It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

400,000 yr-old half-skull points to mystery people

page: 2
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: MysticPearl




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Marduk

Take a whole breath. I'm no fan boy.

Ignoring evidence, is the same as making evidence up.



You really don't think you are the one ignoring evidence? Evolution, Lucy, where are they not acknowledged?

Based on other recent posts from you where you believe evidence is not needed (ahem, Trump, wiretapping, cough), you seem fairly flexible on when evidence is and is not required. Very interesting.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Marduk you know I'm going to have to bring up Piltdown man right?

Lots get dissed by archeologists that doesn't "fit the narrative". I was doing some digging into Neanderthals and came across references in french about remains that were not entirely neanderthal, yet not anything identified in the Homo-line. I'm blanking on the correct term for it, so forgive me?

I've yet to see a paper regarding this in english.

I agree the rest of the names you mentioned like Hancock & Sitchin are just running jokes.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: Marduk

Marduk you know I'm going to have to bring up Piltdown man right?

Piltdown man was a fake that was totally accepted by science at the time, and even if it wasn't, are you trying to say that modern science ignores things by bringing up the only example you can think of which is over 100 years ago




originally posted by: [post=22017083]
Lots get dissed by archeologists that doesn't "fit the narrative". I was doing some digging into Neanderthals and came across references in french about remains that were not entirely neanderthal, yet not anything identified in the Homo-line. I'm blanking on the correct term for it, so forgive me?

I've yet to see a paper regarding this in english.

I agree the rest of the names you mentioned like Hancock & Sitchin are just running jokes.


You seem to have missed the point and as extra proof you are submitting something you can't remember which was French

There would be hundreds and thousands of examples if you were even slightly correct, so far, not one which is even credible as supporting the claim has been mentioned. I am not an idiot either, ask yourself, why is it that the most knowledgeable here don't have time for bogus claims like that, but the pseudo historian fanboys believe it totally.

Wasn't it actually Hancock that constantly claims that science ignores things, to create a gap of the gods argument to push his bushtit through, whereas David Hatcher Childress fabricated a load of evidence so that he could claim that it had been covered up which was why he didn't have any evidence. Both of those people started life as journalists, they are the gutter press
wake up
smell the coffee
people who are passionate about archaeology who got into the field to uncover things are not covering anything up, do you think there's some men in black going round saying "now you're qualified, this is what you are going to do to hide the truth from the public," its nonsense and demonstrably so.



btw this is probably what you were thinking about
en.wikipedia.org...
Once again, discovered by science, not ignored by it
edit on 15-3-2017 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
the species is in question, Rolf Quam of Binghamton U thinks it is related to the Neanderthals. Maybe a later Neanderthal according to the features of the skull.

I think the phrase "related to the later Neanderthals" may mean "related to the Neanderthals, who were later than the date of this skull".



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
No one noticed the bullet hole?

It's Jimmy Hoffa.

J/K

So these people predated the Neanderthals by what, 150k yrs?

They need to find a hip bone or phalange or mandible to go with it to see what this guy might look like.

It could be a dead ender.






posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
So these people predated the Neanderthals by what, 150k yrs?


en.wikipedia.org...




Homo heidelbergensis – also Homo rhodesiensis – is an extinct species of the genus Homo that lived in Africa, Europe and western Asia between 600,000 and 200,000 years ago.





Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans are all considered to have descended from Homo Heidelbergensis that appeared around 700,000 years ago in Africa.




Not rocket science





posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: Marduk

Marduk you know I'm going to have to bring up Piltdown man right?


To what end precisely? To show that people have been all too gullbible when the Graham Hancock's of the world present them with fantastical "evidence" and that this phenomena is nothing new? Or perhaps the attempt is to illustrate that when conmen try to perpetuate fraud, that these frauds are uncovered quite quickly when confronted by men of learning? Because the irate paper proving that Piltdown Man was a hoax was published in 1915, just three short years after the emerged finding of Piltdown Man's alleged remains.


Lots get dissed by archeologists that doesn't "fit the narrative". I was doing some digging into Neanderthals and came across references in french about remains that were not entirely neanderthal, yet not anything identified in the Homo-line. I'm blanking on the correct term for it, so forgive me?


Not for nothing but an archaeologist would be examining neither Neanderthal remains nor assemblages. That would be the purview of Paleoanthropologists. And honestly, I'm puzzled at why this would be such a huge deal as we see similar types of remains at sites across Europe, most notably Sima De Los Huesos where we see remains containing many archaic features of Heidelbergensis alongside morphological features that are typically reserved exclusively for Neanderthal.

