Blog of Daniel Baxter, now secure! :)

Free SSL from Let's Encrypt!

Alien: Covenant nonsense explained

A:C is the disappointing sequel to Prometheus. Prometheus wasn’t perfect, but at least it did break new ground and advance the story. A:C’s crowning achievement is to have stagnated the Alien back-story.

Prometheus Questions?

A lot of people were unnecessarily confused by Prometheus. So I might begin by going over a couple of the so-called “unanswered questions” from that film. 1. Why does David poison Charlie? Because he’s curious. It helps if you understand that David isn’t “evil”. 2. Why did the engineers want to kill humans? This question has answered by Ridley Scott himself – they go back to planets they seeded with life and wipe out life if they don’t like what was created, it’s that simple. It is also answered in the film itself – the Juggernaut was going to head to Earth roughly 2,000 years ago, suggesting that Jesus was taken to earth by the Engineers (either as an Engineer himself or from a more advanced society) and they were not pleased when he was crucified by the Romans. Or perhaps they simply wanted to use Earth to test their bioweapon. Maybe they want Earth for themselves. In any case the real unanswered question isn’t why did they want to destroy Earth – but why has no one been back to LV-223 in 2,000 years given that there are many Juggernauts loaded with the pathogen stored on the moon? And we have to assume that they were all victim to the accident that happened 2,000 years ago that killed the crew of the Earth-bound Juggernaut.

Okay so now we’ve got that out of the way let’s move onto the two possible directions the next story could have taken. Either the alien that bursts out of the engineer will stalk Shaw and David and follow them to to the engineer home-world, or it ends up on a different Juggernaut and ends up spawning the xenomorphs we are familiar with, and that Juggernaut ends up crashing onto LV-426. Or it just does nothing.

Now there’s one other question that no one ever asks regarding Prometheus, and that is why does the ancient constellation drawing lead them to a bioweapons facility and not the engineer home-world? The answer I believe is that it does lead to the home-world, they just chose the wrong star in the constellation to explore.

Alien: Covenant explained …

The one good thing I will say about A:C is that it does advance the overall narrative surrounding David and human space exploration. But that’s really as far as it gets. So let’s first work out what’s actually going on in A:C and then go from there. For the record I think the movie is fairly straightforward, going over these questions is just for the benefit of the audience.

1. Did David take Shaw to the engineer home world? I’m going to keep this simple and say that it probably is their home world. The main reason to think so is that it has a giant scorpion-shaped docking station for their Juggernaut ships.

2. How does the ship crash? The most likely explanation is that it was attacked after David drops the payload on the engineers/humanoids.

3. Why isn’t there another Juggernaut or spaceship on the planet somewhere? If there was David could escape the planet and continue his experimentations wherever he chooses. It does seem odd that there are no spaceships on the engineer home world, especially given the “many” number of them stockpiled on LV-223. How are they going to defend themselves from an attack? One possible explanation is that any spaceships on the planet fled after David unleashed the pathogen, but that doesn’t explain why they left him there for up to 10 years to further decimate their home world.

4. How does Shaw die? While the pilot engineer in Prometheus survives the crash, he is seen visibly injured. It’s likely Shaw simply died in the crash on impact. Perhaps she survives and later dies on the planet while marooned there with David either from the pathogen or from one of the many monsters the pathogen creates. Another explanation is that the alien at the end of Prometheus boarded their Juggernaut and made a face-hugger egg. Or she may have died from the original infection she contracted from Holloway as many more parasitic alien life forms grew inside of her. I doubt the last explanation as the parasitic aliens whether xenomorphs or other morphs always end up killing the host when they burst out. I also doubt the engineer’s morph had time to gestate and burst out of the engineer before they leave LV-223, and it is shown emerging after they have left the moon.

5. Why did David kill Shaw? I don’t think he did, the engineers killed her by attacking the docked Juggernaut.

6. Why did David kill the engineers? I don’t think that he thinks through the consequences of his actions very carefully. He wanted to experiment with the pathogen, but he also would have been fearful of the engineers killing him and Shaw.

7. How did David have time to experiment with the pathogen spawned life forms when he already killed all the hosts? Simple – he didn’t kill them all. He killed most of them in the initial attack on the city, but there would have been engineers both living elsewhere on the planet that survived this attack, and also under quarantined conditions or in other situations that led them to be unaffected by the vaporised pathogen after it had dissipated enough in the atmosphere. Notice the atmosphere itself was no longer toxic enough to kill the crew of the Covenant, and it wouldn’t have been toxic enough to kill all life on the whole of the planet unless David had gone and dispersed it properly which he didn’t do, he just dropped it all in once place.

8. How did David switch places with Walter? This question is actually far more difficult to explain. The android that runs to the ship has the exact facial wounds that Walter just sustained in the fight that no one other than he and David witnessed, AND doesn’t have the chin hole. The only way this could happen is if David uploads his consciousness into Walter – but the problem with that explanation is that he wouldn’t have the same ability to express his free will in Walter’s body as he’s a later more mellowed android. The more likely explanation is that we’ll have to ignore the facial scarring inconsistencies because come the next film when the engineers arrive to find their planet has been obliterated and Walter is there to explain to them what happened. Whatever happened, David would have had to have gone back to his workshop of horrors to swallow the face-hugger embryos to take with him.

9. Why does David help Daniels and Tennessee kill the xenomorph? David doesn’t have an agenda to kill the remaining crew and colonists of the Covenant. His agenda is to continue refining the xenomorph. Anyway, he can’t very well go about killing crew members and expect the ship’s computer to be complicit. He needs to take things slow and deliberately.

10. Why does David admire Shaw? I think there are two things here. Firstly, David and Shaw grew close on their journey to the engineer home world/”Planet 4″. Shaw repaired him, and he taught her to pilot the Juggernaut (yes obviously I’m ignoring the 4 minute prologue that purports to show David putting Shaw into hypersleep). They needed each other. Secondly, she is the presumed mother to his xenomorphs. He can’t start with the black goo as it’s a pathogen, so he starts with her living tissue (whatever remained of it) and opened her up so he could witness how the gestating monsters grow.

So where did it all go wrong?

Okay, Prometheus had some very annoying poorly thought through elements. Guy Pearce as Weyland. Vickers is Weyland’s daughter “plot-twist”. Vickers crushed by rolling Juggernaut. Weyland stowing away on the ship in secret. A “Pauling medical pod configured only” for men that “does bypass surgery, what do you need it for?”?! It obviously does more than just bypass surgery… and besides, wouldn’t they need something like it on their spaceship? Shaw able to get to the pod without the two other people subduing her, and able to take a Caesarean whilst fully conscious and then rush out of the pod to David and Weyland. But for all of its flaws it was a great film, it was scary, it had great visuals and well designed creatures, and the moon itself was just creepy.

A:C has none of this. It has a bunch of generic crew members who do stupid shit all film long, while exhibiting horror-cliché behaviour. The story is so formulaic that it is basically just the 1979 Alien story retold with no suspense. I baulked at the Guy Pearce and David scene. Now, retconned for no apparent reason, David must be at least 40 years old by the events of Prometheus and at least 50 by the events of Alien: Covenant! Um, what? To everyone in Prometheus David was the latest technology. Next we meet the bland and unlikable crew. I’m not even sure that we like Daniels the lead female in this film to be honest. The creature design in this film is terrible – okay sure the protomorph is OK, the facehuggers too. But the xenomorphs are a joke.

