Origin of Ancient Jade Tool Baffles Scientists

I really had to respond to this as well.

Originally posted by Rocketman7

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.

edit on 8-2-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)

Redfern's a very nice man, but he's a reporter who studied geology. He's not a scientist and he's not a geologist. He knows far more than any of us about tv, production, sound quality, newscasting, science broadcasting and the like but he can't hold his own in a room full of geologists who have been working and mapping in the field for the past 25 years.

reply to post by sir_slide


Once again Slide, we are of the same mind. This is the only site on the web for me partner. And I feel if it's lies being spread ? Then they are being spread about me. Well FFFF that !



Ya, I take it personal.

Originally posted by Byrd
I really had to respond to this as well.

Originally posted by Rocketman7

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.

edit on 8-2-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)

Redfern's a very nice man, but he's a reporter who studied geology. He's not a scientist and he's not a geologist. He knows far more than any of us about tv, production, sound quality, newscasting, science broadcasting and the like but he can't hold his own in a room full of geologists who have been working and mapping in the field for the past 25 years.

Thats not the point. The point is, he is a normal educated man, who was there on site, and someone from a university, took him, physically, and showed him the footptrints. And so he is offering an independant unbiased opinion, and his opinion was, "well as anyone can see, some of these are clearly human footprints"

An ordinary man, who is outside of the politics involved. An honest opinion.

Originally posted by Byrd

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.

You are not familiar with the term 'spin'?

Not familiar with politics?

Let me explain how this works. So Gonzales, refuses to accept the date of the lava given by Renne,
so Renne counters that he does not think she is competent either.
And he does that by saying well he does not believe those are footprints. And he says they might be pick marks.

So now then, since everyone else who has ever seen them, knows they look like human footprints, some nice associate steps up to back up Renne, so people do not think he is a complete nitwit for not recognizing footprints when he sees them.

And so he says, well they kindof look like pick marks, and you can't tell with pick marks some times because of the spalling etc.

This has nothing to do with science or the scientific method. This is politics and spin.

As I stated previously, fact 1) The prints were studied by experts, and it was agreed they were the footprints of modern man, and as such a special exhibition of the Royal Society, was created for the find at the British Museum.
Fact 2) The lava was dated by experts and the lava was found to be 1.3 million years old.

Yes it has upset the applecart. Oh well.


Fact 3) The footprints in the lava were then examined closer, and the lava under the footprints, was checked for magnetic alignment, to determine if the prints were in sediment, meaning they might have not been placed when the lava was cooling, and it was determined, again, by an expert in the field, the lava was magnetically aligned, the footprints were made in fresh cooling lava.

Fact 1, 2, and 3, and the rest is as I say, just people talking, politics and spin.

Then you have eye witness testimony, from an independent 3rd party, that were you or I to see them in situ, we would right away recognize them as human footprints.

So then here is the interview with Micheal Redfern...

www.abc.net.au...

Notice it says Oldest American footprints.

link

Now here is the best argument against...

First, if I am debating an archaeologist, how good an archaeologist? As good as me?


Can you tell the flawed science involved in this?...

Silvia Gonzalez : We know that the magma that produced the ash came in contact with the water, there was some mighty explosion, parts of the terrain around were incorporated into the ash and that's the reason why the ash is very heterogeneous is you've got different particles coming off different materials that is part of the lake sediments that are baked with the heat of the magma and then they are incorporated and they are a very prominent feature of this ash; quite unique, you don't see this very often.

And on the wall here you can see several holes, cylindrical holes, where we have taken samples to do dating. And we have tried optically stimulated luminescence dating on this wall and on the ash itself. What you measure with optically stimulated luminescence is the last time that these sediments were lit by the sun's rays or the last time that the material was heated. My collaborator Jean-Luc Swenninger from the Oxford Luminescence lab realised that there were these very interesting brick particles in the ash and luminescence has been normally used for pottery in the past. So he treated these particles as bits of pottery and the results he got were quite staggering because he got ages of about 40,000 years for this ash.

"we have tried optically stimulated luminescence dating on this wall"

Bad science.

Wiki

Ages can be determined typically from 300 to 100,000 years BP, and can be reliable when suitable methods are used and proper checks are done. Ages can be obtained outside this range, but they should be regarded with caution. The accuracy obtainable under optimum circumstances is about 5%.

And in fact, the proper method of dating using optical luminescence takes over a year, with the equipment in place and undisturbed during that time.

To take a core sample, send it to a lab, ask them to do luminescence testing on it, is again, just a way to get around the facts, and try to create controversy.

Why on earth, if she is an archaeologist, would she not have the lava dated originally, by someone who knows how to date lava?
Wiki

The quickly cooled lavas that make nearly ideal samples for K–Ar dating also preserve a record of the direction and intensity of the local magnetic field as the sample cooled past the Curie temperature of iron. The geomagnetic polarity time scale was calibrated largely using K–Ar dating.[2]

So then the best argument against is here...

Martin Redfern: And what about the reversed magnetic polarity?