Most lay people are completely unaware for some reason that there are a wide range of morphologies considered to be within the range of normal for a given genus or species that if viewed with their flesh still intact, would yield quite a wide array of features. People have it in their heads that there is a small degree of variation within a given species when
In fact that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Could you provide some examples of things in Anthropology or Archeologymthst have, as out said, been dissed for not fitting a narrative? I'd just like to clarify for myself whether it was the narrative that didn't work or if it was, as nusually is the case, A simple Matter of those proposing the counter hypothesis were totally lacking supporting data?


I've yet to see a paper regarding this in english.


My French is a little rusty but it's passable so please send me the link for your papier en francaise s'il vous plais


I agree the rest of the names you mentioned like Hancock & Sitchin are just running jokes.


There's hope for you yet!



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   
peter vlar & Marduk

Really stepped in it didn't I?

OK...the neanderthal remains & other earlier ones I was referring to that had been mostly written about in French originally came up in a search of "Transitional Hominids". The links to which died in obscurity two hard drives ago.

IIRC while Sima del Elefante was "ringing some bells" I don't think that was "it". What I recall were other transitional hominid remains that were still being held pending some sort of identification. Mostly from Western Europe, but not from SDE. They were French studies not just French articles, abstracts that I'd found years before google translate was invented.

Back in the day such discoveries would have been known in Anthro-Circles they weren't of mainstream interest.
Not like today.

"Transitional" was the term needed that I was "blanking on".

I will also add it's not heresy to say history is written by the best "grant writer". No funding no narrative. Other archaeologic finds get put aside while a parent organization pursues the finds that bring in the bucks which ironically also serve to coalescence theories by tenured anthropologists despite newer evidence to the contrary.

No rocking THAT boat!
Careers were made and to this day are defended based on it. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

Once such instance off the top of my head and I'm sure you'll jump in to say it's a flawed one, is Bryan Sykes " A Genetic Portrait of America" where his sample numbers were too small to definitively answer anything. However he's a "rainmaker" so perish the thought his study was inaccurate.












edit on 16-3-2017 by Caver78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Caver78
peter vlar & Marduk

Really stepped in it didn't I?

OK...the neanderthal remains & other earlier ones I was referring to that had been mostly written about in French originally came up in a search of "Transitional Hominids". The links to which died in obscurity two hard drives ago.

IIRC while Sima del Elefante was "ringing some bells" I don't think that was "it". What I recall were other transitional hominid remains that were still being held pending some sort of identification. Mostly from Western Europe, but not from SDE. They were French studies not just French articles, abstracts that I'd found years before google translate was invented.

Back in the day such discoveries would have been known in Anthro-Circles they weren't of mainstream interest.
Not like today. "Transitional" was the term needed that I was "blanking on".


The site you are thinking of is Sima de los Huesos, the Pinpt of Bones, at Atapuerca Spain. It is layered with several hundred thousand years of transitional fossils showing clearly that H. Heidelbergensis is the direct precursor to Meanderthal in Europe.




I will also add it's not heresy to say history is written by the best "grant writer". No funding no narrative. Other archaeologic finds get put aside while a parent organization pursues the finds that bring in the bucks which ironically also serve to coalescence theories by tenured anthropologists despite newer evidence to the contrary.

No rocking THAT boat!
Careers were made and to this day are defended based on it. To say otherwise is disingenuous.


I disagree. To say otherwise shows that the individual has first hnd knowledge or has at the very least done their due diligence. If things really worked they way you believe then we would still be operating under "Clovis Furdt" and that belief that humans and Neanderthal could not have had episodes of admixture. We know that there were people in the Americas prior to Clovis and we now know that H. Sapiens and neanderthal successfully bred with fertile offspring. Those are just 2 very prominent cases from the last 20 years. That boat is rockef and it is rocked frequently. Do insist otherwise is a demonstration of willful ignorance.


Once such instance off the top of my head and I'm sure you'll jump in to say it's a flawed one, is Bryan Sykes " A Genetic Portrait of America" where his sample numbers were too small to definitively answer anything. However he's a "rainmaker" so perish the thought his study was inaccurate.


So you can't provide a single citation to support your statements and resort to ad hominem attacks on Brian Sykes for having the audacity to try to write books about genetics that can be easily understood by a lay person? Really? Sykes biggest crime is that he tried to make information more accessible to the average person. What a bastard he is!