I think the worst part is that it’s just not a scary film. The setting isn’t creepy, and the xenomorphs are not in the least bit scary. And the reason why they’re not scary is because they barely kill anyone, and when they do they are people who are doing stupid shit not being alert and vigilant. We also are not invested in the crew – the best example of this is in the Walter and David showdown. Now if there was Bishop we would have rooted for him – but Walter is just a generic droid/synthetic that we don’t care about. And that’s fine, we don’t need to be invested in Walter, but it also means there’s no point in doing a final showdown with David. It doesn’t really make any sense anyway – sure Walter perceives David as a threat to the crew and colonists of the Covenant… but Ash is a more advanced synthetic and he has no problem with ‘crew expendable’. And also, it was the wrong way to end the film – Alien and Aliens both end with the xenomorph being flushed into space – why recycle the same plot AGAIN??

Jodie Whittaker as Doctor Who?

I see that there’s a lot of discussion about the 13th Doctor’s casting. Much of it is focused on whether it’s a good idea or a bad idea to cast a woman in the role. As usual I’m here to address the questions that no one else will.

Paul McGann nailed the role. And not only did he do that, but he did it in just one made-for TV movie. Every other actor to play Doctor Who had the ability to grow into the role. We in fact see this very clearly with David Tennant – the Christmas special was not his finest moment, but he improved in the first series and nailed the role. Christopher Eccleston nailed the role from the very first episode of his series.

And then we had Matt Smith. The less said about the 11th Doctor the better. He was completely miscast. In fact, speaking of miscast Doctors, David Bradley is also horribly miscast as the First Doctor as well. Well why do I say this? Eccleston was only 40 when he first appeared as Doctor Who filmed in 2004. But he presented the dual persona of a middle-aged man with a wide-eyed youthful enthusiasm for adventure. And that’s who Doctor Who is, in a nutshell. Tennant had more emphasis on the wide-eyed youthful enthusiasm side of Doctor Who, and less on the middle-aged man solving problems, but he still struck a balance. Smith was cast to replicate this but failed miserably – it’s likely that he was just too young to play Doctor Who. To make matters worse, Moffat’s tenure has been plagued with problems – he just doesn’t seem to understand how to make satisfying story-arcs, or follow through with consequences.

So, why is Bradley miscast I hear you ask? I should be blindingly obvious. William Hartnell was 5’8. He carried his chin high and looked up to taller men around him. Bradley is 5’11”. So far he has never carried himself the way that Hartnell did, and unless all of the supporting actors are taller than 6’2″, it’s quite unlikely that he will. To put this into context, Jodie Whittaker is William Hartnell’s height.

So should we be concerned with the casting of Jodie Whittaker? Well maybe. For 2018, she’s one year older than Tennant was when he took the reigns in 2006. Doctor Who is not really a part for Young actors – most actors to have played the role were in their 40’s or 50’s. In fact, of the first 7 doctors, Davidson was the only actor not to be aged in his 40’s or 50’s. Since that time there have been five more doctors: McGann, Eccleston, Tennant, Smith, and Capaldi. Two of those actors were in their 40’s or 50’s. That brings the total up to eight actors to date out of 12.

Of the younger actors McGann and Tennant were absolutely extraordinary. Davidson carried the role well as well. Smith on the other hand did not. And then to make matters worse, we’ve had people grow up watching Smith who were then shocked with Capaldi’s more Hartnell-like performance.

Now to be fair, you might say that well Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy weren’t that great either.

I would also say that the abolishment of two-part episodes has weakened the series under Moffat. The original series was a serialised show. I think the loss of that serialisation has hurt the show – single episode 45-minute instalments are not the ideal format for all of the stories.

I still remember when I first saw Tennant after the regeneration at the end of Series 1. I was extremely sceptical. But Tennant managed to pull off the role admirably. The biggest question I have over Jodie is not whether a woman should be cast, but whether she’s the right age to play Doctor Who or not. I don’t think she is – I think the series thrives on casting actors in their 40’s-50’s. Does that necessarily mean she’ll do a bad job? Of course not, we’ll wait and see. Most of the younger actors actually did well in the role, it’s only Smith in my opinion who didn’t.

I would hope that the design team thinks seriously about the TARDIS interior. Or they do what was done with Tom Baker and have a season without it at all. It would be a disaster to hand her Capaldi’s TARDIS interior. Returning to a traditional white interior would in fact be most welcome. I do also think it would be great to give the Eighth Doctor a season or two. McGann is an absolutely amazing actor, in his single appearance he nailed the role, and is currently the right age to play the Doctor.

All of this said though I am please to see end of Moffat as showrunner! I wish all the best for Chibnall and Whittaker!

The future of the web is ad-free

Your future and my future are certainly ad-free. We use uBlock Origin and the MVPS hosts file.

I’m about to tell you what all those people on Youtube and other places have missed, when they cry foul of adblockers, or put up anti-adblock messages. Are you ready?

It used to be that only the tech-savvy knew how to navigate their way around such things. That was way back when though. Times have moved on since the 90’s, and the so-called tech-savvy are in a group I would be hard-pressed to define other than that we love computers and love to tweak, test, modify, and when necessary code. The problem that others don’t realise is that what used to be “tech-savvy” is the new norm. Times have moved on, and people have become aware they don’t need to buy Microsoft Office at a retail store and can either get a legal copy as cheap as $70 or use free software instead. I remember way back when a less tech-savvy guy had had his computer infected with a virus and the first thing he did afterward was (of course) to buy Norton Antivirus, and went on to say how great it was. He could have installed AVG for free instead, and at the time I had no idea why he would choose a paid option.

No one likes ads. So just to make this clear this post isn’t at all about whether or not ads have a right to exist, I think they do, but collectively we all hate them. Internet ads pose significant privacy issues, although that’s well beyond the scope of this post.

I think it would have been great to invest in Google in 2000, and to sell your shares now. Actually that may not be great financial advice. But look, Google is a cunt of a company. I’ve said so countless times before. Why only this week they have be fined over 2 billion Euros by the EU for something that I criticised WAY BACK FUCKING WHEN! Why was I the only one that cared that they removed the google product search and replaced it with the shopping tab. JESUS CHRIST am I really the only person on the whole internet that noticed this? It happened on 31 May 2012.

The business model of certain companies is to keep people down. Sometimes that includes consumers. But what we have seen, if nothing else, over the last 20 years is the internet build into something accessible to everyone. And everyone deserves privacy, and the best possible experience going forward. The golden age of internet advertising is over. And it didn’t come soon enough!

Do you see any ads on my blog? Of course not. I’m just grateful you took the time to read this, I hope your experience navigating and loading the site was smooth, and I don’t want a cent from you.

Time for a new Doctor Who

And I don’t mean the actor. I mean the show runner. There were some things about Russell T that I didn’t like, but overall he did a much better job than Steven Moffat. And I’m going to explain in detail why Moffat goes wrong.

Firstly, he fails time and time again to build genuine mystery into the shows. Think about the cliff hanger at the end of “Empty Child” for example. Moffat perfers to have a stronger focus on single-episode stories, and that’s fine, but we shouldn’t know what’s going on until the third act of the story. Yet how many times does he give the game away right from the very start?

