New Evidence of Early Man? The Trilemma...

reply to post by Harte


I think what frustrates many *Myself included* is when there is going to be a change due to newer evidence the more rigid in their fields attack those who are willing to look differently at what is/was presently accepted.

As you yourself just stated it's been smashed a few times.

reply to post by SLAYER69


If this is to be true, then it would great for it to come out. What is important in my honest opinion to know is not what should be considered acceptable, but truth, plain and simple, this is what really matters in the end.





Thruthseek3r

Fascinating thread, thanks for posting this! I'm not an archaeologist, but I am an engineer. I thought the documentary's descriptions of the evidence, how the evidence was collected, how the evidence and the site were analyzed, and the logic behind how they looked at and largely ruled out possibilities other than an extreme age (for the Americas) seemed well grounded in good science and quite logical. I found it compelling.

My daughter popped in while I was watching the documentary and I managed to get her to watch quite a bit of it. I asked her what she thought, partly because of her background and partly because she is far more skeptical about possible alternative views of prehistory than I am. Without hesitation, she said, "Obviously the theory [that man has only been in the Americas for 11,000 -16,000 years] is wrong. Ignoring scientific evidence just because it doesn't fit the accepted theory isn't science." I'm so proud.

This raises questions far beyond when man arrived in the Americas, as others have also mentioned. The two that occurred to me immediately were about early man and tool making, and then later I also wondered about the art carvings on the mastodon tusk.

I'll have to watch it again, but I don't recall any mention of human remains at the site, just tools and animal remains. A quick check using Google also did not turn up anything about human remains there. As others have pointed out, if the dates of 250,000 to 400,000 years ago are correct, Hueyatlaco would predate current timelines for 'modern humans' (Homo Sapiens Sapiens). Anyone know whether human remains have been found at Hueyatlaco? And if so, what was determined from the remains?

I was also curious about the age of spear points at Hueyatlaco. Again doing a Google search, it sounds like the oldest currently known projectile spear points were found at Kathu Pan 1 in South Africa with an age of about 500,000 years ago. And the spear points at Kathu Pan 1 were 200,000 years older than previously known. So the older spear points at Hueyatlaco could be among some of the oldest yet found.

It wasn't clear to me from the video what strata the mastodon tusk with the art carvings was found in. But from what I could find in a quick search, it could potentially far exceed the earliest (about 40,000 years ago) undisputed Prehistoric Art by as much as an order of magnitude. I don't know how much credence to put into the speculation that one of the carvings on the Mastodon tusk was of a Gomphothere. But Gomphotheria are believed to have been extinct for about 3 million years. It's too bad that object has apparently disappeared, as it would be interesting to see what date current technology could find on it.

The documentary also mentioned Calico Early Man Site in California and Louis Leakey's similar date findings there. That looks worthy of a lot closer look, too.

SLAYER69

Harte
If the dates are right, they wouldn't have been HSS at least, and possibly could gave been one oif the variations on Erectus, a very exciting idea IMO.

I said the other day in another thread that I wish this site would be settled - ideally (for me) we'd find out that the 250,000 YBP date is right, but it's probably not.

Harte

I appreciate the feedback and honestly a bit surprised.

Read my reply to bfft ^

Slayer - I try to stick to the facts is all, and hold others to them as well.

I'm as capable as anyone of speculation in those areas where facts are missing, however.

The idea of an Erectus (or Ergaster or whoever - even Neanderthal) in America excites me. So I like to speculate about it, but I won't make up facts or pretend that a thing that is known is not, simply to support what I wish were true.

That is the sort of thing I usually go after around here, though admittedly most folks here are too ignorant of the past and what's been found about it to see that this is what I do. No, they'd rather think of me (and call me) a "disinfo agent" than actually learn a thing or two.

Present company excepted, of course.

I did read your reply.

I read a lot of stuff around here believe it or not. I just refrain from posting a lot because it's bad for my blood pressure! LOL

Harte

SLAYER69
reply to post by Harte

 

I think what frustrates many *Myself included* is when there is going to be a change due to newer evidence the more rigid in their fields attack those who are willing to look differently at what is/was presently accepted.

As you yourself just stated it's been smashed a few times.

The salient point is - these people that publish paradigm-smashing finds are then set for life in their fields.

Why in the name of God would they "suppress" such findings?

I think the frustration you voice is just a dislike or possibly a lack of understanding of how science actually works. Criticism is absolutely essential - especially in such fields as Archaeology (not actually a "science" at all) where there are no experiments that other researchers can try to repeat and test.

Edited to add: The sort of "repeatability" called for in so-called "hard" sciences has an analogy in Archaeology/Paleontology and it is quite relative to the subject of Hueyatlaco. "Repeatablity" in Archaeology must needs refer to other findings of similar antiquity and similar indications. So far, nothing comes the least bit close.

