Origin of Ancient Jade Tool Baffles Scientists

Originally posted by randyvs
ATS is the chit. Others get jealous and on and on. If some other site wants to make unproven claims and float a bunch of lies around about ATS. I can only promise to go as far as" Raped ape " on their ass.

This is my house !

I agree with you, this is my home, I belong to no other site.

Although I do find that censoring things (if it isnt porno, threats, terror, profanity etc etc etc) is a little against the motto here, I mean the whole idea of the site is to get every perspective. I can understand that people don't want LIES to be spread about their site, although they should leave it up to the individual, I know ATS aren't in bed with the CIA, most people should, although I feel its fair for all voices to be heard..

Originally posted by Rocketman7


They are suggesting that if they could get there by boat, then they could get to other places by boat as well.

You need to understand the way scientists address delicate issues.

Yes please tell me how I think - it might be useful

You can't just come out and proffer up a theory that makes your ardent associates look like fools.
Even though it happens occasionally.

Happens all the time - you get extra points for doing that I might add

You are just missing the point completely because you are not on the leading edge.

lol, then why aren't you aware of the follow on investigation of the footprints?

You just said that the footprints in Mexico are not 1.3 million years old, and debunked the world leading lava dater, the same person who dated the lava at Olduvai gorge. From Berkley. Renne et al. There is no more expert scientist in the world, than the man who said that lava was 1.3 million years old. And there is no more prestigious authority on anthropology than the Royal museum, which had a special exhibit on those footprints and called them footprints of modern man. So you have also debunked the Royal Museum. You have debunked the Royal Academy.

No I just reported the investigation that debunked it.....lol Did you read it? Again your problem is that you read only the first reports and not the follow on investigations. Now it is possible that another investigation, spurred by that last one will come out and over turn that.....we shall wait shan't we? Oh an argument form authority only works when the authority is correct.....

In days gone by they would put you in an orange jumpsuit for that for certain.

What for doing a bit of research that took me perhaps 1 minute to perform?

Again have you read the investigation on this issue?

Link

Another study

Link to radio program on the controversy

Originally posted by MissSmartypants
reply to post by relocator

 

Great thread on many levels. So...please don't leave, Relocator. Maybe we should start an Occupy ATS movement....no, wait....I occupy ATS everyday already just like the rest of you...you know who you are.

Raises hand.
(Face meet palm)
m(_ _)m

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Rocketman7


They are suggesting that if they could get there by boat, then they could get to other places by boat as well.

You need to understand the way scientists address delicate issues.

Yes please tell me how I think - it might be useful

You can't just come out and proffer up a theory that makes your ardent associates look like fools.
Even though it happens occasionally.

Happens all the time - you get extra points for doing that I might add

You are just missing the point completely because you are not on the leading edge.

lol, then why aren't you aware of the follow on investigation of the footprints?

You just said that the footprints in Mexico are not 1.3 million years old, and debunked the world leading lava dater, the same person who dated the lava at Olduvai gorge. From Berkley. Renne et al. There is no more expert scientist in the world, than the man who said that lava was 1.3 million years old. And there is no more prestigious authority on anthropology than the Royal museum, which had a special exhibit on those footprints and called them footprints of modern man. So you have also debunked the Royal Museum. You have debunked the Royal Academy.

No I just reported the investigation that debunked it.....lol Did you read it? Again your problem is that you read only the first reports and not the follow on investigations. Now it is possible that another investigation, spurred by that last one will come out and over turn that.....we shall wait shan't we? Oh an argument form authority only works when the authority is correct.....

In days gone by they would put you in an orange jumpsuit for that for certain.

What for doing a bit of research that took me perhaps 1 minute to perform?

Again have you read the investigation on this issue?

Link

Another study

Link to radio program on the controversy

edit on 7/2/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/2/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

As I said. Fact one, fact 2 fact 3. The rest is just people talking, after the fact, as you are doing now.
Yes, most of the archeological community wishes those facts would just go away.
Wikipedia cannot come out and say, well those prints have falsified all current theories of man.
Their pages are full of those theories and their reputation is placed on those theories being the truth.

I am just really thinking too much for you, and should just leave you to think on your own level, since it would take a real education to get you to the level of understanding you need, to understand what I am attempting to explain to you.