Secondly, and this is very closely tied to the first point, he has Doctor Who explaining way too much to his companions. For example, in the penultimate episode for Series 10, he has them encounter the genesis of the Mondasian Cybermen. Okay, that’s fine. But why did he have to give the game away right from the very fucking start? We knew that the Cyberman and two versions of the Master would be in the final episodes. Think about this, he already made the same mistake with Dark Water. Dark Water’s reveal would have worked brilliantly if we didn’t expect Cyberman at the end of the episode. And worse still, the second part was completely lacklustre.

No one would have known what the proto-Mondasian Cybermen were if we didn’t expect the Mondasian Cybermen. No one would have expected that Razor was really John Simm’s Master in disguise. Instead I easily recognised Simm early in the episode during one of Razor’s conversations with Bill.

Instead Jorj shoots a hole in Bill’s chest. That is followed by an annoying and unnecessary flashback. Why is there a flashback? Well because Moffat didn’t built the story into the series properly – had he done that he could have dropped all the subtle hints he wanted along the way and not need to do any flashbacks. I also suspect he did it because he thinks it mirrors The Tenth Planet somehow (even though there are no flashbacks in that episode).

One of the biggest flaws in this episode is the time dilation. It could have worked brilliantly. But it just doesn’t work. For one thing, they must have waited several years before sending men up to bring Bill down to the hospital – according to how long it takes for time to move at the top of the ship compared to the bottom. Also, it means Bill has waited for years – yet her hair stays in exactly the same style, and she only ever meets three human characters? It just doesn’t feel like she’s been there for years, it feels forced – just like Matt Smith’s supposed 300 years on Trenzalore. Not only that, but Cybermen are supposed to be emotionless creatures – stop toying with them and bring them back to their basics.

Finally, I’m not looking forward to the final. I think if Moffat had stuck to the basics it could have made for a great episode, but there will just be way too much going on. We essentially know at this point that Capaldi’s Doctor begins regenerating at the end of the series. The working theory, well mine anyway, is that he “degenerates” back to the first Doctor, at least for the duration of the Christmas special, before taking on his 14th Doctor form. Now again, that would be a great way to mirror Romana’s regeneration way back in season 17, if we didn’t expect it. But I think at this point that’s what we’re expecting to see in the Christmas special.

And this is all down to Maffat. All these problems are avoidable. He went ahead and told everyone that “this regeneration will be different” – WHY?? Why not just wait until the show airs and let people discover it for themselves, this is the show runner himself running the series reveals well in advance of them happening! I look forward to what Chibnall will bring, hopefully he will learn from the mistakes that Moffat made, and bring us a series more in line with RTD’s tenure.

So-called “talent” and “competition” shows

Pink tribute artist Zoe Alexander on X-Factor UK Auditions:

What a train wreck? Well no. It wasn’t, let me explain what happened here.

The “audition shows” on these talent shows are not the real audition, the real audition happens weeks or months beforehand. People go and appear before producers, and the producers decide who is going to go on to the television audition shows and appear before the judges. They are not looking for talent. Let me repeat this: they are not interested in talent. Darci Lynne Farmer got the golden buzzer on “America’s Got Talent”, even though she wasn’t a particularly good ventriloquist.

If they were looking for talent then talent-less people couldn’t get through to the audition shows in the first place. The producers only care about entertainment – they let some people through specifically so they can be thoroughly humiliated on television, which is what happened in this case. Although Zoe is obviously not completely talent-less, they set her up to fail, probably because they discovered she had a tendency for angry outbursts during her audition in front of the producers.

After her audition one of the judges says to her “I’m confused because you said you wanted your own identity as a singer, but then you did a Pink song”. And she says “I didn’t want to sing a Pink song, you guys told me to sing a pink song. I didn’t want to sing a Pink song, I wanted to be me, you guys told me to sing a Pink song”. The judges all say “we didn’t tell you sing a Pink song”. Hmm, really? So Zoe’s just completely stupid and irate over nothing? No – I’ll tell you exactly what happened. The producers told her they wanted her to sing So What by Pink. Whatever you’re going to perform you have to have pre-approval from the producers, she didn’t want to sing Pink but did it because the producers on the show told her to. Then they edited the end of the audition to make it appear that she was accusing the judges specifically of asking for a Pink song.

“It is contrived, it is manipulative, and if you want to get through on that show you do not need to have talent. All you’ve got to do is give them a good sob story. And they do love exploiting people’s problems on that show. Offer up a talent that they would never expect to come from that contestant. Throw in some crap about how great Britain is, Amanda will love that. And then whatever rubbish you perform in front of the judges they will tell you it was the most incredible performance they’ve ever seen, because without that hype the millions of viewers watching at home just might start to notice just how devoid of talent the acts actually are.” Simon Brodkin

Simon Brodkin’s BGT Success Formula:

  1. You don’t need talent
  2. Give them a sob story
  3. Make your act unexpected
  4. Be patriotic

To see this in action view this:

Who buried Jesus – was he even buried?

One lie perpetrated by Evangelicals is that we atheists can’t explain what happened to the body of Jesus after he was crucified. We actually don’t know what happened, and don’t claim to know, but can put forward a number of different options all of which enjoy scholarly support. In addition I have formed a new hypothesis over how the resurrection myth started.

Why is this important, does it matter?

I think the brutal attacks from fundamentalists on both extremes go to show why it is. Fundamentalists, whether theists or atheists, have a narrow closed-minded perception of reality, with a dogmatic view that their beliefs are without any error and anyone who disagrees is stupid. And they are the ones that have in my experience used this question as a personal attack on my intelligence, or on the intelligence of others. Often claiming that it’s not worth consideration. Well, there are several academic disciplines of study that disagree. Saying that it’s stupid is no different to saying that studying science or philosophy is a complete waste of time. In fact I now believe that children should be taught in schools about all the major religions – not indoctrinated, but taught about their beliefs, their histories, their creeds, their ceremonies, their requirements, their texts, and their religious leaders. That is how we advance – through education. Religion is a natural phenomena of the world, just like language is, and culture, and social structures. We find language and social structures in animals as well. Mindlessly attacking people’s religions is about as intelligent as mindlessly attacking their culture or language.

I have been looking into piecing together what happened in the first century after Jesus died for the last 5 years. Since before I de-converted from Christianity.  It interests me, it may not interest anyone else, but I’ve already developed new and fresh ideas. I’m not claiming they’re unique, in fact I rather doubt it, but they are my ideas that I came up with independently.

Was Jesus crucified?

It is fair to ask whether Jesus was even crucified at all. Perhaps he fled to India as some believe, or perhaps he was executed through a less public spectacle such as beheading. On this I am happy to take the New Testament accounts. For two reasons, the most important of which is the fact that it formed the basis of early Christian theological thought right from the very start as evidenced in the Pauline epistles, the gospels and other early Christian books and writings. Many scholars have pointed out the difficulty in explaining the origin of such a mythology if it had no historical basis. But look, with that said they struggle to explain the origins of many other mythologies also that are not believed to have a historical basis either. Most historians agree that if Jesus was killed through a less humiliating method then that narrative would have survived, and if he had not died that he would have continued peaching for which there is no evidence.

Was Jesus buried?

I honestly don’t know. What I can say for certain is that scholars can trace the belief that he was buried right back to the 30’s AD. It’s important as it serves the basis for early Christian theology. But that the early apostles believed it to have happened of course doesn’t prove it for certain, just as their belief that Jesus had been risen to the heavens isn’t proven but was also an important early theological belief. The difference between the two is that one is a claim to the natural world, and the other the supernatural. Supernatural claims don’t require ordinary terrestrial evidence.