Silvia Gonzalez : Well that is a very interesting point as well because indeed the last time that the magnetic field was reversed was about 780,000 years ago. But however we know that there are very short-lived excursions of the earth magnetic field and one of those happened about 40,000 years ago. About that time the earth magnetic field flipped to the reverse polarity but only for about 1,500 years so we are currently exploring the possibility of having this event recorded in this lava, which would be quite astonishing.

Paul Renne: Ha, ha, ha - how did I know they were going to say that? I have not heard this coming from this group but it doesn't surprise me at all. There is a finite possibility that that is correct, I cannot rule that out. For us to have captured one of those however, the probability is extremely low.

So then there is a window of 1,500 years when there may have been a short reversal, and its possible that these prints occurred within that time frame. Which would mean that the lava was only 40,000 years old.

So now then it should be possible to determine through other geological means or archaeological means, if in fact that lava is 40,000 years old.

Is there older lava sitting on it elsewhere? What is the geology of the area? Etc.

But even if for arguments sake we say the prints are 40,000 years old, that means modern man was in Mexico 40,000 years ago. Well? That alone says something about ALL the archeology that has been done to date in the region since previously the earliest dates were 13,000 and even that has often been criticized.

If you are out by 30,000 years and you have all the tools like carbon 14 dating?

We know how accurate carbon 14 dating is because we can carbon 14 date an object, and look at the historical record, historical texts, to verify the creation date of an object.
And so there is a high degree of accuracy, since those dates obtained by carbon 14 dating techniques can be verified through other methods.

I should also point out that if that lava is only 40,000 years old, argon-argon dating is useless and all the data which has used argon-argon dating is useless, and the very basis for archeological dating, of hominids, which is argon-argon dating is also useless, and invalid, and that would include Olduvai Gorge.

So if you were Sherlock Holmes, you might look at Gozales et al, as nothing more than a damage control mob who originially knew the age of that lava, and recognized that those were homo sapiens sapiens in that lava, and did some bad science in attempt to make them go away. And if it weren't for Renne, they might have succeeded somewhat, by using a date of 40,000 years, and using the Royal Society and the British Museum, as the authority.

Originally posted by Rocketman7


You are not familiar with the term 'spin'?

Yes you are doing it now - you should read the article that comments on this. If you don't like the science, fund another report - you are allowed to do that


Report


Now this reports on the report in the May 2010 .

The report is available for purchase here

Dating of the Valsequillo volcanic deposits: Resolution of an ongoing archaeological controversy in Central Mexico
Darren F. Marka, Silvia Gonzalezb, David Huddartb, Harald Böhnelc

reply to post by Rocketman7

Notice it says Oldest American footprints.

ah Rocketman you do know that things get looked at more than once? That things can be re-investigated? That original findings can be found to be incorrect?

2006 report versus 2010….which one haven’t you read?

Why are you struggling with this concept?

First, if I am debating an archaeologist, how good an archaeologist? As good as me?

Far better, I can read what reports actually say, not what you want them to say…..lol

If you feel that the latest report is in error I suggest you contact the people involved with it and send them a detailed email pointing out the flaws in their methodology or write a letter to the editors of the magazine in which it was published.....

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Rocketman7


You are not familiar with the term 'spin'?

Yes you are doing it now - you should read the article that comments on this. If you don't like the science, fund another report - you are allowed to do that


Report


Now this reports on the report in the May 2010 .

The report is available for purchase here

Dating of the Valsequillo volcanic deposits: Resolution of an ongoing archaeological controversy in Central Mexico
Darren F. Marka, Silvia Gonzalezb, David Huddartb, Harald Böhnelc

edit on 14/2/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

More spin. Of course Gonzales had to accept the date Renne provided, he did valid science, she did not.

That article merely states, that if the date is correct which it is, then they are not footprints.
That is not science.
This is just biased opinion.

Long ago, they were determined to be footprints of modern man.

Just because you don't like the date, does not change that fact.

But enough. Its like anything else, you will never be able to change a person's mind about anything, when it reaches this level of ignorance.

Anyone who cannot see, that truth is not Dependant on their beliefs, is blind to the facts and has no sense.

In this case that article states again, that since we don't believe they could be because our pet theories say they can't be, they aren't.

Well carry on with that assumption and continue to try to make reality fit into your dream world if you can, then you will be able to live in your own dream world. And who cares if it is the real world, as long as you are convinced that the world is obeying your beliefs.

I am far too educated to waste my time with this level politics and spin dressed up as scientific understanding.
Thats for the Discovery channel.

Originally posted by Rocketman7

More spin.

You might try reading the 2010 article you are trying to argue from superceded data and opinions.

But enough. Its like anything else, you will never be able to change a person's mind about anything, when it reaches this level of ignorance.

So true!

However not all is lost - another investigation in the future may over turn this investigation - it does occur!

Example:

I'm a believer that the Polynesians push on from Rapa Nui to South America, to date no evidence has supported this conclusion

Some years a go a chicken bone was found and touted as the proof (finally)......another studied showed that the original claimers had made an error...damn.....still waiting for a counter-counter-study to over turn that!

