The Dark Side Of Archaeology? Or, What happens when Evidence And Theory Conflict?

Originally posted by GezinhoKiko
reply to post by Byrd

 

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.

an anomalous result?

the Diatom results are not anomalous, they are solid FACT!
and it has been suppressed
the Diatom dating alone gives us 'at least' 80,000 years - FACT! not 'speculation' or 'maybe'
this has to be accepted whether anybody likes it or not
so theres your suppression of the FACTS!

Anomalous in the sense that we don't have any other sites that corroborate what has been found and tested multiple times at this one. And who knows how long before another is found.

I think the real suppression here falls squarely on the shoulders of the Mexican authorities, and to a much lesser degree, Michael Waters, who refuses to believe the facts, because they go against his personal beliefs. If he actually said what was attributed to him, that is.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Klassified

 

Certainly an interesting spot Klassified and it does make the old grey matter churn over a fair bit. I will comment more when i have time to watch the video in full.

However, to all on this thread, i would like to point out in a friendly way that Archeology works like all other Sciences - a theory is proposed and then tested, before conclusions are made. However, in order for those conclusions to become accepted, other scientists have to test the theory and see if they bear out. In the case of archeology, this would take the form of corroborating evidence. In the case of Archeology, this means another site that bears out similar results. To my mind, that is good science.

Agreed. That is what's missing. That site was tested multiple times by veterans in their fields. I have no doubt in my own mind at this point, their results were solid. Looking forward to your thoughts after you've finished.

Until they find hominid bones that can be radiocarbon dated, all they have are chipped animal bones and stones that might have been used as tools. There is no reason why hominids might not have made it to Mexico so early, there just isn't any convincing evidence that they did. The "controversy" is fueled by the discoverers' inability to find confirming evidence of their claims.

Originally posted by DJW001
Until they find hominid bones that can be radiocarbon dated, all they have are chipped animal bones and stones that might have been used as tools. There is no reason why hominids might not have made it to Mexico so early, there just isn't any convincing evidence that they did. The "controversy" is fueled by the discoverers' inability to find confirming evidence of their claims.

The discoverers ability to duplicate the find elsewhere would indeed be helpful, and go a long way toward acceptance of this find. But that doesn't negate the fact that the science done at this site was solid, and by the book, by some of the best in their fields of study.

I understand the natural inclination to look at anomalous results as suspect. And who knows, Mike Waters may someday be the lone hold out that was right. Though I seriously doubt it. My guess is, the results of this dig will be vindicated someday. In the meantime, a few careers were ruined because of the inability of the academia of the day to look at the evidence objectively. Though from what I've read, there were peer reviewed papers that supported the work done there.

Wouldn't you know it, those good old Scientists have released a report / info that links perfectly to the second part of this thread title.

Did a comet really chill and kill Clovis Culture?

Sorry to Klassified for changing the subject matter (in a way) but as this has literally just appeared on Livescience i thought i would chip in with it. Hope you don't mind.

We all know the theory, Clovis culture wiped out by comet / meteor impact around 13'000 years ago. Well, not according to the latest research by a multi disciplined team ranging from Archeology to Crystallography to Physics. The theory is there, the science doesn't support it.

Or, as per thread title, the evidence and theory conflict.

reply to post by Flavian

Looks like that may be another lengthy debate among academia. Nice find. I hadn't heard of this.

Originally posted by Klassified

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

It's all good. She just didn't realize we were talking about two totally different documentaries. I admit to a certain twinge when I hear Ancient Aliens myself. We all make mistakes. I've made plenty of them on ATS.

is it realy all good?
i mean come on K
shes a long time member with a very high interest in this topic
she should be reading every word and watching every second (at least the first few mins ) and THEN offer her opinion or theory!
ive seen how quick she is to jump down other peoples throats when something dosnt 'fit' her paradigm whatever that may be.
why should she be treated differently?