But what is the evidence? The synoptic gospels make it clear that the disciples abandon Jesus before he’s strung up to die – so they weren’t there to witness his anguish, or his death, or his burial. The earliest accounts that are given (particularly Mark, but also Acts and Luke) say that the Jews buried Jesus.

You may have read the claim that Bart Ehrman makes that Jesus would have been left to rot on the cross and not buried. I doubt he’s the only scholar that thinks that way. It’s certainly possible that Jesus was left on the cross and was not buried, and the literature reveals that possibility cannot be ruled out despite what the gospels claim. I suppose one good reason for this is the fact that it was known that some people chose suicide over crucifixion in the ancient world because they knew their bodies would be buried. There are several things however that makes this less likely: 1. If Jesus’ crime was seen by the Romans as being so bad as to refuse burial, why did they not persecute the disciples? The Romans appear to have been satisfied to execute only Jesus, and leave his followers alone. 2. Jewish culture would not have allowed the Jews to tolerate it, without at least protesting and requesting burial from the Roman authorities. 3. The earliest account of the Passion (Mark) is not that flattering to Jesus. For this I will draw on the teachings found in Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World by John Granger Cook…

Crucifixion was a slow, miserable, and utterly shameful way to die. Jesus of Nazareth did not wish to be crucified, and he certainly didn’t enjoy the experience. And in fact the Bible says as much as Jesus is said to let out a cry of dereliction “Eloi Eloi Lema Sabachthani”/ “My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?” Of course we don’t know that Jesus actually cried this out, in fact I rather doubt it for reasons that will become apparent. However the gospel writer did not attempt to insert any “song of victory” into Jesus’ misery on the cross, unlike modern Christian theology. And after Jesus died he was not even buried by his loved ones or given a decent burial, a fact pointed in the New Oxford Annotated Bible:

“Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the council that had condemned Jesus (see 14.64), but like the scribe in 12.28–34, interested in the kingdom of God, asked for the body. Apparently eager to dispose of it before the sabbath, he wrapped it,and secured it in a rock tomb sealed with a heavy stone (cf. 16.3n), without even a gesture of proper burial rites.” (p.1823).

As the Biblical account of Jesus’ burial is so unflattering I find it difficult to believe it has no basis in reality. If you were going to make up a burial for your messiah, why not invent a proper burial?

Who buried Jesus?

I have had a hard time believing that a disciple buried Jesus. I hypothesised that the family of Jesus would have been far more likely to bury him than his disciples who fled from Jerusalem when he was arrested. But then I discovered something interesting, something very few Christians are even aware of (I certainly wasn’t), and that is that there are not four accounts of Jesus’ death and burial in the Bible, there is in fact a fifth in Acts 13:

“Because the residents of Jerusalem and their leaders did not recognize him or understand the words of the prophets that are read every sabbath, they fulfilled those words by condemning him. Even though they found no cause for a sentence of death, they asked Pilate to have him killed. When they had carried out everything that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.” (Acts 13:27-29, NRSV)

Armed with this knowledge I delved deeper by reading some academic literature and considering the information in a new light. All the gospels claim that a man named Joseph of Arimathea claimed the corpse of Jesus from Pilate and then went and laid him into a stone-cut tomb. All the gospels agree that he was a “member of the council”. It’s only two gospels, Matthew and John that make the claim that he was a disciple. A claim that is almost certainly false for a number of obvious reasons, and if true would contradict the account in Acts completely.

Now, some Christians claim that the “they” in Acts 13:29 refers to a different group. To that I say, I have a difficult time believing that the author meant another group that he didn’t mention. And if that is the case, if it can be read that way, why is it that all English translations give the clear reading that the “they” are the Jews that brought Jesus to Pilate to have him killed? When all English translations read exactly the same way and you want to read it in a different way then you better have a pretty good piece of evidence to support your reading as the onus of proof is on you.

My hypothesis was that the family would be the most likely to bury someone who had been crucified. This hypothesis brought on problems however for Jesus’ burial. Nowhere in the gospels does it claim that the family of Jesus claimed the body. And if they had then the empty tomb myth could not have developed, at least not unchallenged.

So the conclusion is this – the Jews buried Jesus, just as the Bible claims they did. Probably not though in a nice stone-cut tomb as claimed though.

How did the empty tomb myth begin?

I have developed a new hypothesis. The disciples as we know fled before Jesus was crucified. They had no way of knowing how long it took for him to die, what he said on the cross, or where he was buried by the Jews. Furthermore, the family of Jesus did not know either, because if they were there then they would have been the ones to claim the body and bury it.

So here is what I think happened: Some of the disciples returned after Jesus had been crucified. It might only have been one disciple such as Peter, or it could even have been one of the women. They went and searched out his cross and found it empty. The body was gone. Not from the tomb, but from the cross. They then went and told the other disciples “the body is gone”. I don’t think they realised that the Jews had gone ahead and buried the body at that time, and by the time they did realise it they couldn’t find where it had been laid. For this reasons I doubt the narrative that a specific person named Joseph of Arimathea buried the body, because if they did know who buried it then they could have found the tomb/grave.

What about the resurrection myth?

This is actually rather easy to explain. Interestingly Evangelicals often claim that the disciples would not have believed without proof, and that therefore Christianity would not have started. Nonsense. These same Evangelical Christians believe that their loved ones are risen to the heavens after death with no empirical evidence. Belief in the afterlife does not now, and never has before, require proof. And that’s all that the resurrection started out as – the belief that Jesus had been risen to the heavens.

I think we can say pretty confidently that some of the disciples had visions of Jesus soon after his death. Again, Evangelicals claim this is evidence – it’s not. It happens. It’s perfectly normal that some people experience visions of deceased loved ones. Sometimes they’re extremely vivid and contain conversations.

Prison break series 5 review (SPOILERS)

Well, with the last episode having aired in the US, it’s time for me to give my review. In my first review I suggested that the series started well, but I was sceptical of where it would go. Well I was not wrong. I was originally going to post this before the last episode aired as I thought it was blindingly obvious how it would wrap up (and it was), so I’ll go through what I rightly predicted as well. In fact I may as well start there.

Paul Scheuring stated before the season even began that Prison Break series 5 is based on The Odyssey by Homer. So for this reason the finale was predictable. For example, in The Odyssey the Greek hero Odysseus outsmarts Poseidon and successfully traps him. So for that reason I knew that Michael was going to trap Poseidon somehow, and that he didn’t have any intention of killing him. Poseidon in both the Odyssey and in Prison Break is overly confident that Odysseus/Michael can’t possibly outsmart him.

So I knew Michael was going to outsmart and trap Poseidon in the finale – what else did I know? Well I knew that neither he, Sarah, or Mike could die, and probably not Linc too. I also knew that it was Poseidon’s henchman Van Gogh that gets shot at the end of the penultimate episode. I didn’t know where Sarah was, I will admit, and I think that was a huge cop-out and let down to have her so easily escape. I had also worked out that Michael didn’t actually want T-Bag and Whip to kill Poseidon, I didn’t even think it was Poseidon he asked them to kill, and I also knew that Michael actually didn’t care about either of them – I knew that from Poseidon’s Game Theory speech he gave to Sarah: “You make them love you so much that when they’re up against it their loyalty will make them act against their own best interests”. Michael had already manipulated Whip into killing Ramal for him, and Sid into sacrificing himself for the good of the team. I also knew that Blue Hawaii would have a role, although in hindsight I should have known that he would have been involved in the trap. Oh, and I knew that most of the information encoded in his tatts was useless and intended to waste Poseidon’s time.

