghost or a shadow person lurking in your room and what to do about it. Paranormal experts have been debating for decades about whether or not ghosts can actually understand what's happening around them or if they're simply going through the motions of a past life. It's believed that ghostly apparitions are simply the residual energy left over when a person dies, meaning that while you might be able to see them, they can't see or interact with you. On the other hand, shadow people are sometimes caporial beings who are, at best, believed to be from another dimension, and at their worst, they may be demonic in nature. People who have had interactions with shadow people believe that the creatures make conscious decisions for how they'll treat a person, something that a ghost can't do. While no one knows exactly why shadow people exist, one interesting idea is that they are similar to poltergeists, meaning that humans create them from their own negative energy. While most ghosts are created through outside means like murder, suicide, a poltergeist tends to be created when someone with a lot of pent-up negative energy becomes a vessel for their awful feelings. This is usually done subconsciously, although you could probably manifest a poltergeist or shadow person if you try it hard enough, not that you'd ever want to. If you believe that you've created a shadow person on accident, then your best bet is to try and clear all the negative energy in your life. Start meditating, bless, or cleanse your home. Do whatever you've got to do to stop feeding that horrible creature. Trying to determine the intentions of a ghost is nearly impossible. You might find, depending on what type of paranormal phenomenon with which you're dealing, the ghost doesn't have any intentions at all. If you have a poltergeist in the home, it's taking cues from you, or whomever's negative energy helped manifest the creature, and it's going to keep doing what it's doing until you cleanse the home. If you're dealing with an interactive ghost, it could be re-enacting something from its life over and over, without any ill intent towards you, despite the negative ramifications of a ghost clanging and banging around your house.  Since the first report of a shadow person, there have not been any claims of one of these creatures doing anything positive whatsoever. Many paranormal experts believe that shadow people want to feed off of your negative energy and fear. If you've never been visited by a ghost or a shadow person, your first experience with either can be terrifying and confusing. How do you know with which type of entity you're dealing? When it comes to ghosts, there are a few different types of entities that you can encounter. There are ghosts with interactive personalities, like Bruce Willis at the end of the sixth sense, sorry, spoilers on that, or maybe a Civil War battlefield ghost, but there are also ectoplasmic mists that are just as visible as interactive full-body apparitions. Aside from the two visible and easily recognizable types of ghosts, there are poltergeists or noisy ghosts, which are essentially pure energy. You're most likely to experience one of these if you have a teenager in the home or a large amount of pent-up negative energy. They knock things down, break windows. Finally, there are orbs and the swirling bits of light that are most commonly seen in photographs. Shadow people, though, are usually described as being tall and human-like, but as if their bodies are made of shadows rather than flesh and blood. The most notable shadow person is the Hat Man who has been appearing since at least 2001 since he was discussed on Art Bell's Coast to Coast AM. It's been theorized that Hat Man is a separate phenomena from shadow people, even though he appears in the same way as the rest of his creepy brethren. An interesting theory posited about shadow people is that they're likely aware of other types of paranormal creatures and that they feed off of them the same way they feed off of us humans. If a spirit or an entity is trapped in a particularly haunted location, meaning that it is rich in negative energy, then it's likely that a shadow person or shadow people are aware of this location and use it as a feeding ground. It's been theorized that shadow people prefer the fresh negative energy of someone that they have trapped, but the residual energy of an entity trapped in its own torments for eternity is probably just as good. The most out-there theory about shadow people posits that they are not technically ghosts or creatures of any kind, but rather they are people who are having out-of-body experiences. Some paranormal researchers believe that our consciousnesses can leave our body while we sleep and allow us to show ourselves to other people who are tuned into our frequency. This differentiates shadow people from ghosts in a major way because it means that shadow people aren't even dead. It could be argued that if our consciousness leaves our bodies