Why won't Smithsonian Institution website update their pages?

According to the Smithsonian Institution the oldest known modern human lived around 90,000 years ago.

Source Link

According to Michael Cremo a skull of a modern human was found in 1880 in Italy and it dates to 3-4 million years ago.

Source Link

What I am wondering is why is it that archeologists do not recognize Michael Cremo's findings? He has been around for a while and owns a museum of anomalous archeological findings. Has he been proven a fraud?

Source Link

So why won't the academia acknowledge his findings?

We already know that the idea of human evolution is slowly dieing out know. If evolution was true then there would not be the recent findings that I have reported in this thread:

Source Link

The findings of modern humans in million year old sediment tells us that there is a history that we know nothing of and it calls us to explore this history.

I would like to know if anyone here knows why the archeological society will not acknowledge Michael Cremo or his findings?

I understand that there are scientists out there that will say I just don’t believe him, or, the skulls fell deep into the sediment recently… this is not acceptable to me unless of course it can be proven. I believe that one of the skulls was found under an intact layer of rock. That shows us that it could not have dropped through the ground over the years.

So why won’t the Smithsonian update their website to show the archeological findings that shows modern humans have been here for millions of years not just thousands.

Any information or research done on this would be appreciated. Is Michael Cremo the only man who has found such findings?

Its very simple:

1)Science works by consensus of empirical evidence. There are mountains and mountains of evidence to support the basic timeline of human evolution as we understand it. Granted the specifc details are still being hammered out all the time and the timelines shift, but not by THAT much.

2)Michael Cremo is the only one to have found any evidence for these "bones that don't fit the theory"

3) Michael Cremo is a member of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, which has an obvious and publicized agenda: convincing the world that intelligent humans have populated the Earth for 2 billion years (or something).

4)Good Scientists do not have biases. They do not make a result and try to work evidence around it. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying that there aren't bad scientists. But the peer review process weeds out most of the bad, unrepeatable science (though as we've seen in South Korea stem cell work, some stuff gets by).

5) Michael Cremo uses "Vedic sources of wisdom from ancient India" to support his theories, not empirical evidence.

6) Occam's razor: what is more likely, this one guy has found evidence of human's existing millions of years before huamns even emerged from the trees (based on, again, mountains of evidence chronicling man's rise), or that he's a quack?

Originally posted by Irradiatus

1)Science works by consensus of empirical evidence. There are mountains and mountains of evidence to support the basic timeline of human evolution as we understand it. Granted the specifc details are still being hammered out all the time and the timelines shift, but not by THAT much.

Evolution? Proof is stacking up that evolution was one mans way of explaining several different skulls from humoniod looking species.

Originally posted by Irradiatus
2)Michael Cremo is the only one to have found any evidence for these "bones that don't fit the theory"

Is this really true? I thought there was some bones found in Ethiopia by someone... I might be wrong. Anyone else know of any other findings?

Originally posted by Irradiatus
3) Michael Cremo is a member of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, which has an obvious and publicized agenda: convincing the world that intelligent humans have populated the Earth for 2 billion years (or something).

Ok, I didn't hear about that. Do you have a source link? Before I believe just anything I like to have a couple of sources, or at least one good one. Also, I believe that ancient civilizations like Atlantis really lived and they were intelligent.

Originally posted by Irradiatus
4)Good Scientists do not have biases. They do not make a result and try to work evidence around it.

I totally agree with you on this. But being open minded also makes for a great scientist.

Originally posted by Irradiatus
5) Michael Cremo uses "Vedic sources of wisdom from ancient India" to support his theories, not empirical evidence.

6) Occam's razor: what is more likely, this one guy has found evidence of human's existing millions of years before huamns even emerged from the trees (based on, again, mountains of evidence chronicling man's rise), or that he's a quack?

Answer for 5: How did the Vedic sources give him these artifacts and tell him that they were buried under the ground at a level that tells us they are millions of years old? I don't understand that.

Answer for 6: Here you are talking evolution again. Did you read the article links I give in this thread?

Ok, Michael Cremo might be involved in an institution that believes in intelligent modern humans living millions of years ago but that doesn't dismiss his findings. It only shows that he really believes in his findings.

Do you have any proof that his findings are hoaxed?

Originally posted by Stari

Do you have any proof that his findings are hoaxed?

I don't have much to add to this thread because I'm not familiar with this Cremo guy -- though Irradiatus pretty much laid out the truth on all the other points.

All I want to say is that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Nobody has to claim a negative. Since Cremo's peers in the scientific community don't agree with him, he obviously hasn't passed the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" test.