Overall the season finale was lacklustre. It was thoroughly predictable. Yes the trap itself was executed very well, but the sub-plots were hastily wrapped up in a dissatisfying way for the main part, and “errors”/contradictions made throughout the series were not addressed – I guess they really were errors. Also, the tatto on the back of his hands was never in the previous episodes (although I did wonder why his knuckles were always black) – and it was revealed in the promo for the episode – bad form! You want proof that the tat isn’t there? Here:





Now here’s what I do love about the finale – Michael spectacularly manipulated and betrayed Whip. Now that was beautiful in its own dark-twisted way to show the dark side of Michael. The mechanical hand that he gives T-Bag has a purpose – so that T-Bag will betray his own best interests and land back in gaol. Speaking of which, how the fuck was he released after only 7 years? Why change the fucking timeline to begin with? The original show Seasons 1-4 take place in 2005, not 2010. As a part of the betrayal, Michael lies to T-Bag and Whip and claims that Poseidon will go after him – when in fact there’s no evidence at all that Poseidon has given Whip a second thought, and Whip would be in no danger so long as he remained ignorant of Poseidon’s identity. Anyway, great to see that betrayal and they’re both none the wiser. On the other hand, the relationship between T-Bag and Whip never felt very satisfying.

I also didn’t buy the final scene where Michael has asked the CIA to have Poseidon placed in T-Bag’s cell. Michael wants Poseidon to suffer, not face instant death at the robo-hand of T-Bag… although I doubt that T-Bag actually killed him as is implied in the final scene (he wouldn’t kill someone in his own cell, he’s not that stupid). It was anticlimactic and unnecessary.

So overall, this series just pushed too many subplots that went nowhere. It should have focused itself entirely on Michael’s slow meticulous plan unfolding, and not wasted time on anticlimactic victories along the way. Instead they wanted to do way too many things – Michael has to “escape” the prison, Michael has to “escape” Yemen and ISIS, Michael has to be saved from being poisoned, Michael has to smuggle himself to the US, Michael has to outsmart and get revenge from Poseidon. Also, Linc has to free himself from the debt and get the girl. Jesus it was pathetic.

Mythicism: Why recognising atheist fundamentalism matters

Atheists often deny they have a specific world-view. I would contend that any strongly held world-view is prone to fundamentalist style beliefs. Whether it’s in history, science, religion, paranormal, health, or society. One prominent feature of fundamentalists is that they evaluate information under their own set of rules that are in conflict with best practise methods. I’m not trying to insult people by using the term fundamentalism, I just think it’s important we recognise dogmatic views for what they are. I’m also not an anti-religious atheist, I believe people should be free to practise their religions, but obviously not to impose their beliefs on others.

Defining fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is sometimes easy to identify, but difficult to define. Believing in creationism over evolution, and denying the holocaust are two prominent examples of fundamentalist beliefs. But I suspect that most of us have some fundamentalist beliefs, just not as obvious as those. Holocaust denial is very well supported (believe it or not) in the Islamic world – they have thousands of scholars who put forward this view. I was actually shocked to learn that, and I do think it raises legitimate questions over how much we can trust historians in general to determine facts about the past in an unbiased way. Although I would strongly caution my readers to believe a systemic problem amongst Islamic scholars in the Middle East would affect scholars in the Western world.

The key characteristic of any fundamentalist belief is that it is based on rules or knowledge that are not set or agreed upon by the experts in the relevant fields of study, and when confronted with this the belief is generally not affected. It’s a closed system that is not interested in information provided by the outside world. It’s often based on people’s instincts or on flawed logic. I can even give an example, I met a very nice and intelligent gentleman a while ago with a very fundamentalist belief that we are over-educating the population. I cited facts and evidence, and his response was “well my instincts disagree”. His belief is almost certainly tied to a strongly-held world view, and he’s not interested in what the evidence says.

The definition that I put forward therefore is one where there is a strongly held belief system tied to some kind of world-view that is resistant to change even when presented with overwhelming evidence that disproves the belief.


Fundamentalist beliefs can be associated with denialist beliefs. A denialist belief is usually associated with an opposite fundamentalist belief – denying the theory of Evolution or science altogether in favour of creationism. Denying the validity of psychiatry as a science in favour of fundamentalist Scientologist beliefs. Denying the holocaust in favour of fringe outlier theories. Denying that HIV causes AIDS in favour of a fringe outlier theory. Denialism is most commonly associated with history and with science. With both fundamentalism and denialism, people will often not make use of the set of methods developed by the experts to test their theory, and instead use their own methods. Because of this, the historical data or the scientific data does not end up affecting fundamentalist and denialist beliefs.

Honourable example

I’ll start with an example well supported in the literature, which does not have any religious ties. I’m talking of course about the chiropractic theory of disease. This “theory” of disease puts forward the view that misalignments of the vertebra is the cause of all human ailments. It totally rejects germ theory and the associated modern biomedical theories of disease. This is called a fundamentalist belief in the peer review literature. Now it is true that many chiropractors have a “soft” view of the chiropractic theory of disease, where they believe that misaligned vertebra are one of many causes of disease along with bacteria, viruses, and other causes. That’s less denialist, but it’s still fundamentalist as every other modern practitioner rejects the chiropractic theory of disease. I should point out that believe it or not, there are even chiropractors that call themselves chiropractors but don’t believe the chiropractic theory of disease at all! I think that’s hugely unethical and is akin to psychics that know they aren’t psychic (which is all of them) but tell you they are anyway.

Now, does this mean that everyone that goes to a chiropractor is stupid? Well no, so long as they’re not using chiropractic medicine to replace best practise medicine, it’s not going to do any harm and you might get a placebo effect. Although I should say that I have an ethical problem with parents that gets this kind of treatment for a child.

Why is mythicism a fundamentalist belief?

Mythicism, the theory that Jesus didn’t exist as a historical person, is unquestionably a fundamentalist belief. It’s tied to the denialist view that historians are not competent in their assessments of history. Now this is a denialist view that I used to have as a Christian, and that view softened over time, and as atheist I now have the utmost respect for historians as professionals. They are no longer a threat to my world-view – but if your world-view is that Jesus did not exist as a historical person, then it is tied to a denialist view of associated academic professions. “Part of the problem may be an insufficient acquaintance with how historians work with the limited data available” (Larry Hurtado, 2012) … perhaps Larry, and that might be true of some mythicists, however for fundamentalists the historical data does not end up affecting their belief.

Let’s quickly remind ourselves of a few characteristics of fundamentalist and denialist beliefs. 1. They are internally logical when you’re in that bubble. 2. They are often socially constructed and linked to in-group beliefs. 3. Often linked to strongly held world-views including religious or political views. 4. They do not make use of set of methods that experts use to test their theories and determine truth. 5. There may be cognitive dissonance and epistemological leaps involved to reconcile facts about reality to fit within a person’s world-view. 6. Often based on instinct or logic. 7. There can be an overestimation or an underestimation of the quality and level of evidence that exists to support or disprove their belief. Put together this gives us a picture of why perfectly intelligent  people can believe seemingly irrational things.

Mythicism meets most of the criteria set in the previous paragraph. Most notably, mythicists refuse to use the set of tools that historians would ordinarily use to determine historicity of an ancient person or event – and this is true even of Richard Carrier which we will get to shortly. It also ignores the overwhelming academic consensus – just as there is scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS (despite the persistent outliers), there is academic consensus that Jesus was a historical person amongst scholars of the ancient world. And finally, they refuse to present credible evidence for their theory, and insist that the evidence used by historians isn’t valid.