while we sleep, that they are technically the ghosts of the living, although it's likely that we'll never be able to determine if this is actually what's happening. While shadow people could be a figurative shadow of a person who is still alive, Spiritual Medium James Van Progg claims that actual ghosts are usually what's left of a person who cannot move on past the mortal plane of existence. Sometimes they just can't accept that they are dead. One of the things that ghosts and shadow people have in common is that they are drawn to negative energy and people who are spiritually open. The main difference in this scenario is why ghosts and shadow people are drawn to someone. Ghosts may simply be making themselves visible to you because you are open or something happened to you at a young age that made you a magnet for spiritual activity. While shadow people are also drawn to someone who's open, it tends to be a more malicious reason. They want to feed off of you in one way or another. If they can feed off of your fear when you see them, great. If they can feed off of the entities around you and the fear that creates, that's also good.  While shadow people have always been the creepy crawlies that come to you when you sleep. No one knows why the residual energy released when humans die creates ghosts for some people and not for others, but it very well may have something to do with that person having unfinished business on the corporeal plane. Shadow people have always existed. Whether they're from another dimension, a time traveler, or a demonic entity, it's believed that these creatures are fully aware of what they're doing. No one knows exactly what ghosts or shadow people are. While they can both take on characteristics of a human, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are or were human at one time or another. Some paranormal researchers believe that ghosts and shadow people are both creatures from another dimension and that they're simply manifesting in different ways. Some scientists believe that alternate dimensions exist directly next to ours, it's just their vibrations are slightly off. It's possible that shadow creatures and ghosts are actually entities from another dimension that are somehow bleeding through to our own. Whether you have found yourself haunted by a ghost or a shadow person, there are a few things that you can do to get rid of both entities. Unfortunately, clearing your home of an extreme haunting is harder than it sounds. Since ghosts tend to be residual energy, you could always try to ignore them and wait around for the haunting to disperse. Although in the case of a poltergeist, the haunting could increase if you ignore it. Paranormal researcher Lloyd Auerbach says that telling the ghost or shadow person to leave tends to work if you are forceful enough. However, if you engage the creature and you waiver, you could end up with an even larger haunting than you had to start with. If you can swing it, have a paranormal expert or even a priest come out and bless or sage the haunted area. That should do the trick. Thanks for listening. If you like to show, please share it with someone you know who loves the paranormal or strange stories, true crime, monsters or unsolved mysteries like you do. You can also email me anytime with your questions or comments through the website at WeirdDarkness.com. It's also where you can find all of my social media, listen to free audiobooks that I've narrated, shop the Weird Darkness store, sign up for the email newsletter, find other podcasts that I host, and find the Hope in the Darkness page if you or someone you know is struggling with depression or dark thoughts. Plus, if you have a true paranormal or creepy tale to tell, you can click on Tell Your Story or call the Dark Line toll free at 1-877-277-5944. That's 1-877-277-5944. All stories in Weird Darkness are purported to be true unless stated otherwise, and you can find source links or links to the authors in the show notes. The Hanged Man was written by Romeo Vitelli for Providencia. Our Shadow People, considered Ghosts, is by Jacob Shelton for Ranker's Graveyard Shift. A strange man hunted me through the park is by Redditor Valerian Jedi. That unexplained disappearance of the Queen's daughter is by Lydia Starbuck for Royal Central. And What Is the Star Child was written by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell from Animalian and from StarchildProject.com. Again, you can find links to these stories in the show notes. Weird Darkness is a production and trademark of Marlar House Productions, and now that we're coming out of the dark, I'll leave you with a little light. Lamentations 3, Verses 31 and 32. For no one is cast off by the Lord forever, though he brings grief, he will show compassion. So great is his unfailing love. In a final thought, being okay if it happens and okay if it doesn't, is a very powerful place to be. I'm Darren Marlar. Thanks for joining me in the Weird Darkness.