Way back machine link...remove spaces in http

ht tp://web.archive.org/web/20070208174325/ht tp://www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk/

Do those look like marks made by a pick?

Why not look at the rest of the laser scanned footprint images there. So you follow the link...
See above it says British Museum Demonstration, click that, you see a link to the scanned images.

Oopsy, the links are broken, the images are gone, censored. Too bad.

So then lets look at a news image, a small one since we are being censored now, and even in that poor photo here...
link
you can see the pattern of a person walking.

And that is not the only footprints there and not the best example and what you get since its controversial, is a small image.

There are not one footprint, not two footprints, something like 60 footprints.

more pics

and another
here
OK if someone said to you, hey that can't be a footprint, that is a typical mark made by a pick.
And yes there are 65 of those in a pattern that matches people walking, but I think those were made by a pick.

Now for some strange reason, you have no trouble at all believing the ridiculous assertions of someone who can't tell a footprint from a hole in the ground. Why is that? Could it be you have an agenda?
What else could it be.

Originally posted by Rocketman7
Way back machine link...remove spaces in http

ht tp://web.archive.org/web/20070208174325/ht tp://www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk/

Do those look like marks made by a pick?

Why not look at the rest of the laser scanned footprint images there. So you follow the link...
See above it says British Museum Demonstration, click that, you see a link to the scanned images.

Oopsy, the links are broken, the images are gone, censored. Too bad.

So then lets look at a news image, a small one since we are being censored now, and even in that poor photo here...
link
you can see the pattern of a person walking.

And that is not the only footprints there and not the best example and what you get since its controversial, is a small image.

There are not one footprint, not two footprints, something like 60 footprints.

more pics

and another
here
OK if someone said to you, hey that can't be a footprint, that is a typical mark made by a pick.
And yes there are 65 of those in a pattern that matches people walking, but I think those were made by a pick.

Now for some strange reason, you have no trouble at all believing the ridiculous assertions of someone who can't tell a footprint from a hole in the ground. Why is that? Could it be you have an agenda?
What else could it be.

And so then does it matter at all if Renne thinks they are footprints? He knows as much about footprints as you do. His expertise is dating lava. Not identifying footprints. Ask him about lava. No one knows more about dating lava than Renne.

So why then do they copiously quote Renne's opinion on the footprints themselves, when he did not see the footprints, he dated the lava, and he saw a few pictures of the alledged footprints that they showed him.
Pictures like this...
photo

Well what do you think? Based on that image, do you think those are footprints?
And not only that, but be sure you ask him, right after you tell him Gonzales does not believe he dated the lava correctly.
And what did she do? She used carbon 14 dating. Now any archeologist today would say, well, thats insane, you can't date lava with carbon 14 dating? Oh but she dated a site miles away, that had some sediment sitting on the lava. SHe went sideways, until she found sediment and then looked for organic material in it.
"Isn't that essentially how you date in archeology?" You go laterally until you find something you can date.
Yes in cases where the find is less than 40,000 years old.

So then have you ever walked on hot lava with your bare feet?
Do you think you might lift your toes too?
www.nature.com...

Thats funny, I wonder why the prestigious journal nature, did not name that image, pick mark?
Could it be that a blind man could see that it is a footprint?

Originally posted by Rocketman7
So then have you ever walked on hot lava with your bare feet?
Do you think you might lift your toes too?
www.nature.com...

Thats funny, I wonder why the prestigious journal nature, did not name that image, pick mark?
Could it be that a blind man could see that it is a footprint?

edit on 7-2-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)

So ok, what about this?
planetearth.nerc.ac.uk...

You take the worst example of the lot. Agenda.

And was the man walking alone on that lava? He was with dogs and cats and farm animals, was he with other people? Could they have had coverings on their feet because the lava was hot?
Remember these prints are not of an armpit scratching hominid, they are of an anatomically correct modern man. And if you have not studied archeology you might think I mean someone today. No, modern man refers to humans with the same body type as people of today. They have the same intellectual capacity, the same body.

So covering your feet would be just as commonplace as farming with those animals you are bringing with you, and as common as having dogs and cats as pets.

So you can deal with all the controversy and listen to all the people trying to make this go away, but just remember what I said about fact 1,2 and 3.