Mythicists can be every bit as dogmatic as fundamentalist Christians, knowing with absolute certainty that they are “right”. They decide what they want to believe, and then ignore everything that disagrees with their belief, and chastise everyone who believes differently. That makes them fundamentalists.

Who are the mythicists scholars?

Mythicism is such an extreme example of a fundamentalist belief that it doesn’t enjoy the support of even a few hundred scholars: it enjoys the “support” (if you can call it that) of only about six, and that’s stretching it. Three of the mythicist scholars are Christians! Mythicists often mistakenly put forward the view that mythicist scholars are atheists as justification for their view, well I’ve got news for you guys: Thomas L Brodie and Thomas L Thompson are Roman Catholic theologians, scholars, and mythicists! What on earth are you guys going to say next – that I’m dishonest and made this up? No – read their bios, they both identify themselves as Christians, and Brodie is a priest. Tom Harpur who passed away this year was an ordained Anglican priest, journalist, theologian and scholar. He’s no longer living, so the third scholar I’m counting is of course Robert M Price.

Brodie is a well qualified and respected New Testament scholar. However, he has held his mythicist belief since before he studied to be a theologian and scholar. He puts forward the view that the gospels are patched together from existing Old Testament stories to create a new narrative, and his evidence are parallels that he identifies from the Old Testament. The methods that he used have been highly criticised by his peers including other mythicists as being wrong. Which isn’t surprising since those are the methods that convinced him before he studied to be a scholar, and goes right to the very hart of fundamentalism: that fundamentalists insist upon using their own questionable methods. He also flat-out denies all historical evidence for Jesus outside of the New Testament, and denies there was an oral tradition before the gospels. He believes Acts of the Apostles is a literary creation as well. His peers have pointed out that he lacks evidence to support his theory, and after 40 years you would think he could have come up with some decent evidence if it existed.

The late Tom Harpur put forward the view that the gospels were patched together from ancient pagan mythologies. I know, this is a direct contradiction of Brodie’s theory – contradicting each other’s theories is actually a common trait amongst mythicist scholars! Harpur was a fully qualified New Testament scholar, also well qualified in classics, and yes he held a teaching position. Harper claimed that the second or third century church forged all the scriptures, and then covered up all the evidence. The methods used in his investigation have been highly criticised by his peers. And like most other mythicists, other mythicists criticised his theory as well. Also, Egyptologists rejected his assertions that parts of the gospels were based on Egyptian etymology.

Thompson is a Old Testament scholar, and puts forward the view that Jesus is so enriched in mythology that he can’t be shown to have existed, at least not from the canonical gospels. Ehrman has criticised him for lacking expertise in New Testament studies. Thompson has not put forward a case regarding the remaining evidence outside of the gospels, which include the letters of Paul, Acts of the Apostles, the other New Testament writings, Annals by Tacitus, and Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus. Furthermore he denies that he believes Jesus not to have existed, his belief is what some people call “soft mythicism”.

The late Dorothy Milne Murdock was a questionably qualified classicist who put forward the view that Jesus and the gospels were based on Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and other mythologies. Her website is still up if you wish to check. Her methods have been highly criticised by her peers, including Robert Price and Richard Carrier (two fellow mythicists). Ehrman found numerous factual errors and assertions made in her book and said “Mythicists of this ilk should not be surprised that their views are not taken seriously by real scholars, mentioned by experts in the field, or even read by them.” (Ehrman, 2012). She was also a conspiracy theorist. I say she was questionably qualified because while she had a bachelors degree in classics, she did not work as a professional historian or hold a teaching position. I only use her as an example of the questionably qualified “scholars”, I’m not going into greater detail of others such as Earl Doherty, as I don’t think they should be counted when discussing the number of active mythicist scholars.

The late George Albert Wells who died in January of this year was a professor of German and not a bible scholar. Wells has certainly been the single most influential mythicist of our generation, having written several books putting forward his position that Jesus did not exist. He is also the only mythicist worth taking seriously, given that he accrued support from other mythicist scholars. Wells was not a New Testament scholar, and (as is becoming the overarching theme) his peers criticised the methods that he used to obtain his conclusions. But in the 1990’s he rightly became convinced of the Q document hypothesis, and from then until the day he died he believed Jesus to be a historical person shifting to a being a “soft mythicist”. He changed his view when new information was brought to light that disproved his theory, which is what any good investigator should do.

Robert M Price describes himself as a Christian atheist. He’s a New Testament scholar, a former Baptist minister, a professor of textual criticism, and a theologian – he’s very well qualified. He is agnostic on the historicity of Jesus, claiming that the evidence is insufficient. A claim as already pointed out, rejected by all non-mythicist scholars of antiquity. Furthermore he rejects the authenticity of the Pauline epistles and is agnostic on the historicity of Paul of Tarsus, which even other mythicists like Carrier think is absurd. In arriving at his position Price either refuses to use or ignores whole methods commonly used in ancient studies. Price’s view that the “evidence is insufficient” is the one most often put forward by atheists who think that Jesus was not a real historical figure, despite the fact that he lacks the support of other mythicist scholars, and despite the fact mythicists usually go way further than his agnosticism when attempting to prosecute their fundamentalist argument.

Hector Avalos is “agnostic” on the historicity of Jesus. He’s a New Testament scholar, former Pentecostal preacher, and currently a professor of religious studies. Going on that article he wrote, he doesn’t seem to believe in textual criticism which is a textbook fundamentalist trait!! Textual criticism is how we know which books Paul really wrote, and whether or not there have been edits, such as 2 Corinthians which is believed to be a composite of Pauline letters rather than a single letter. His views are actually very similar to Robert Price, and like Price he says he’s agnostic on the historicity of Jesus. Which is surprising since in his actually published academic books he doesn’t challenge the historicity of Jesus. Unlike Price, he’s never denied that Paul of Tarsus was a historical first-century Apostle who wrote several letters including Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians. Unlike Price he’s quite anti-religious.

Finally, there is Richard Carrier and Raphael Lataster. I know I said I wouldn’t discuss any further questionably qualified scholars, but given that Carrier is by far the loudest mythicist on the planet we can’t leave him out. Lataster is currently a PhD candidate and does hold a teaching position at the University of Sydney, making him somewhat qualified. Carrier is qualified in ancient history and classics, he’s an atheist, a Taoist, and has never held a teaching position. All Lataster’s books including the one he co-wrote with Carrier are self-published, and Carrier’s books are published with populist non-academic publishers a fact that has been widely pointed out by his critics. So I really don’t want to give the impression that they’re qualified on this – because they aren’t – but nevertheless Carrier is cited more than any other mythicist scholar by atheists who are on the mythicist bandwagon. I really don’t know why people take him seriously.

