It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What happens when scientific evidence conflicts with theory? In the early sixties, discoveries were made in Central Mexico, which were the handiwork of early man. Exquisitely carved animal bones and advanced spear points caused much excitement, including a Life Magazine article, until the dates came in. 5 mutually exclusive geological tests revealed they were over 250,000 years old. In spite of the geochronology, archaeologists insisted the dates were too ridiculously old. This world-class archaeological region became off-limits for official research, a "professional forbidden zone."
This is the story of the shocking events that occurred, told first-hand by many of the actual participants. It reveals how one field of science can conflict with another and how new discoveries must battle evidence vs. belief, exposing what some have called "the dark side of archaeology."
Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by Klassified
S & F
Unfortunately this is not the only case. One of them is the case of The 1.5 million years old foot print There is even a case of hominid fossil footprints dating to 3.6 million years ago. But their validity are constantly being argued. Evidence is evidence, it's unfortunate that some studies are being shelved because of conflicting theories.
edit on 28-2-2013 by XLR8R because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Klassified
I think this documentary gives people a good idea of what goes into an archaeological dig, and what's at stake for those involved.
I'm hoping one or more of our resident archaeologists will share their thoughts with us on this dig. Whatever side they may fall on.
Originally posted by grey580
For those of you that dont' care to watch the video.
en.wikipedia.org...
The wiki page goes over some of the sites history.
And this sort of thing pisses me off.
Because it doesn't fit into the neat preconceived notion that's already floating in the mainstream the truth is shut out of science.
Peer reviewed papers and everything. But still denied. it's pathetic.
correct but dont forget theres FISSION DATING and theres also DIATOM method, like the documentary i posted above proves, the artifacts were in the same layer of diatoms that died out 80,000 years ago. and the FACT is they didnt find any, ANY, newer diatoms within the same layer of the artifacts. So thats 100% bang on the money, that those arrow heads are AT LEAST 80,000 years old. never mind about speculation like, but they could be 250,000 years old, because that dosnt matter at this moment in time. what matters is getting the so called scholars to acknowledge these findings, but oh no! not if it goes against the history books but again, the diatom process proves the artifacts are 80,000+ not a mere 13,000 years BS
Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by Byrd
Thanks Byrd. I shall do my due diligence, and look at the opposite side of the story. So there isn't a shred of truth to this episode?
What about those that were interviewed for the documentary?
What about the discussions shown by those who were involved in the dig?
I am most certainly open to reading more than I've already seen and read on this, but I also get the impression those who won the war on this dig, are also the ones writing its history. Off to read your thoughts on the matter...
To be honest, I got through about the first 5 minutes of this episode before I found it unwatchable (I went "arrgh" at the claim that the earliest human ancestor to walk upright lived 25 million years ago.)
Cremo is not an archaeologist though he's an interesting man.
Didn't stick around for it.
A fairer quote would be "those who spent a dozen years or more studying in great detail geology and history and cultures relevant to the site are those who write the history."
Cremo, when he is wrong, suffers no repercussions. Fans of the Ancient Aliens adore him, conspiracy buffs who think archaeologists are hiding secrets adore him. He loses nothing. If he has another idea, he can publish it with a minimum of research (or no research) and he loses nothing.
The archaeologist/paleontologist/geologist who gets it wrong gets rewritten out of books when his (or her) theory is disproved ("aquatic ape theory" is one of those.) No crowds of adoring fans will support their work. If you publish an idea without careful supporting research, you will be hammered by colleagues and will lose out on promotion opportunities. No one's going to shout at them "come work for us!" Academic publishers will not consider a book by this person, and they will not be invited to write articles for textbooks (this is a source of income. Speaking from experience, it's not a HUGE source of income but it supplements.)
but nobody's going to leap all over an anomalous result and declare it to be The Truth. Further, it hasn't been suppressed as much as it simply hasn't been accepted.
Originally posted by GezinhoKiko
reply to post by Byrd
DENY IGNORANCE
then be ignorant yourself eh?
didnt even watch the first few mins before commenting on "ancient aliens"
typical sceptic