reply to post by Klassified


Well I watched this video, although the last few seconds seem to not download for me... And I thought it was awesome! Very informative about the science on dating these and all artifacts.... Nice to see these doubters of science get duped! They know they cannot refute the evidence but will not admit what is scientifically proven as fact! Humans have been around for millions of years! The Mayans call this the fifth world! I have heard stories of archeologist finding spark plugs in thier excavation sites! Not our first rodeo! When will people realize something horribly wrong happened when they decided to keep truth from us! Wake up humanity, your has come, these doubters will defend thier lies to the grave... How much is truth worth to you?

reply to post by Reaperlives


i just gave you your first star
















now i own you
welcome to ATS

on topic: my favourite part of the documentary is when Micheal Waters says he has no problem with the diatom dating method, and then told there is no diatoms younger than 80,000 years old


Micheal Waters: well the diatom method has its critics etc etc blah blah..................

behave Micheal

reply to post by Byrd

The Wiki page is a good summary. It's interesting to note though, it doesn't cover all of the re-digging, re-examining and re-testing that was done in the mid 2000's. With the exception of VanLandingham's finds. No matter though, they came up with the same figures, and same controversies. After that, someone in Mexico decided it was all over anyway. There won't be any more digging done there.

It seems as though it really boils down to the diatoms, versus the inset theory of Mike Waters. At this point, we may never know, at least until another site is found that yields the same kind of results. Thanks for the input.

Originally posted by Klassified
In the meantime, a few careers were ruined because of the inability of the academia of the day to look at the evidence objectively. Though from what I've read, there were peer reviewed papers that supported the work done there.

Actually, no careers were really "ruined." VSM continues to lecture to this day, though mostly to geologists and mostly about this particular site.

Steen-MacIntyre's career was damaged by her decision to go behind the back of the lead person at the site and publish on her own.

The same thing would happen to most people if the undercut and backstabbed their boss, no?

Harte

reply to post by Harte

Actually, no careers were really "ruined." VSM continues to lecture to this day, though mostly to geologists and mostly about this particular site.

That's why I made sure to put, "in her words" after that. I wasn't sure of the validity of it either way. She seems to think so, but you know how that goes.

Steen-MacIntyre's career was damaged by her decision to go behind the back of the lead person at the site and publish on her own.

Now this is something I had not heard. And if true, depending on the circumstances I suppose, that wasn't a good call on her part. My question would be, was she acting as an independent at the time who was called in? Or was she an actual part of that team? I ask because VanLandingham has also published independently, but he was called in independently, not as part of the team.

The same thing would happen to most people if the undercut and backstabbed their boss, no?

Agreed.

Found a video on this report hominin footprints at Kenya, providing the oldest evidence of an essentially modern human–like foot anatomy. youtu.be...


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by Harte

 

Actually, no careers were really "ruined." VSM continues to lecture to this day, though mostly to geologists and mostly about this particular site.

That's why I made sure to put, "in her words" after that. I wasn't sure of the validity of it either way. She seems to think so, but you know how that goes.

Steen-MacIntyre's career was damaged by her decision to go behind the back of the lead person at the site and publish on her own.

Now this is something I had not heard. And if true, depending on the circumstances I suppose, that wasn't a good call on her part. My question would be, was she acting as an independent at the time who was called in? Or was she an actual part of that team? I ask because VanLandingham has also published independently, but he was called in independently, not as part of the team.

The same thing would happen to most people if the undercut and backstabbed their boss, no?

Agreed.

She was working for the USGS and came in as part of a team that was requested by Cynthia Irwin-Williams.

What's with all these hyphenated women anyway?

Harte

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by Flavian

 

Looks like that may be another lengthy debate among academia. Nice find. I hadn't heard of this.

Yes, that's a classic one that's brewing right now. Since I volunteer for paleontologists, I'm actually on the "not" side of this. We've discussed this one elsewhere (what I find unconvincing is a meteor that selectively kills off certain species while leaving others that inhabit the same econiches and are of the same size alive.)

reply to post by GezinhoKiko


Thanks for the star, and yes that was a great part... I always wonder how people can live with such denial in their hearts and still sleep at night... And another point..... Why is it that every time the smithsonian institute gets involved s#*^ goes missing....? Who's working for these guys, the men in black?....and as far as McIntyre, who knows....maybe her boss didn't plan on publishing at all.... What was she to do, sit on this gold mine and live the rest of her life as a lie?.....no thanks... I would easily have done what she did had i felt the truth was indangered... We know that they know the real disclosure is far more dangerous than how long we've been here. But only dangerous for those who are drunk with power... Tickity tock...