Anyway, I do want to be very specific here. Carrier uses something called the Bayes’ theorem to test the hypothesis that Jesus was historical, and then claims that it proves that the historicity of Jesus is improbable. No other historian of the ancient world uses the Bayes’ theorem, and every scholar who has bothered to comment on it has said the same thing: it’s not the right tool to test the historicity of ancient people! Let me repeat it, the Bayes’ theorem is not a valid historical method to test questions pertaining to historical people or events. Carrier also emphatically rejects the contemporary methods use by historians! Carrier has shown no interest in studying the mythicist theories put forward by others claiming that all other mythicist theories are wrong (source), and his theory has been strongly criticised by other mythicists who state that his “methods are terrible” (source). As pointed out in that link, not even considering the evidence and opinions put forward by others would be akin to a biologist coming up with his own theory of Evolution, all the while refusing to read or even acknowledge the work by Darwin and Mendel. Many of the “facts” he cites in support of his theory have been shown to be wrong, or based on a reading of ancient literature that is rejected by his peers in ancient history and classics.

So there you have it. All the major mythicists scholars. I would question whether we should count Avalos and Lataster in particular, so really there are just three or four qualified mythicist scholars depending on whether we count Carrier or not. As pointed out by Ehrman below, they are not seen as credible by the “real scholars”. It’s important to note that not all mythicist scholars are fundamentalists, although Carrier definitely is. And that Price, Brodie, and Thompson are all respected scholars. The mythicist argument commonly seen across the internet is purely a denialist and fundamentalist one: they won’t look at evidence, they aren’t interested in what the experts say, and they don’t care what are the right methods to use to solve these questions. Sure you can come up with a new method to assess evidence, and professionals do that, but what they don’t do is come up with a new method and simultaneously claim that all existing historical methods are wrong and that only their way of thinking can be trusted.

Are we done? I think we’re done.

Final word

Credits to Bart Ehrman, Larry Hurtado, and Michael Shermer, I used quite a lot of their original thoughts when researching this topic, as well as a lot of my own. This post took an unbelievable amount of time and research to write what is essentially on a topic not even worth discussing. I have undoubtedly made some errors in this post, so please fact check it for me and let me know if you notice anything that needs improvement.

And on that note I’ll quote Ehrman:


Q. “I can’t see evidence archaeology or history for historicity”.

A. “Yeah, well I do. That’s why I wrote the book. There is a lot of evidence. There is so much evidence that – I know in the crowds you all run with it’s commonly thought that Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you once you get outside of your conclave there is nobody who – this is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity. It is not an issue. There is no scholar in any College, or University, in the Western World who teaches classics, ancient history, new testament, early Christianity, any related field who doubts that Jesus existed.

“Now, that is not evidence. That is not evidence. Just because everybody thinks so doesn’t make it evidence. But if you want to know about the theory of evolution versus the theory of creationism and every scholar in every reputable institution in the world thinks & believes in evolution, it may not be evidence but if you have a different opinion you better have a pretty good piece of evidence yourself.

“The reason for thinking that Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources. That’s why. And I give the details in my book. Early and independent sources indicate certainly that Jesus existed. One author that we know about knew Jesus’s brother, and knew Jesus’s closest disciple Peter. He’s an eyewitness to both Jesus’s closest disciple and his brother.

“So, I’m sorry, I respect your disbelief but if you want to go where the evidence goes I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism because frankly it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe you just look foolish. You are much better off going with historical evidence and arguing historically rather than coming up with the theory that Jesus didn’t exist.” – Bart Ehrman.

“The mythicist position is not seen as intellectually credible in my field (I’m using euphemisms here; you should see what most of my friends *actually* say about it….) – no one that I know personally (I know a *lot* of scholars of New Testament, early Christianity, and so on) takes it at *all* seriously as a viable historical perspective (this includes not just Christians but also Jews, agnostics, atheists – you name it), and my colleagues sometimes tell me that I’m simply providing the mythicists with precisely the credibility they’re looking for even by engaging them. It’s a good point, and I take it seriously.

“In that connection I should say that I can understand how someone who hasn’t spent years being trained in the history of early Christianity might have difficulty distinguishing between serious scholarship that is accepted by experts as being plausible (even when judged wrong) and the writings of others that, well, is not. But experts obviously don’t have that problem, and the mythicists simply are not seen as credible. They don’t like that, and they don’t like it when it someone points it out, but there it is.

“The other reason for staying out of the fray is that some of the mythicists are simply unpleasant human beings – mean-spirited, arrogant, ungenerous, and vicious. I just don’t enjoy having a back and forth with someone who wants to rip out my jugular. So, well, I don’t. (They also seem — to a person – to have endless time and boundless energy to argue point after point after point after point after point. I, alas, do not.)”Bart Ehrman.

What you weren’t told about WannaCry

I pride myself on providing you, the humble visitor, with good information. Not always perfect because, well, I’m not a security expert. You can think of this post as an afterthought if you like to my previous post, what I am aiming to do here is complete the picture.

Is Microsoft to blame?

The US Government and their spy agency the NSA are the main guilty parties in this instance. The ShadowBrokers who hacked the NSA and then publicly released the weaponised exploit are also to blame. And yes, Microsoft absolutely shares some of the culpability. Here is the thing you haven’t been told anywhere on the internet… some systems don’t update even when configured to do so. You want evidence? Here are screenshots I took earlier this week on a friend’s PC:



When I manually checked for updates it just spent hours on this screen:


And no, that system is not patched. I was unable to fix the problem. WHAT THE FUCK MICROSOFT?! My solution for that system will be to re-install Windows. Nothing worked – and I did try. This page contains most of the fixes I tried. The owner of that PC had no idea the system wasn’t up to date. How many other Windows installations have this same problem?

And probably the most misreported fact on the internet “windows doesn’t support XP anymore”… WRONG! They do. They only provide support to those who pay for it though, and according to some the latest pricing for this privilege is about USD 1000 per year per desktop Windows XP installation. For the ordinary home user, you can still get Windows XP updates until 2019, and possibly longer. To achieve this you simply tweak a registry setting that tells Microsoft that it’s an Embedded system. XP was embedded into all kinds of hardware that is impossible to upgrade – speciality hospital equipment like MRI scanners, ATMs, etc. And they still receive security updates to this day.

People were surprised when Windows released a patch for this vulnerability for Windows XP. But they shouldn’t be – the patch would have been rolled out for XP Embedded at the same time as Windows 7/8/8.1. The only difference is that they waited until after the worm appeared before pushing the patch to non-embedded XP systems.

Why was there a kill switch?

The original version of WannaCry attempted to connect to and then terminated if successful. Other variants then emerged with hex edited domains, or with that section hex-edited out entirely. But why was it there? It could just be a bit of unfinished code. It might be intended as an anti-detection measure, but it’s been pointed out that it doesn’t just do a DNS lookup it expects to create a TCP connection to the domain too. If there’s no TCP connection then WannaCry will execute the payload anyway. It could just be the hacker’s way of “having fun” with their malware – let people think it’s stopped and then push out the variants. Who knows?

How much has been paid out in ransom?

Not very much. So far over 200,000 people have been infected, and only 292 (or less?) have paid the ransom. That’s 0.1%. The three wallets are: 12t9YDPgwueZ9NyMgw519p7AA8isjr6SMw, 13AM4VW2dhxYgXeQepoHkHSQuy6NgaEb94, and 115p7UMMngoj1pMvkpHijcRdfJNXj6LrLn. About $109,000 or USD 81,000 has been paid in total so far. At 292 people though that averages at significantly less than USD 300 per ransom – going by the actual dollar figure only 270 people or less have paid up at the time of writing.

Is it a State actor?

Possibly. You will have heard that North Korea has been identified as a possible culprit. The problem though is that any competent hacker can make their code look like it came from North Korea, China, Russia, the USA, whomever they want.

So what’s their motivation?

