New Evidence of Early Man? The Trilemma...

page: 1
82
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+55 more 
posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   

If you're looking for a quick read
this aint it...



Over the years there have been a few threads on the topic on both sides the argument. I'll be posting a video which discusses a very controversial site here in the Americas, Mexico to be exact. It's a case of three scientific disciplines coming to some rather interesting but controversial conclusions. It seems that the site in question has been argued about ever since it was first discovered, I'm sure there are some here who are already familiar with the site/controversy. This video may shed new light on the topic for some and for others who are not familiar and interesting story.

When did man first inhabit the 'New World'? Will the dating methods need to change? Will Human history have to be rewritten? It's a thought provoking subject that I'd like to share and present this fresh view on this controversial topic here today. I know many of these aspects have been posted here in the past and immediately shut down due to those being associated with Michael A. Cremo. This one however is not. The video is a fair and balanced presentation imho. So, just how accurate are these various methods? What happens when they conflict? What will eventually be the correct date for mans Inhabitation of the New World?


10,000 BC...

20,000 BC...

200,000 BC...

250,000 BC +...?



The site

Hueyatlaco

Hueyatlaco is an archeological site in the Valsequillo Basin near the city of Puebla, Mexico. After excavations in the 1960s, the site became notorious due to geochronologists' analyses that indicated human habitation at Hueyatlaco was dated to ca. 250,000 years before the present.

These controversial findings are orders of magnitude older than the scientific consensus for habitation of the New World (which generally traces widespread human migration to the New World to 13,000 to 16,000 ybp). The findings at Hueyatlaco have mostly been repudiated by the larger scientific community, and have seen only occasional discussion in the literature




People of interest

Cynthia Irwin-Williams

Cynthia Irwin-Williams (1936–1990) was an archaeologist of the prehistoric American Southwest. She received a B.A. in Anthropology from Radcliffe College in 1957; the next year she received a M.A. in the same field. In 1963 she completed her educational career in Anthropology with a PhD. from Harvard University. Beginning her career in the 1950s, Irwin-Williams was considered a "ground-breaker" in the archaeology field for women, like her friend and supporter Marie Wormington.



Virginia Steen-McIntyre

The dig is often associated with Virginia Steen-McIntyre because of her continuing efforts to publicize her findings and opinions. However, the site was actually discovered by Juan Armenta Camacho and Irwin-Williams. Steen-McIntyre joined the team in 1966 as a graduate student, at the request of project geologist Hal Malde. The excavation was associated with the U.S. Geological Survey.


What happens when three distinct scientific disciplines conflict with the others finds/conclusion/dating? Hopefully after viewing the video we could have a discussion on this fascinating topic. As always, you the reader should decide for yourselves...


The Case

edit on 10-1-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Will have to watch this, later. Hope to be able to jump into conversation, then.
Thanks for the info - again!



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Thanks for bringing a fresh look into this case Slayer. I did a thread on this early in 2013. It has definitely been a highly controversial and hotly debated case for a long time. Unfortunately, the opportunity to go back and rework everything is gone. Those who had a vested interest in this dig NOT being further investigated, made sure of that. Unless archaeologists find another site like it, we may never have a real answer to this one. What happened with this dig and project was a shame, and shameful, imho.

For those who have not seen this documentary, it is well worth the 90 minutes you'll spend on it.

edit on 1/10/2014 by Klassified because: add
edit on 1/10/2014 by Klassified because: grammar



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 


Thank you

It is a bit much to take in once at but well worth the time spent if you're interested in the subject.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


I appreciate the feedback, I've posted some references to this and a few other controversial sites over the years and have always come up against stiff resistance. I think those who take the time to research the sites sequence of events will come away with a much clearer understanding of what really took place rather than what is often regurgitated by those *Not All* but many, who haven't even bothered to look into this further.

As the video clearly demonstrates one of the three disciplines could possibly be wrong and needs to be reevaluated.

edit on 10-1-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


This particular site is one I've gone back and forth on since the early 90's when I first read about it. Or maybe it was the documentary that NBC aired with Charlton Heston narrating. The name escapes me but it was one of the first times I had been exposed to alternative concepts in science. I think it's a near certainty that people have been in the Americas at least twice as long às the earliest Clovis sites and very likely as early as 50,000 years ago. The extreme age attributed to the site is definitely a hurdle for most to contemplate but the blanket thrown over it has done nothing to dispel the extreme age and has only incensed those who believe. With the drastic improvements we now have access to regarding dating methods, its a site that definitely needs a second opinion/look. There should be nothing to be afraid of in finding out the truth. So what if it turns current paradigms on their heads, that's why I got into anthropology and archaeology in the first place- to understand our past better.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


The video in question you've mentioned was part of the problem imho with getting the word out to the modern world because of being associated with a few other non related controversial claims made in it. Although, having said that, I've heard many similar statements by others also say that it started their interest in the field.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I'm really not surprised by much anymore, but it's incidents like this that really make me twitch. Is it that big of a deal to investigate these types of sites that could actually shed new light on our history? I just don't understand people some times.