Hello and welcome to HealthFocus, a production of the Ministry of Health and Wellness. I am Phenoneptian. Today we have with us the Chief Environmental Health Officer, Mr. Pakar Ragnanan, who will provide us with some information on one of the regulations which is part of the Public Health Act. This is the Offensive and Hazardous Treat Regulation. Welcome to the programme. Thank you very much for having me. Wonderful. One of the regulations under the amended Public Health Act is the Offensive and Hazardous Trade Regulation. Can you give us a brief overview and some great insight into this? Right. So in the 1978 regulation, under the Public Health Act of 1975, you had the Offensive Trade Regulations. These regulations were put in place to look at different types of trades and the impact on the environment, the impact on human health. So you had under the 1978 regulations, which at the time was called the Offensive Trade Regulations, issues with regards to the slaughter of animals. And we can well understand what are some of the issues associated with slaughtering of animals. You talk about the noise, you talk about the disposal of offal, you talk about blood, you talk about hygiene requirements and generally you talk about the upkeep of the slaughter places. So slaughtering of animals from part of the Offensive Trade Regulations. You had issues with regards to the storage of hides. Now hides is really the skin of certain animals that were being used to, they were being cured and used for leather purposes, making leather and that kind of thing. Then you had soap making. You had the issue of chicken pens and raring of chicken, open fires. These were some of the areas that were included in the regulation way back in 1978. Under the amended regulations in 2020 under the amended Public Health Act, what happened is there were more areas added to the Offensive Trade Regulations. But it was also revised from just offensive trade to include hazardous trade. So now the amended regulation is called the Offensive and Hazardous Trade Regulation. What are some of the areas that we are talking about that were included in this amendment? They include things like glue, packaging and processing, form making, bleach manufacturing and certain chemical manufacturing, cement and cement products, quarrying, spraying of automobiles, garages, automobile repairs. We looked at areas such as printing and printing houses. We looked at jewelry making and added to that was the issue of woodworking joinery and spraying of furniture. Then we had as well not just chicken raring but also pig farming. So pig farms were added to the new regulations. And then we had areas such as incinerators. We have recycled facilities, charcoal making and welding plants. These were some of the additional areas, additional trades that were brought in under these regulations. So why? When we look at these activities, not only are there many public complaints that have been lodged as a result of these activities. These activities impact the environment. They also impact human beings and we can go into more detail as far as that is concerned. But these regulations were intended to do two things. One is to ensure that there is a regulatory framework by which these activities can continue to take place because the law is not in any way shape or form trying to prevent these activities. But what it is trying to do is to say that the accident requirements you must meet in order to adequately perform these activities. So that is the first part. The other part is we need to look at occupational health and safety issues. What are the hazards that people who work in this trade? What are the hazards are they exposed to? What mechanisms are put in place to be able to deal with these hazards and to manage these hazards? I'd like you to hold on to that thought. We are definitely due for a break. We will be back in a moment. In a world where germs are widespread comes a group of superhero germbusters, the germaphos. We spend most of our time fighting germs every day of the week. After I play, I wash my hands. Before I eat, I wash my hands. After I play with my puppy, I wash my hands. I cover my sneezes with my forearm or elbow when I am in public. And I cover my cough to avoid spreading dangerous germs. We are the germaphos, germ-bursting superheroes. You can be too. Always wash your hands and cover your sneeze and cough. Let's stop the spread of menacing germs. We will be back germaphos with more powerful germs. And we will be waiting to prevent you from spreading. Welcome back. We will continue our discussion with Mr. Pakal Ragnaral who is speaking on the offensive and hazardous trade regulation which is part of the Public Health Act. Before we took the break, we were discussing in terms of why the trades were added to the amended regulation. And you mentioned that the second one was occupational safety. If you can go a little more in depth on this. So protecting the health of employees, people who are engaged in that trade, is extremely important. They are exposed to certain hazards. So let's take spring of automobiles for example. The pins that I use and the different chemicals that I use in terms of applying it to the vehicle, the body and so forth. Other mechanisms, one, to be