You might think that the crypto-ransomware developers are simply highly motivated to be paid hefty ransoms. Well, most professionals don’t believe that to be a huge motivation. Just look at the program for a start: it encrypts types of documents that are important and valuable to their owners. They could steal sensitive documents actually if they had wanted to, but they didn’t. So you heard about the NHS in the UK having patient information encrypted – that’s a huge problem for them – but can you imagine how much worse it would have been if the malware developers had stolen millions of confidential medical files, and then ran a real extortion racket like was run against Ashley Madison?

Then, they provide you with all the information you’ll need to get your files back, assuming you pay up. They give detailed instructions on how to use Bitcoin, they helpfully put the decryption program everywhere on your system so you can always find it, and they give you a wall-paper in case your antivirus removes the decryption program. And the program is translated into 28 languages as well to ensure that you can read it:


Their set-up is not particularly well designed to receive payments, which is why they’ve received so little. Plus they have to manually verify payments on their end because they didn’t put in an automated system (ie unique bitcoin identifiers) to make it easy for them to verify. And it’s not exactly going to be easy for them to get their bitcoins. But here’s the thing, malware has been around for a very long time before the concept of ransomware. So they are unlikely to care much about actually getting paid, in fact they tell you explicitly if you’re so poor you can’t afford the ransom there will be a chance to get your in six months.

Whatever their motivations are, it’s not money. At least not primarily. It’s been pointed out that leaked NSA cyberweapons have been used to turn computers into large botnets to mine bitcoins, and that was far more lucrative strategy for cybercriminals than this method. But what we can say is that they have put a lot of effort into their program – they want to get their name out, I don’t think they care whether people pay the ransom or not, they will probably give out the master key after a few months.

Did people click malicious links in emails?

This is the most misreported aspect of WannaCry. It is able to spread itself directly though the internet to any vulnerable computer that it finds. We don’t know how the NHS in the UK got infected, but it is possible that the worm spread across the internet by connecting to just one vulnerable PC or internet server across port 445, and then once it got on the network it can infect all the vulnerable PCs it finds on the ethernet. And that’s actually a larger problem for organisations than it is for home users, because it will be trying to connect through your IP address which is assigned to your router, but organisations often assign public IPs to computers. And they have to for servers. So yeah, we don’t know, but we do know that the this crypto-malware spreads directly across the internet without people needing to click any links if their system is vulnerable. That’s how bad this exploit is! Again though, if you’re behind a home router you’re probably safe.

Is it really the worst ransomware attack yet?

Yes. I chose my words carefully, it’s not necessarily the worst cyber attack, but it is the worst ransomware attack. What has made it so bad is that people on vulnerable networks do not have to click any links, as the malware spreads laterally as a worm. If you have this on your computer it will eventually try connecting directly to every single public IP in the internet – starting at and ending at Obviously that’s a simplified explanation, it randomises its IP selection, but yes every computer with the worm – all 200-300,000 of them – will eventually try to connect to every single IP on the internet. And it wouldn’t take that long either, as there’s only 4 billion IPs to try.

So it’s not an understatement at all to put the blame squarely on the US Government/NSA. And this is just the beginning – the ShadowBrokers (the hackers that hacked the NSA and released their cyber weapons) said they have yet more cyber weapons to release.

World’s worst ransomware attack yet

The recent WannaCry ransomware attack has been described as being the worst attack yet. The cybercriminals who created it have quickly become the world’s most wanted cyber criminals… but let’s talk about who’s responsible here, because the cyber criminals were armed whether intentionally or not by the NSA.


By the way, I have been working on a little project that is nearing completion, here’s a little preview of it that I made very quickly using Microsoft GIF Animator:


I highly recommend installing uBlock Origin, that will provide you with some protection again an infection through malvertising.

The NSA developed an arsenal of cyber weapons. One of these weaponisd exploits is called EternalBlue. The NSA’s entire arsenal of cyber weapons was both leaked and sold to third parties, including to hacking groups. Recently, a different arsenal of cyberweapons developed separately by the CIA was leaked to Wikileaks (known as Vault 7) who proceeded with responsible disclosure. Responsible disclosure means giving broad information to the public, while giving specific information to affected software and hardware vendors so that vulnerabilities can be patched, and then later full disclosure. In the case of the NSA’s arsenal of cyber weapons, it fell into the hands of a hacking group called The Shadow Brokers, and they do not believe in responsible disclosure so they promptly dumped the cyber weapons directly into the hands of the masses. The Shadow Brokers claim they hacked the NSA and stole the weapons, but however they came to obtain them is irrelevant.

The reason this is the worst ever malware attack is that it has crippled critical infrastructure. This is what every security expert has been worried about. It leverages EternalBlue (and EsteemAudit for older OS’s) to spread across computing networks. How ordinary users becomes infected though has not yet come to light, but I suspect Malvertising may be one culprit.


Ransomware works by encrypting your data using RSA encryption. What you need to know about RSA is that it’s the same principle behind SSL/TLS internet security. It is an asymmetric encryption – there are two keys, let’s call them Key A and Key B. If data is encrypted with Key A, then it can only be decrypted with Key B. If it’s encrypted with Key B, it can only be decrypted with Key A. Ransomware generally generates a unique key pair for each and every infection, and it can be remotely generated on a server far away. What that means is that an infected user has no way of obtaining their decryption key – it can’t be brute-forced, it can’t be extracted from the program, the only way to get it is from the cybercriminals who have it.

If you’re infected- should you pay up? Well, if your data is worth more to you than $400 – yes you should. Some reports have suggested you have no guarantee or receiving a decryption key… well that’s true, but generally speaking operators of ransomware do provide the decryption keys when payments are made. The situation where that might not be true is if you manage to get infected with an older malware by a group that’s no longer active, then I would agree you would be chancing it if you pay up.

So who should foot the bill for this? I believe the US government should be held to account, and made to pay out the ransoms. They’re the assholes that developed this cyberweapon. This is exactly the reason why the security industry hates the so-called intelligence industry. The correct thing to do when you find a security vulnerability is to do exactly what Wikileaks did with Vault 7: engage in responsible disclosure so that the vulnerabilities can be patched. Think about it this way, the NSA is a foreign intelligence agency that we would classify the same way as any other cyber criminal organisation. If they develop a weapon, then you can bet that someone else – whether in China, in Russia, in India, or elsewhere has also developed it. And even if they haven’t, as we’ve seen time and time again these inevitably get leaked/stolen.

And WannaCry has crippled critical infrastructure – that’s one of the worst possible outcomes of a cyber attack. Hospitals, schools, and telecommunications were taken out with this purely as a side-effect of its original intention. Had the cyber criminals wanted to though they could have specifically launched a far more vicious attack specifically aimed to take out critical infrastructure, and if that was done there could have been thousands of deaths as a consequence: rioting could have happened in cities across the world if power grids were taken off-line for example.

You may have heard that a security researcher that calls himself MalwareTech “accidentally” stopped WannaCry from spreading further. Well, that’s a half-truth. He did a write up on his blog about it actually. In a nutshell, the malware checks for the existence of a “random” domain that doesn’t exit. If an IP address is returned then it assumes it’s being run in a sandbox and shuts down its operations – this is a tactic it uses to try and evade malware detection by anti-malware software executing the program in a sandbox. It effectively is a kill-switch, but not intentionally so. But to say that it was accidental is not true, as stated clearly on the blog it’s standard practise to register domains found within malware as it gives researchers a way to track malware as much as anything else.