Could these be the oldest human footprints in North America?

originally posted by: starswift
Not at all, it's up you to do the research if the subject interests you and you wish to be knowledgeable.

Sorry...not how it works. It's not up to me to prove your point.

I didn't ask you to, you asked me to, by challenging me to respond.
If I choose not to respond it's largely that you seem disrespectful.
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: punkinworks10
Yes, in another book "Bones" by Elaine Dewar, she goes in depth into Kennewick episode, and that brings to why I chose Calico for my previous reply, I have recently discovered that calico hills was the first site chosen by the NRC(Nuclear Regulatory Commision) for a waste disposal site, in the late sixties through the seventies, before Yucca mtn. I can see a pattern here.

Funny thing...if you recall, I recommended that book to you. I just saw that as I was searching for Lake Superior copper info. I'm not up to date on Calico, but as I've said, a decade or more ago, I heard mutterings of -40k at Monte Verde. Also, I've tried to track down that Kennewick assertion and could not find it. Thanks for reminding me it's on my shelf! There are still some oddities out there...Sheguiandah is still being debated by Thomas Lee's son (see Ontario Archaeology # 93, 2013).

My request of Starswift to cite his sources was a reflection of the fact that so many factoids cited at ATS are plainly rectally sourced. Somebody wants to enter into a discussion, best to know where they're coming from.

originally posted by: starswift
Not at all, it's up you to do the research if the subject interests you and you wish to be knowledgeable.

BEEEEPPPP wrong... when one makes a claim, it lies upon the one making said claim to support that claim with appropriate citations. It's not the job of anyone else to support that claim.

I don't consider it extraordinary as I gained it from scientific sources, mostly from a book written thirty years ago which was oddly prescient. Just shows the information was out there 30 years ago and is gradually making itself into the mainstream.

If the information is so old and verifiable then it shouldn't take much to provide the appropriate citation should it? Are you here to learn and share or just to proselytize and brow beat? You also have to consider that if you read it in a 30 year old book, then the information may very well be out of date and new discoveries could have shown the information as presented to be incorrect. Simply claiming its a fact because you read it in a 3 decade old book does not a fact make. Its up to you to present the basis for your claim so that others may engage in the appropriate due diligence because a google search isn't necessarily going to lead to the information you are referring to.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I think this is Lee's first published work on Sheguiandah but it's free to read online-
www.jstor.org...

and here is more from his second expedition-
www.jstor.org...

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

JohnnyC,

Funny thing...if you recall, I recommended that book to you. I just saw that as I was searching for Lake Superior copper info. I'm not up to date on Calico[/uote]

Really? That's crazy because I don't remember that at all, butt would explain why, in a dark old used book store just jam packed with books, it stood out like a sore thumb.

I just found that geo study from a reference from a newer paper(2013) on artifact-geofact differences.

One thing that the book brought up, is that almost no one is going into the old collections and data and re-evaluating older work, in the context of modern technologies.

But back to the original post, archeology of the area is actually clouding the already muddy waters on the peopling of the new world.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
I think this is Lee's first published work on Sheguiandah but it's free to read online-
www.jstor.org...
and here is more from his second expedition-
www.jstor.org...

Thanks for those. I have the 1953 National Museum of Canada Bulletin # 128, which I think was the first published version. I haven't finished with the Robert Lee paper I referenced, but he maintains that Julig and Storck (no lightweights) misread both the stratigraphy and his father's field notes. The debate continues!

originally posted by: punkinworks10
One thing that the book brought up, is that almost no one is going into the old collections and data and re-evaluating older work, in the context of modern technologies.
But back to the original post, archeology of the area is actually clouding the already muddy waters on the peopling of the new world.

Some of us here in Ontario are trying to re-assess older collections, bring some collectors back to the light side, and track down late 19th-early 20th century literature and revisit the sites to register them. Lot of work, though.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

It will be interesting to see the outcome of that. As much as a stickler as I tend to be for the old adage of testable, verifiable, repeatable, at least until the new information can meet those standards... I'm all for taking a long hard look at sites like this that push back habitation of the Americas by such a wide margin.

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
There are footprints somewhere that will never be seen that are more than likely several million years older.

Undoubtedly, but they aren't human footprints, since modern humans haven't been around near that long. I'm sure there are plenty of dinosaur prints left undiscovered, though.