The world leading expert on lava dating for anthropology, dated some lava in Central Mexico at 1.3 million years old. Fact one. An associate expert examined the magnetic alignment of the lava, and asserted it was magnetically aligned, hence not a sedimentary deposit. Fact two. Ipso facto prints were made in fresh warm lava 1.3 million years ago.

The most prestigious anthropological museum in the world, the Royal Museum of London, Home of Charles Darwin et al, and backed by the Royal Academy, the most prestigious scientific association in the world, home of Sir Isaac Newton, et al, made claim those prints were the prints of modern man, along side dogs and cats and cloven hoofed animals.

That is fact three.

The fact that they had not yet dated the lava when they made that claim, is entirely beside the point.

You don't have to accept the fact that those are 1.3 million year old footprints. Wikipedia doesn't have to accept that either. They can believe in fairy tales. No one is going to force them to believe in the facts, or to teach the facts.
They have the freedom to believe whatever they want to believe.
As you do.

And like I say who cares really? Read all the press on the subject. Is anyone in any of those articles really trying to make a case for those footprints? No, they are all trying to say they are not footprints.

And so you don't have to believe that that is an Olmec celt found in New Zealand. It could very well be a simple wood carving tool fragment, that was made 1 km away.

Or maybe it came from Burma, or was planted there by someone as a hoax.

You don't have to believe the Chinese are descendants of Olmecs. They might have come from outer space instead.
Dropa Stones

Originally posted by Rocketman7


As I said. Fact one, fact 2 fact 3. The rest is just people talking, after the fact, as you are doing now.

Yes, most of the archeological community wishes those facts would just go away.

LOL ah dude the archaelogical community are the ones who presented the original data.....if you think this is so 'explosive' why was published in a peer reviewed journal and send to all media???

Wikipedia cannot come out and say, well those prints have falsified all current theories of man.

Sure they could, I'm a Wikipedia editor I could say that - but people would ask me for evidence of that. Again it was science that brought you that information in the first place - you don't seem to realize that

Their pages are full of those theories and their reputation is placed on those theories being the truth.

I don't think you understand Wikipedia, you'll find both the original and latest research on wiki - what is your problem with that?

I am just really thinking too much for you, and should just leave you to think on your own level, since it would take a real education to get you to the level of understanding you need, to understand what I am attempting to explain to you.

What that you are completely clueless about the scientific method? Friend I figure that out a few days ago!

Let me outline it for you slowly:

Scientists (and as you pointed out very important ones) said 1.3 million year old footsteps, papers, media, all over the place

Another guy said, er no, 40,000 years only, papers, media all over the place

Later another group comes by and says after an investigation, nope, the foot prints aren't foot prints, papers and media

Ah, what do you not understand about that?

1.3 was possible, Homo Erectus could have gotten to the Americas, 40,000 k was possible too, an earlier migration to the Americas, the reports were taken seriously and were looked at, but new evidence appears to show the information was wrong

This is fairly common in science,,,,,idea comes out, it is investigated, new idea comes out, more people pile on, etc, etc

Instead of all this nonsense you should be addressing the new investigation.....

Originally posted by Rocketman7


You don't have to believe the Chinese are descendants of Olmecs. They might have come from outer space instead.

Yes I would believe the Chinese are the descendents of aliens before the Olmecs, lol. Need I add that the Dropa stones are a hoax too?

Dem stones, lol

In 1995, British author David Gamon admitted in Fortean Times that he had written Sungods in Exile as a hoax under the Agamon pseudonym, inspired by the popularity of Erich von Däniken and his books on ancient astronauts. The source material for the story was taken from a 1960s magazine article in Russian Digest, and a 1973 French science fiction novel Les disques de Biem-Kara, (The discs of Biem-Kara), by Daniel Piret.

reply to post by Biliverdin


Star for you for pointing out my idiocy!

And the worst thing is i have been so many times, i have absolutely no excuse! No, time to stand up and take one for the team

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

Star for you for pointing out my idiocy!

And the worst thing is i have been so many times, i have absolutely no excuse! No, time to stand up and take one for the team

Ahhh...but if you're anything like me, the only thing on your mind when you hit Whitby is the Fish and Chips...nowhere, and I mean nowhere does 'em better...

reply to post by Biliverdin


Thats true and those bloody enormous sea gulls must think the same thing - the amount of people that lose them from above within a few steps of the chippie always makes me laugh!