Also wanted to add that Cynthia Irwin-Williams, the actual head of the dig, when she was ready to publish her findings (after Steen-MacIntyre had stolen her thunder) actually published the age of the artifacts as 250,000 years before present. Yet she wasn't admonished, nor was she "ostracized" or whatever and her career wasn't impacted in the least.

They disagreed with her, but to no ill effect toward her.

How could this possibly be in an environment like that described by so many believers in suppression here at ATS?
End edit.

Obviously, some critcism might seem to be a little feisty. But it certainly is necessary to the field.

Harte

reply to post by SLAYER69


Wonderful and compelling, also infuriating…

Harte
What baffles me is how somebody could believe this untruth you posted.

Over the last hundred years or so, the "current" model of history has been smashed at least twenty or thirty times by new finds that were published by academics with credentials.

Harte

The last hundred years =/= current. Most modern historians didn't get their credentials 100 years ago, I'm sure you're aware. My point wasn't that history has remained static since the 1800's. My point was simply that shocking discoveries, which fundamentaly change our understanding of a discipline, are sometimes actively fought against if they threaten careers. New findings progress slowly because they meet resistance.

Still, care to give some specific examples? When was the current model of history smashed over the last 50 years or so?

test post please ignore

Cathcart
Still, care to give some specific examples? When was the current model of history smashed over the last 50 years or so?

Less than 100 years ago it was accepted that HSS had only been in the America's for approx 4000 years. Initial Clovis finds pushed that back another 8 or 9 thousand years. That paradigm lasted until very recently and we now can say with a fair degree of certainty after closer examination of sites like cactus hill
In Virginia that Clovis was not the first migration of HSS. There are just a couple of examples of changes to ONE prevailing theory. Throw in H. Floresiensis and H Georgicus as well as Denisova cave and
That's just the last decade. I always get a chuckle when people insist that there is a worldwide conspiracy between multiple
Scientific disciplines because certain people want to maintain status quo while
Entirely discounting that there are plenty of people doing research who are just chomping at the bit to make a name for themselves by presenting new data. It's like watching a color blind man trying to understand a Picasso.

Cathcart

Harte
What baffles me is how somebody could believe this untruth you posted.

Over the last hundred years or so, the "current" model of history has been smashed at least twenty or thirty times by new finds that were published by academics with credentials.

Harte

The last hundred years =/= current. Most modern historians didn't get their credentials 100 years ago, I'm sure you're aware. My point wasn't that history has remained static since the 1800's. My point was simply that shocking discoveries, which fundamentaly change our understanding of a discipline, are sometimes actively fought against if they threaten careers. New findings progress slowly because they meet resistance.

Still, care to give some specific examples? When was the current model of history smashed over the last 50 years or so?

Twice in the last decade or so with Homo Floresiensis and then the Denisovans.

Just a couple of examples. If I were less lazy, I'm sure I could find more for you.

Are you as lazy as me?

Harte

EDIT: I see Vlar beat me to it.


Well played, Peter!

H.

usul88
test post please ignore

Who you callin' ignorant?

We don't ignore people around here. They took away our ignore button several years ago.

Harte

Anyone who has posted in this thread that knows me knows that I don't believe that the timeframe of the current model of human evolution 'out of Africa' is anywhere close to valid, and although I may have disagreed at some point with a few posters in this thread, I do highly respect them for their diligence in the application of the scientific method and willingness to see beyond what they are told.

This video clearly presents why I become so frustrated, at times, with those that immediately dismiss findings that contradict the accepted 'official storyline' of many controversies.

The ad hoc hypothesis is alive and well.
I did find it humorous that so many in the mainstream scrambled to invalidate both the archeologists who dug the site and the scientists who dated the material.
Of course they would. Their next meal depends on the status quo being preserved.

The explanations that were given, like the river bed drying up, seemed to me like a hail mary.
Not an explanation.

And then when the original science was seen as highly likely to be validated, the authorities took their ball and went home.

Unsurprised.

Thank you for the thread Slayer.

S & F.

Yes, thank you Slayer for all your hard work in putting together the many threads you have recently and in the past.

I find it incredible that anyone would believe that a highly motivated, mobile, intelligent, curious and inventive being would have stayed in one spot on the Asian continent until only a few thousand years ago. Not to mention that an entire land mass like the Americas would go without human habitation for as long as conventional theories hold. I can only imagine what it must be like for modern teachers presenting their curriculum to motivated, Internet savvy students today. It would be like being restrained to the piles of old, dusty Encyclopedia Britannicas for information - and still getting dinged for thousands in tuition fees!

I watched your video at the beginning of this thread perhaps a year or so ago, certainly last year, but has there been extra footage added at the end? It just struck me as being a little longer than it was when I first watched it.