Sorry, but we are talking about human footprints, Human is defined by science as any species in the homo line. It isn't just applied to Moderns. Add to that the fact that the basic design of human feet hasn't changed at all since Homo habilis about 2.8 million years ago, so its perfectly acceptable to call millon year old footprints human,
and indeed, it frequently happens
heres an article which details the find of 1.5 million year old feet from Kenya
www.theguardian.com...
Heres another detailing human footprints from 1 million years ago found in Britain
www.independent.co.uk... -africa-9114151.html

I'm pretty sure they were talking about North America. We know that our ancestors from the homo genus date back around 3 million years ago. "Human" isn't a scientific term, however. It is a broad generalization, there is no scientific classification called human. Most folks that use the term human are referring to homo sapiens. That is the scientific term. Otherwise you could say the homo genus. Human is not a scientific term.

originally posted by: starswift
Not at all, it's up you to do the research if the subject interests you and you wish to be knowledgeable.
I don't consider it extraordinary as I gained it from scientific sources, mostly from a book written thirty years ago which was oddly prescient. Just shows the information was out there 30 years ago and is gradually making itself into the mainstream.
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

If you gained it from scientific sources, then why not post them, or give us the name of the book? Anybody can claim anything. Without sources, it means nothing.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: admirethedistance

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
There are footprints somewhere that will never be seen that are more than likely several million years older.

Undoubtedly, but they aren't human footprints, since modern humans haven't been around near that long. I'm sure there are plenty of dinosaur prints left undiscovered, though.

Sorry, but we are talking about human footprints, Human is defined by science as any species in the homo line. It isn't just applied to Moderns. Add to that the fact that the basic design of human feet hasn't changed at all since Homo habilis about 2.8 million years ago, so its perfectly acceptable to call millon year old footprints human,
and indeed, it frequently happens
heres an article which details the find of 1.5 million year old feet from Kenya
www.theguardian.com...
Heres another detailing human footprints from 1 million years ago found in Britain
www.independent.co.uk... -africa-9114151.html

I'm pretty sure they were talking about North America. We know that our ancestors from the homo genus date back around 3 million years ago. "Human" isn't a scientific term, however. It is a broad generalization, there is no scientific classification called human. Most folks that use the term human are referring to homo sapiens. That is the scientific term. Otherwise you could say the homo genus. Human is not a scientific term.

Human and homo are the same word, homo is latin for human, Science defines differences between anatomically modern humans (us) and Archaic Homo sapiens, ( Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and may also include Homo antecessor)
So human is quite clearly a scientific term.
Homo genus is also a scientific term, "Homo is the genus of hominids that includes modern humans and species closely related to them"
en.wikipedia.org...

Because to respond with a valuable resource to a taunt is demeaning to me and my knowledge base,
In my opinion a polite request is what is the gateway to access of any kind.
a reply to: Barcs

I was claiming something? not at all ; )
Believe what you want, perhaps I made it up.
You will never know without asking politely or doing your own research.
Either way is fine with me.
a reply to: peter vlar

a reply to: starswift

when one asserts something as factual without supporting it or properly citing the source, then yes... it is a claim. If you expect people to do your due diligence for you when you make a claim, don't expect much in return. Whatever floats your boat though

originally posted by: starswift
Because to respond with a valuable resource to a taunt is demeaning to me and my knowledge base

Oh, lighten up! I was riffing off of the internet meme (well known in these-here parts) "pics or it didn't happen".
And of course you were claiming something - to wit:
1) "Man has been in the America's for at least 50,00 years and there are sites under wraps that may push that back to 200,000 years."
2) "Clovis first is itself a relic at this point."
3) "There is even a skeleton that has significant Neanderthal characteristics."
...from which you draw the following conclusion..."So the history of the Americas and hominid settlement and migration is far from a known known at this point."

Items 1 & 3 require support...2 is a gimme. Hence..."Sources, or it didn't happen."

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Here's why we ask for sources....enjoy!

Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078


Dear Sir:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull." We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie". It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to it's modern origin:

1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.

2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.

3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that:

A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.

B. Clams don't have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in it's normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name "Australopithecus spiff-arino." Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound like it might be Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard. We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

Yours in Science,

Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities
Link

originally posted by: Marduk
Human and homo are the same word, homo is latin for human, Science defines differences between anatomically modern humans (us) and Archaic Homo sapiens, ( Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and may also include Homo antecessor)
So human is quite clearly a scientific term.
Homo genus is also a scientific term, "Homo is the genus of hominids that includes modern humans and species closely related to them"
en.wikipedia.org...

It's exactly like I said. Human is an all encompassing term that can include anything in the homo genus. It can also mean modern humans. It can also mean strictly homo sapiens.

The word itself comes from the latin "humanus" which long predates modern science, so no, it's not a scientific term. It isn't a synonym for homo either. It's a layman's term that has multiple meanings. The scientific terms are homo and homo sapien, not human.

originally posted by: starswift
Because to respond with a valuable resource to a taunt is demeaning to me and my knowledge base,
In my opinion a polite request is what is the gateway to access of any kind.

The best way to end the taunting is to prove them wrong. You made a pretty bold claim there, a claim that many of us have heard before but seen no evidence for, only hoaxes. The science savvy folks in this section provide sources to back up claims all the time. Creationists constantly taunt and insult science with false claims, so we provide proof of the claims. Usually a refusal to back up something indicates there are actually no sources, and the claim was either made up or greatly exaggerated. The problem is many folks get their information primarily from youtube videos rather than scientific documents. Besides, calling his post a taunt is a HUGE exaggeration. You don't HAVE to back up what you say, just don't expect folks to take you seriously.