When the picture was up, my first impression before reading was that the artifact came from Russia. It reminded me of moldavite. Sometimes in the face of lots of documentation, the truth is not there.

So I don't believe the story. I trust my gut today. Psychic archaeology exists; I am having that kind of a moment. The little green pieces come from Russia, and were possibly migrated through a marriage or barter into another land region.

The censorship of critical or competitive material by the Network power that appears to be in place belies the true nature of the forum that posters agree to be under. It also demonstrates the truth that not all truth appears on this forum. Do not believe you need to believe everything you read.

reply to post by relocator


You hurt ATSs feelings; the beast never knew you were bi-resourceful.

ATS is calling you an infidel.

I BELIEVE that ATS need to redo that censor graphic to "ATS believes that the other site is lies." Instead of just "lies" to keep the libel cooties off itself too.

Originally posted by Rocketman7
The most prestigious anthropological museum in the world, the Royal Museum of London, Home of Charles Darwin

You keep mentioning this place, but as I Londoner who has visited all the major museums several times, I've never heard of it.

I'm not sure there even is an anthropological museum in London, of any note anyway. Maybe you mean the British Museum? Or maybe the Natural History Museum?

If you are going to make an appeal to authority, it might be worth checking that said authority actually exists.

And I don't believe Charles Darwin actually lived in a museum.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by Rocketman7
The most prestigious anthropological museum in the world, the Royal Museum of London, Home of Charles Darwin

You keep mentioning this place, but as I Londoner who has visited all the major museums several times, I've never heard of it.

I'm not sure there even is an anthropological museum in London, of any note anyway. Maybe you mean the British Museum? Or maybe the Natural History Museum?

If you are going to make an appeal to authority, it might be worth checking that said authority actually exists.

And I don't believe Charles Darwin actually lived in a museum.

Nitpicka.

Royal Society Exhibition - British Museum

Way back machine again, fasten your belts... first lets take a quick stop at that amazing turkey site, wow 12 thousand years ago, in Turkey, almost like stone henge, right, now lets go back 1 point 3 million years shall we?

Provides extensively validated data that directly challenges current theories on the peopling of the Americas.
The presence of 40,000 years old human footprints means that the ‘Clovis First’ model of human occupation can no longer be accepted as the first evidence of human presence in the Americas. New routes of migration that explain the existence of these much earlier sites now need urgent consideration.

Provides extensivley validated data.

The fact that they did not know, the lava in question was 1.3 million years old, is entirely beside the point.

Location of the footprints and background

A total of 269 animal and human footprints, both adult’s and children’s, were identified in a small abandoned quarry close to the Cerro Toluquilla Volcano. The volcano is located in the Valsequillo Basin, south of the city of Puebla, which is 130km southeast of Mexico City.

I don't seem to hear anyone saying these were anything but easily identifiable footprints.

In total 269 human and animal prints were discovered, preserved in coarse ash. Approximately 60% of the prints were human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children’s because of their size. Several types of animal prints were also identified including dogs, big cats and animals with cloven feet, possibly deer, camels or bovids. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry.

Bovids, as in cows.

Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry.

So now have you ever seen footprints in the snow? The sand? Did you ever not know, from the stride, the spacing, the shape of the prints, that those were human footprints?

Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry.

Royal Society Exhibition no less, at thee gret blitherin, British Museum

For those of you who are not familiar, with the Royal Society...

The Royal Society is a Fellowship of the world's most eminent scientists and is the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence.

Sir Isaac Newton himself, was once, the president, of the Royal Society. He was made president in 1703.

On 24 January 1839 Charles Darwin was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society.

The British Museum, in London, is widely considered to be one of the world's greatest museums of human history and culture.

From Wiki.

Have you ever heard of the journal Nature?

Nature, first published on 4 November 1869, is ranked the world's most cited interdisciplinary scientific journal by the Science Edition of the 2010 Journal Citation Reports
....
As with most other professional scientific journals, articles undergo an initial screening by the editor, followed by peer review (in which other scientists, chosen by the editor for expertise with the subject matter but who have no connection to the research under review, will read and critique articles), before publication.