You've done nothing to demonstrate any errors with his work, not even any mention of what your own thoughts were regarding any potential errors of incorrect conclusions by Dr. Sykes aside from an issue with
sample size in a book that was geared specifically towards people who don't know a lot about genetics but we're interested In grasping the basics. . I'm just supposed to just run with it? Or am Insupposed to be doing your due diligence? If you believe his work inaccurate, then the onus lies with you to demonstrate such.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 05:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Marduk

Take a whole breath. I'm no fan boy.

Ignoring evidence, is the same as making evidence up.


So what specific evidence in relation to evolution, Lucy and the Sphinx are you referring to that is being ignored?



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

As a "layperson" I should just admit I'm wrong?
I don't believe so.

Altho I may not verbalize what I've read or learned as well as others, I'm going to keep trying.

I CLEARLY said Bryan Sikes conclusions were incorrect due to the small sample study he did. It was abysmally too small to declare he had a definitive genetic overview of the entire USA. I'm not faulting his genetic abilities, but it's well known you can play with statistics to come up virtually with whatever answer you want. Talk to a few statisticians.

In most studies a very large sample is used BEFORE preliminarily conferring a conclusion which "may" still only indicate further study is warranted.

As to your rebuttal over funding doesn't drive the archaeological narrative I will disagree. I personally know a few people who in achieving their degrees not only had to formally "toe the established narrative" or be dropped from their programs, but were REQUIRED by their universities to publish, publish, publish, write grants and bring in funding.
It happens quite frequently. Then due to donors & grants THAT research is supported as opposed to lesser known and newer finds/theories. Which get swept under the rug as inconvenient, inconclusive, or ay other dismissive yet socially acceptable excuse.

Another example
www.buzzfeed.com...

Plus you can go to almost any archaeology forum and witness the fighting firsthand. As newer evidence comes to light older proponents fight viciously to support outdated evidentiary conclusions instead of actually "following the evidence". It gives the term "flame wars" a whole new meaning!

While I fully support correct and proper means of proving a new find, or confirming an existing one, to insist there isn't a dark undercurrent in archaeological circles and that new finds that "buck the system" don't get buried would be a lie.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caver78
Another example
www.buzzfeed.com...



i actually fell asleep reading that
what were you thinking.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I don't wanna call this baloney.....but the ancestor of Neanderthals was H. Heidelbergensis (Heidelberg Man).

likely the same ancestor of Denisovans, if we ever get to see any denisovan skulls anyway.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

My understanding was that Homo Erectus was our direct ancestor?



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Marduk

My understanding was that Homo Erectus was our direct ancestor?


Yes and no. By 600 KA even African Erectus are considered Heidelbergensis. So in that regard, the only truly region specific members of our genus are Neanderthal in Europe H. Sapiens in E. Africa and Denisovans in Western Asia. Even then, there was a pretty wide range between Neanderthal and Denisovans with HN ranging as Far East as Siberia and as far south at times as Iraq and Denisovan genetics in Western Europe and all over Asia.

Another way to look at it is that each "species" of our genus from. h. Habilis through Erectus, Heidelbergensis and their subsequent regional variations are just a snapshot of where humanity was at a particular geologic epoch in time. It's one long story as opposed to a story occasionally truncated by the death of one species and the birth of a new species as seems to be a common misconception seen around here. For some reason it doesn't make sense to people that there is no sharp demarcation of exactly where and with which individual a species begins.

Even with Homo Sapiens, cranial facial morphology switched from archaic to modern at very rapid rates in some areas beginning around 800 KA and other areas those spans feature didn't begin to appear until around 400 KA and dates of around 198 KA is more of s beginning point where the same features became more homogenized across Africa with "modern features" set in, on average, 100 KA. Even then that still just averages. There are plenty of populations where archaic features persisted until right around when Sapiens started leaving Africa.

The way the genetics look, there was probably more variation in the Pleistocene as far as facial features based on the skulls that have been recovered thus far. Granted the sample size could be larger but it is what it is. As slow as it seems, a lot of pretty impressive work has been done the last 20 years



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Some fairly recent happenings have captured my imagination recently. Primarily, the 50kya migration event, and floresensis. The stories of ebu gogo match so closely to what is described from hobbit man, that i can't help but wonder.

And the sinodont/sudadont oral configurations seen among asian/amerind people.

The last 200k years have been very fast changing for us.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Apologies, it was the first example I could think of and also 20 min before I had to leave for work.
(hanging head, pink faced)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join