Originally posted by Klassified
I think the real suppression here falls squarely on the shoulders of the Mexican authorities, and to a much lesser degree, Michael Waters, who refuses to believe the facts, because they go against his personal beliefs. If he actually said what was attributed to him, that is.

Waters actually is in my neck of the woods (at Texas A&M University) and actually has (according to the TAMU website) currently active research work on the site and on dating the material He has long been a champion of earlier dates for humans in North America (in the archaeology world, he's considered the sort of "cowboy" that Bob Bakker is in the paleontology world... both are reportedly arrogant and have very edgy theories that many disagree with, but when they're right, their research is game-changing.) As you can see, his career hasn't been damaged in the slightest.

So I'm honestly not sure how much "repression" or "suppression" is going on. There seems to be ongoing research in the area. And as others have said, no one's careers seem to have been ruined by this.

I do think that their way of insisting that their research is correct is not the way to change minds in the field (but they already know this.) VanLandingham's estimate of 430,000-500,000 years for the site is going to be hard to support, since there is no evidence of hominids outside of Africa at that time -- yet.

So they have a lot to overcome. The material would be far more acceptable if it was in Europe or Africa, where there is other supporting evidence of hominids from those time periods.

The annoying thing is that there's a big horkin' reservoir over the valley (it went in long before anyone knew there was anything of interest there.) Most ancient human remains and artifacts are found near ancient waterways -- in valleys where governments want to place reservoirs. I know of several digs that have had to scramble to get material out (or documented) before someone put a lake in on top of it.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by Flavian

 

Looks like that may be another lengthy debate among academia. Nice find. I hadn't heard of this.

Yes, that's a classic one that's brewing right now. Since I volunteer for paleontologists, I'm actually on the "not" side of this. We've discussed this one elsewhere (what I find unconvincing is a meteor that selectively kills off certain species while leaving others that inhabit the same econiches and are of the same size alive.)

Well. One can't hardly argue with your logic there.

It gets pushed out of sight untill they can figure out a way to mix it with current dogma in without makeing themselves look like they gotm it all wrong. May take a generation.

reply to post by Byrd

As you can see, his career hasn't been damaged in the slightest.

Of course not. He took the well traveled road in this instance. And as I said before. He may or may not be right. But in my opinion, we may never know now. He was quoted by Marshall Payn as saying: "Marshall, I don't care what the evidence is. I cannot believe the old ages, because they refute everything that is known about archaeology and anthropology. I could never bring myself to believe those old dates."

So I'm honestly not sure how much "repression" or "suppression" is going on.

Here again, this comes from the documentary. Marshall Payn said: "Somebody didn't want that dig, dug." Referring to the final dig they had planned. Some pretty strange things happened down there if the main players in this are to be believed. Including making the site permanently inaccessible now.

no one's careers seem to have been ruined by this.

Those were McIntyre's words in the video.

The annoying thing is that there's a big horkin' reservoir over the valley (it went in long before anyone knew there was anything of interest there.) Most ancient human remains and artifacts are found near ancient waterways -- in valleys where governments want to place reservoirs. I know of several digs that have had to scramble to get material out (or documented) before someone put a lake in on top of it.

Same thing happened at Cahokia Mounds, in the 60's I think. They wanted to level some mounds to put up a hotel. Archaeologists and students rushed in to get what they could beforehand. Going so far as to hold off the dozers as long as they could by blocking them. Of course it happened anyway.

The whole dig in Mexico wound up being quite the mess it seems. And a documentary, no matter how well intentioned, can't paint an accurate picture of all that took place. I realize that. But those personally involved with that dig don't paint a pretty picture of the fallout from it. As you say, the investigation is ongoing. We'll see what Mike has to say now that some time has passed since the last dig in the 2000's. VanLandingham hasn't budged a bit. And neither has Kenneth Farley, who did the Uranium dating.

It will be interesting to see the next chapter in this saga.

Good luck with the Comet, and the Clovis Culture.