May I remind you, it is, the most prestigious scientific journal in the world.

ht tp://www.nature.com/news/2005/050704/images/footprint.jpg

Originally posted by Rocketman7

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by Rocketman7
The most prestigious anthropological museum in the world, the Royal Museum of London, Home of Charles Darwin

You keep mentioning this place, but as I Londoner who has visited all the major museums several times, I've never heard of it.

I'm not sure there even is an anthropological museum in London, of any note anyway. Maybe you mean the British Museum? Or maybe the Natural History Museum?

If you are going to make an appeal to authority, it might be worth checking that said authority actually exists.

And I don't believe Charles Darwin actually lived in a museum.

Royal Society Exhibition - British Museum
From the website created for the prestigious special event...

Provides extensively validated data that directly challenges current theories on the peopling of the Americas.

Provides extensivley validated data.

The fact that they did not know, the lava in question was 1.3 million years old, is entirely beside the point.

Location of the footprints and background

A total of 269 animal and human footprints, both adult’s and children’s, were identified in a small abandoned quarry close to the Cerro Toluquilla Volcano. The volcano is located in the Valsequillo Basin, south of the city of Puebla, which is 130km southeast of Mexico City.

In total 269 human and animal prints were discovered, preserved in coarse ash. Approximately 60% of the prints were human, with 36% of the human prints classified as children’s because of their size. Several types of animal prints were also identified including dogs, big cats and animals with cloven feet, possibly deer, camels or bovids. Several short trails of footprints are visible in some parts of the quarry.

ht tp://www.nature.com/news/2005/050704/images/footprint.jpg

Shall I do Renne now for you?

Paul Renne - Faculty
Professor in Residence, Director of Berkeley Geochronology Center
2455 Ridge Road
Berkeley, CA

1987-1989 Postdoctoral Fellow, Princeton University
1987 PhD in Geology, U. C. Berkeley
1982 AB (with Highest Honors) in Geology, U. C. Berkeley

From Wiki

Paul R. Renne (b. 1957 San Antonio, Texas) is the director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center and also adjunct professor of geology in the Department of Earth & Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley).[1][2] Renne is considered a leading expert on the argon–argon dating technique and is interested in paleomagnetism in Earth history, precisely dating flood basalts, particularly the Siberian Traps, and large igneous province volcanism in general, and paleoanthropology.[1][3] Renne received his A.B. and his Ph.D. in geology from UC Berkeley.

His list of publications is much too long for this text editor.

Here is but a sample...

ARCHEOLOGY AND PALEOANTHROPOLOGY

Clark, J.D., Beyene, Y., WoldeGabriel, G., William Hart, W.K., Renne, P.R., Gilbert, H., Defleur, A., Suwa, G., Katoh, S., Ludwig, K.R., Boisserie, J.-R., Asfaw, B., and White, T.D., 2003, Stratigraphic, chronological, and behavioral contexts of Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia: Nature 423, 747-752.

Rook, L., Renne, P.R., Benvenuti, M., and Papini, M., 2000, Geochronology of Oreopithecus-bearing succession at Baccinello (Italy) and the extinction pattern of European Miocene hominoids: Journal of Human Evolution 39: 577-582.

Deino, A.L., Renne, P.R., and Swisher, C.C, 1998, 40Ar/39Ar Dating in Paleoanthropology and Archeology: Evolutionary Anthropology 6 (2): 63-75.

etc

To disagree with Renne, that the lava in question in Mexico is 1.3 million years old, is to disagree with Renne, that hominids were in Africa, 2.8 mya.

He is the man you call, when you want to date lava in any archeological context.

Re: the Mexican footprints

Renne and his colleagues used two dating techniques, one examining the ratios of chemical isotopes in the ash and another looking for magnetic signals from the sediments.

The 40,000-year date was based on radiocarbon analysis of shells in the layer above the ash at the nearby Toloquilla quarry.

RESEARCH
Geochronology, stratigraphy and geochemistry of Cindery Tuff in Pliocene hominid-bearing sediments of the Middle Awash, Ethiopia

Nature Article (01 Mar 1984)
Age of early hominids

Nature Scientific Correspondence (17 Aug 1995)
Laser-fusion 40 Ar/ 39 Ar dating of Bed I, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

Nature Letters to Editor (14 Nov 1991)

Originally posted by Rocketman7
Re: the Mexican footprints

Renne and his colleagues used two dating techniques, one examining the ratios of chemical isotopes in the ash and another looking for magnetic signals from the sediments.