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Rocketman7

More spin.

You might try reading the 2010 article you are trying to argue from superceded data and opinions.

But enough. Its like anything else, you will never be able to change a person's mind about anything, when it reaches this level of ignorance.

So true!

However not all is lost - another investigation in the future may over turn this investigation - it does occur!

Example:

I'm a believer that the Polynesians push on from Rapa Nui to South America, to date no evidence has supported this conclusion

Some years a go a chicken bone was found and touted as the proof (finally)......another studied showed that the original claimers had made an error...damn.....still waiting for a counter-counter-study to over turn that!

edit on 14/2/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Examine this article quoted...

Could they be footprints of some human precursor "hominid" species? Archaeologists have looked for signs of older human species, such as homo erectus, which was living in Asia more than a million years ago, but have seen no signs of them in the New World, Mark says. "Considering what we know about the timings of hominid migrations out of Africa up into Europe and Asia, it is highly improbable that hominids could have made it to the America's by 1.3 million years before present."

And that they then claim is final proof, they are not footprints. The guy is an imbecile.
No one is talking about hominids here, we are talking about the footprints of modern man.
Period.
"human precursor "hominid" species?" does not apply to this discussion at all.

The fact that an evolution publication would like it too, merely makes them look like a religious publication.
Which they must be, since they have beliefs that they support which are not in accordance with the facts.


Spin, hogswallop, bs, balderdash, nonsense and just plain taking advantage of the poorly educated, non-educated masses.

Scientists using the tools of debunking to debunk valid science to enforce their erroneous now falsified belief system. Harvesting sunbeams from cucumbers.

So this is now about scientism the religion, and no longer about science. Personally I am not a follower of Darwin. I am not one of his disciples. One of the faithful as it were. I'm just a scientist.

Originally posted by Rocketman7

Again you make philosophical remarks - again I ask have you read the 2010 report?

So this is now about scientism the religion, and no longer about science. Personally I am not a follower of Darwin. I am not one of his disciples.

ah we find a reason for all the unreasonable. unscientific passion then!

So in your mind once something is said; and you like it, it can never be change, adapted or altered?
lol

One of the faithful as it were. I'm just a scientist

Sorry, you have demonstrated repeatedly that you are not.

Originally posted by isyeye
One question about this....They keep refering to this as being jade, but considering the differences that they state about it, how do they know that this IS a form of jade?

Perhaps it's something completely different, and is NOT jade. It's possible considering that it has some much differences between it and other known examples.

One establishes the type of mineral by standard tests. This includes hardness tests, subjecting it to acids, micrography, fracture line analysis, and other tests.

Well I don't see any archaeologists rushing to Mexico with picks but kudos to Renne for his efforts in this regard. It appears no one was willing to step up to the plate an attack the footprints with picks as has been suggested.

Lets say for the sake of argument then, that footprints of modern man, were discovered in Mexico which were found to be 1.3 million years old, by argon-argon dating.

Alongside children, cats, dogs, and farm animals. With some, perhaps the children, wearing coverings on their feet.

So then these are people who have an established culture, and are farmers living in a warm climate.
So how far would their civilization extend, lets have a look at the southern US from space but first a city 2,200 feet under the water.

Now then this is side scan radar,
link so at 0:42 rotate that image to the left 90 degrees, so now you are looking at a horizon of sorts and you can see the buildings on top. If you were in the water laying horizontal swimming and had a camera on your belt recording as you swam, this is the orientation of that image.

So you can clearly see the buildings sticking up on that flat plane under the sea. So then what might their style of building be? Precision stonework construction
Machinery and metallurgy, with smelt on the spot rock clamps between the prefab, interlocking, diorite building blocks, that were machined to order.

At 0:49 of
you can get a 3D rendered view from a reconstruction based on the side scan radar.
And water management on a a gigantic scale..
Maybe colossal would be more appropriate. Colossal.
These people shaped and manicured their environment.


Whats my point? I suggest the Narmer Palette tells of an earlier time, and on the upper right middle, you see your typical alien droopy headed one, leading from the rear, following the Olmecs to China.
And the palette on the rght referring to the left, is saying apocalypse? We have escaped at least 2 if not 3.
100 pyramids in China and as seen from space here and also here and etc

Originally posted by Rocketman7

Lets say for the sake of argument then, that footprints of modern man, were discovered in Mexico which were found to be 1.3 million years old, by argon-argon dating.

You are mistaking the date of the material with the date it might have been used. I have on my desk a piece of obsidian made 12 million years ago but made into a stone tool just about 35 years ago...is that tool 12 million years old?

What has Renne said about the most recent report?

Whats my point? I suggest the tells of an earlier time, and on the upper right middle, you see your typical alien droopy headed one, leading from the rear, following the Olmecs to China.

You see an alien I see an Egyptian with their cultural tradition of a shaved head (if we are talkign about the same image that is).....you might want to start a different thread on 'Olmecs to China'