P.S. Have you created any threads on the artifacts miners supposedly found during the California gold rush that were buried deep in sedimentary soil and underneath mountains? These discoveries were probably others where the artifacts have disappeared because they didn't fit the conventional story line.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I couldn't get past the part where you say many topics here have been shut down due to being associated with Michael Cremo research ...well are we some sort of established closed minded , cultist here .
Please tell .

Harte
Twice in the last decade or so with Homo Floresiensis and then the Denisovans.

Wait, how did those findings smash the current paradigm? How does the discovery of two new hominid species contradicts, in a significant manner, our recent understanding of human evolution? It doesn't joss anything, merely adds, unless I'm mistaken...

Harte
Just a couple of examples. If I were less lazy, I'm sure I could find more for you.

Are you as lazy as me?

You're asking me to defend your point? Or is that just your way of saying you don't give a rat's ass?

reply to post by Cathcart


Just look at any of the sites worked by the Leakey's at Olduvai Gorge in the late 50's through the 70's. In 1959, Paranthropus boisei completely turned anthropology on its head. And not just the find itself but the radical new dating techniques used to date it to 1.8 MYA. Tough I'm baffled why you think finding two new species oh hominid is not a huge deal. Confirmation of Floresiensis was a pretty big deal in itself but the findings in Denisova cave literally were earth shattering in their implications of how the hominid family tree looks now compared to just 20 years ago. It's one of the most profound finds ever let alone recently in my humble opinion ands that's coming from a guy who thinks Neanderthals are the end all be all of hominids.

peter vlar
reply to post by Cathcart

 

Just look at any of the sites worked by the Leakey's at Olduvai Gorge in the late 50's through the 70's. In 1959, Paranthropus boisei completely turned anthropology on its head. And not just the find itself but the radical new dating techniques used to date it to 1.8 MYA. Tough I'm baffled why you think finding two new species oh hominid is not a huge deal. Confirmation of Floresiensis was a pretty big deal in itself but the findings in Denisova cave literally were earth shattering in their implications of how the hominid family tree looks now compared to just 20 years ago. It's one of the most profound finds ever let alone recently in my humble opinion ands that's coming from a guy who thinks Neanderthals are the end all be all of hominids.

Totally agreed Peter Vlar.

I had no idea that you were such a fan of Neanderthals...

Me as well mate.

You ever looked into the magdalenian culture?
Fascinating that they had the abilities that they did. It seems that they inherited their skill set from the Solutreans.

However, if I had to pick between Denisovans, Neanderthals, and Cro-Magnon, I am Cro-Mag all the way.

It is truly a shame that the Neanderthals have been portrayed like they have.
Their brain case is entirely too large compared to body size to be the bumbling idiots of movie and film.
The only question I would have about this issue would be concerning the sloping forehead and the development of a frontal lobe.
The truth of the early megalithic culture that built the many pyramids and other massive structures across the globe lies with the Neanderthal and Cro-Mag lineage.
It's an educated guess, but one I feel pretty confident at making.
They were the descendants of the people that built the megaliths, IMHO.
Baalbek is a great example.
Those freaking massive stones will probably be there 500,000 years from today.
No telling how long they have been there.

Cheers.

Cathcart

Harte
Twice in the last decade or so with Homo Floresiensis and then the Denisovans.

Wait, how did those findings smash the current paradigm? How does the discovery of two new hominid species contradicts, in a significant manner, our recent understanding of human evolution? It doesn't joss anything, merely adds, unless I'm mistaken...

"Evolution?"

Moving the goalposts are we?

We were talking about history.

Cathcart

Harte
Just a couple of examples. If I were less lazy, I'm sure I could find more for you.

Are you as lazy as me?

You're asking me to defend your point? Or is that just your way of saying you don't give a rat's ass?

You asked a question. Apparently, you're not interested enough to find out for yourself, then?

This discovery of new members of Homo smashes previous paradigms of the past. Flores island, for example, has not been connected to the mainland since before the Hobbit got there. Other remains of early humans have also been found.

One of the paradigms was that these people couldn't travel over large expanses of water.

I wonder whose career was "ruined" by that find?

Harte

kyviecaldges
However, if I had to pick between Denisovans, Neanderthals, and Cro-Magnon, I am Cro-Mag all the way.

That is certainly true. You are Cro-Magnon, as are we all, since they were Homo Sapiens.

Harte

I think that the history of civilizations goes back in time much further than the official story that is told. I'm a believer in the "Great Flood" and also believe that was a reset for our species that sent most of us back to the stone age. There is too much real evidence to support this theory.

I don't know how much faith I have in any of the dating methods but wouldn't be surprized if the spear tips found in the deepest layer were actually 22 000 years old or more.

Another dig is crucial.