Another good thread though, thanks.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



You ask way too many questions...lol. But I think that "man" has been in the New World since forever, especially since us. And honestly, I don't worry about it. I figure the Natives had it best anyway, as far as quality of life and then "modern man" came in to "discover" and wreaked havoc and then all heck broke loose, but then you know that. Just sayin'.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


The issues you describe are exactly why I've gone back and forth on this site as well as a few others. A fairly large Percentage of claims presented in that show have since been debunked like the "fossilized human finger" complete with bone, but no joints or the human and dinosaur prints found side by side. I could have gone to either extreme and lauded all the info presented or dismissed it out of hand as inane. Instead it instilled in me a healthy dose of skepticism to add to a pretty open mind as well as a huge appreciation for due diligence. It definitely benefited my research skills in grad school to the chagrin of many a professor because of my incessant need to double triple and occasionally quadruple check everything before I presented. Still making my way through the video so ill check back in after I've finished. Great thread my friend and I look ford to seeing what others may add.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


I think too many have a vested interest in their fields. Which ever one is at question here. They all three can't be right. Two of the three can be. So time will tell hopefully soon in my lifetime.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Bookmarking this to give it a good solid look. Thanks up front Slayer, for dealing with Cremo early on so I don't have to dismiss it right off. I always respect your posts.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 





I know many of these aspects have been posted here in the past and immediately shut down due to those being associated with Michael A. Cremo. This one however is not.


Is Cremo a crackpot?

That's an honest question. I have never heard one way or the other. A simple yes/no will do. It's quicker that "do your own research to find out for yourself"... although that's what I'll end up doing....



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by six67seven
 


Calling Cremo a crackpot might be a little harsh. Misguided? Misinformed? They may be better adjectives. He's a 'Vedic Creationist' who thinks humans have been on earth for billions of years. In the view of most mainstream scientists he would be viewed as a crackpot because what he postulates is entirely contrary to what we currently know. He pushes a lot of hypothesis that have been debunked for years find sells books off of it so I guess it depends on what you reasonably consider a crackpot to be.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   

six67seven

Is Cremo a crackpot?


According to quite a few in these boards that's not too far from the truth. For others myself included he does raise some rather interesting questions that spur further interests. There was a video associated with him that spawned a lawsuit. I never really understood the whole issue there.


That's an honest question. I have never heard one way or the other. A simple yes/no will do.


It isnt really that easily answered.


It's quicker that "do your own research to find out for yourself"... although that's what I'll end up doing....


It's never a bad idea to do ones own legwork.
No?



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   


It's never a bad idea to do ones own legwork.
No?
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Appreciate the replies peter and Slayer.

Yes, legwork good.

Honestly, for someone with a wide range of interests, it's just hard to keep up with every theory/possible crackpot. Time is not always on my side, know what I mean?

I was just asking as I've seen a few old interviews he did and was looking into getting his Hidden History of the Human Race for some time. Maybe I haven't pulled the trigger on that for good reason.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
This conspiracy is unable to go on and on.

The human genome project proves the claims in the video to be very possible. Justice has prevailed. Woohoo !
edit on 1/10/2014 by Sinter Klaas because: (no reason given)


I found the video very boring by the way...
edit on 1/10/2014 by Sinter Klaas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   

six67seven



It's never a bad idea to do ones own legwork.
No?
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Appreciate the replies peter and Slayer.

Yes, legwork good.

Honestly, for someone with a wide range of interests, it's just hard to keep up with every theory/possible crackpot. Time is not always on my side, know what I mean?

I was just asking as I've seen a few old interviews he did and was looking into getting his Hidden History of the Human Race for some time. Maybe I haven't pulled the trigger on that for good reason.


Personally, I'd say go for it and pick up one of his books. I look at Cremo the same way I look at Alex Jones. I don't agree with them or their message per se but at the same time they both get people to look into a different avenue than they would previously have. You can't get a well rounded view of what his message is without hearing it first hand. Just remember to temper it with due diligence and do your own fact checking instead of taking everything at face value. That goes for "mainstream science" as well.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Sinter Klaas

I found the video very boring by the way...


LOL

Yeah, I knew some would feel that way. I can see why some would consider it kinda dry.




posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by queenofsheba
 


I hear ya but hold onto your butts.

This may prove to be a people/peoples that predate the accepted present bloodlines of the known 'Native/First nation' peoples. Whose to say that these were left by homo sapiens?

I know huh?

spooky, isn't it





new topics

top topics



 
82
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join