The 40,000-year date was based on radiocarbon analysis of shells in the layer above the ash at the nearby Toloquilla quarry.

RESEARCH
Geochronology, stratigraphy and geochemistry of Cindery Tuff in Pliocene hominid-bearing sediments of the Middle Awash, Ethiopia

Nature Article (01 Mar 1984)
Age of early hominids

Nature Scientific Correspondence (17 Aug 1995)
Laser-fusion 40 Ar/ 39 Ar dating of Bed I, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

Nature Letters to Editor (14 Nov 1991)

Now lets hear from an eye witness to the prints Martin Redfern shall we

Martin Redfern is a senior producer in the BBC Radio Science Unit, where he has worked for most of the last 25 years. He joined the BBC as a studio manager after graduating from University College London, where he studied geology. He has spent time as a science producer in BBC TV and as science news editor for BBC World Service. Most of his work now is on science feature programs for Radio 4 and World Service, where he enjoys pushing the boundaries of science. In 2005, he won the Science Writers' Award from Association of British Science Writers for "the best scripted/edited radio programme on a science subject." He has also written extensively on science for magazines and newspapers and, more recently, popular science books. In quiet moments he enjoys the natural world and especially the small corner of it behind his home in Kent.

And I quote...
Martin Redfern: Some of the marks may indeed be random but as David Huddart also of Liverpool John Moores showed me, many are clearly in the shape of human feet.

I can tell you are just champing at the bit for more now...

Paul Renne: The argon argon method is really the most reliable, accurate and precise dating method that's currently available to date rocks in the tens of thousands of years to billions of years age range. The first thing I did after cleaning the sample very, very carefully is to analyse individual chunks of this rock separately without combining them together to make sure that we had a homogeneous population. And we established very quickly that all the little bits of rock give us the same age. So the ages that I was obtaining are something like 1.3 million plus or minus .03 million years.

Martin Redfern: That's more than 30 times the age suggested by Silvia Gonzalez' team and ridiculously early for there to have been humans around. But there was more. To check that the volcanic fragments hadn't been redeposited from older rocks Paul Renne tested to see if magnetic minerals in them were all aligned in the same way. They were, but it was opposite to the earths' magnetic polarity today.

Paul Renne: Well we know that the earths' magnetic field reverses its polarity episodically and has done so for as long as we know. The last time that the earths' magnetic field had consistently reversed polarity is 790,000 years ago. So the fact that we found reverse polarity magnetisation in this rock tells us really without doing much further analysis that it's older than 790,000 years.

Originally posted by Rocketman7
So ok, what about this?
planetearth.nerc.ac.uk...

That article, at the bottom, says it's pick marks. So. you've sort of proved Hans' point.

And if you have not studied archeology you might think I mean someone today. No, modern man refers to humans with the same body type as people of today. They have the same intellectual capacity, the same body.

Ah... have you realized yet that the person you're debating IS an archaeologist? And that he's worked in Central America and Mexico on digs?

The world leading expert on lava dating for anthropology, dated some lava in Central Mexico at 1.3 million years old.

Subfact: geologists don't know beans about paleontology or archaeology. My dear husband has a very good degree in geology and while he can tell the age of rocks, he's clueless at fossils or footprints. The paleontologists I work with are very good at figuring out footprints and rock ages, but they are clueless at humanoid artifacts.

It's not that any of the above are stupid -- it's just that there is SO much to know in these fields that it's hard to get most of it in even if you spend 20 years in school. And it changes all the time.

Every day.

The most prestigious anthropological museum in the world, the Royal Museum of London, Home of Charles Darwin et al, and backed by the Royal Academy, the most prestigious scientific association in the world, home of Sir Isaac Newton, et al, made claim those prints were the prints of modern man, along side dogs and cats and cloven hoofed animals.

That is fact three.

The fact that they had not yet dated the lava when they made that claim, is entirely beside the point.

Actually, you really can't tell (in any rock) WHEN an artifact was deposited. If the rock's below the surface, you can get a general idea of the age within a few million years. But if it's surface rock (like the lava), you start running into trouble. Mortar holes in rock (made by Native Americans) are difficult to tell from erosion holes in the same rock -- it really does take a well trained eye to spot the difference, and mistakes are made.

The first report of anything is never the "final say" on it.