able to protect the health and well-being of a staff, the person who is applying that. So we need to look at the occupational hazards. This is what the regulation is trying to do, to look at the occupational hazards and to see that there must be adequate protective measures implemented to be able to deal with these hazards. So once we talk about exposure to certain hazards, we need to look at now how we can prevent these hazards. And it would include invariably the use of certain PPEs. Importantly, not all face masks, for example, would protect you from dust. They are different dust size, particulate matter sizes. And therefore you need to get specialized masks. So you need to know the type of trade to be able to determine the type of PPE because sometimes we will be wearing a dust mask, but it's not effective in what it's supposed to do. So occupational hazards are very, very important. We are seeing today, more than ever, that we have increased number of persons who are dying from cancer and cancers have become more prevalent. Enough research has not gone into Saint Lucia to find out exactly what are the causes of some of these things. But there's no doubt that people are unduly exposed to certain hazards, including chemical hazards, that may impact their health. Then you have the issue of people who are living in close proximity to where these activities are taking place. Very often we find that there are people who would tell you that they cannot breathe at home. I recently spoke to a lady and she said to me, she's afraid of falling asleep at night because she doesn't know if the smoke that is coming into her house is going to choke her because she has serious asthmatic condition.  And so she's afraid to fall asleep. That is just one of many. We have many persons who are complaining. And I understand charcoal is a short term thing, but when it starts the process, there is a lot of smoke associated with it. And therefore what we have is people are complaining that not even at night they can sleep properly because of the constant smoke and the smell that actually remains in the room. It stays there for days and they find difficulty breathing. There are many people who are underlining medical conditions, including asthma and other respiratory conditions like COPD.  Then there is the issue of being able to enjoy your home. And so you built an expensive house but you find you cannot go and see the sunset in your vorunda because you are constantly barraged by these hazards. The same thing happens not just for charcoal making, but we also have issues of some of the activities that we're talking about, such as the garages and the fumes that emanate from the operations of the garage. We have furniture making, not just the noise from the equipment, but the dust that is produced. And then when they spray this furniture, you also have aerosols that are affecting people. And depending as to where you are living, you are likely to get a heavy dose of these chemicals. Okay. So before we close, I just want you to tell Saint Lucien, for those persons who are in those amended trades, what is the new procedure? Do they require a license to actually practice those trades quickly? So the procedure, as was in 1978, there was need for a license to engage in certain trade that we were talking about. So the issue of a license is nothing new. A license has always been required for undertaking certain trades. These new areas have also come under a regulated area and there is a license for operating these trades. The license is stipulated in the law in such that if you do not want to engage in an activity for a full year and you want to do it for three months, you can pay the license for three months. It would be a quarter of the amount. Now a license under the new regulations is $100 a year. So if you want to engage in a trade for three months, the fee that you would pay for the license is just $25, not the $100. But if you want to go for six months, you pay half of the amount, which is $50. And if you want to go for the full year, then you pay the annual fee, which is $100. There has always been an inspection fee and that remains, so that has not changed. Thank you so much. Well, we have come to the end of the program for today. I want to thank you so much for giving us this valuable information as it relates to the offensive and hazardous trade regulation. Thank you so much. And thanks for having me. You have been watching Health Focus, a production of the Ministry of Health and Wellness. On behalf of the entire production team, I am Fernelle Netune. Thanks for watching. Until next time.


When my children were little we spent many afternoons at the Westport Library children's section and when I was there As my kids were looking through things I I would look for books on the table and I would flip through them and I'm just see what they were about And that's how I came across the book the happy hockey family Which I thought was absolutely delightful and that led us to the sequel the happy hockey family moves to the country And in that book the happy hockey family they go to county fairs and they enter fair contests And then they eventually win ribbons and that's what we have been doing ever since we are the And our story starts with SFPL