Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men.
bi...@my-dejanews.com
Who's Behind Society's Closed Doors: Censored Scientists
http://www.mcremo.com/doors.htm
<....>
The story of J.D. Whitney, State Geologist of California, can be summarized as
follows: If the facts do not fit the favored theory, the facts, even an
imposing array of them, must go.
On July 16, 1866, J.D. Whitney presented to the California Academy of
Sciences a report on the Calaveras skull, affirming that it was found in
Pliocene strata. His report of this skull caused a great sensation in
America, with many religious presses declaring it to be a hoax. Some of the
hoax stories were propagated not by Western poets and preachers but by
scientists such as William H. Holmes, an anthropologist at the Smithsonian
Institution. J. D. Whitney issued many other reports of skeletal remains and
artifacts found by miners in the 1849 California Gold Rush which imply that
anatomically modern human beings existed in California up to 50 million years
ago. Whitney wrote: "All the investigations of geologists and ethnologists
thus far have failed to obtain satisfactory evidence of the existence at a
previous epoch of any type of being connecting man with the inferior animals,
or decidedly lower in grade than races now inhabiting portions of the earth,
or anything that we fail to recognize instantly as man." 1
William H. Holmes was joined by one William J. Sinclair in his crusade
against the validity of Whitney’s dates for these Gold Rush artifacts. Why
were Holmes and Sinclair so determined to discredit Whitney’s evidence for
the existence of Tertiary humans? Holmes said, "If these forms are really of
Tertiary origins, we have here one of the greatest marvels yet encountered by
science; and perhaps if Professor Whitney had fully appreciated the story of
human evolution as it is understood today, he would have hesitated to
announce the conclusions formulated, notwithstanding the imposing array of
testimony with which he was confronted." 2
1. Whitney, J.D. (1880) The auriferous gravels of the Sierra Nevada of
California. Harvard University, Museum of
Comparative Zoology Memoir 6(1), p. 286.
2. Holmes, W.H. (1899) Review of the evidence relating to the auriferous
gravel man in California. Smithsonian
Institute Annual Report 1898-1899, p. 424.
<...>
The case of Virginia Steen-McIntyre opens a rare window into the actual social
processes of data suppression in paleoanthropology, processes resulting in
personal abuse and professional penalities for one who dared to present and
defend anomalous findings in the scientific literature.
Geologist Virginia Steen McIntyre suffered witholding of funds, censorship, as
well as loss of job, facilities and reputation for her persistent attempts to
publish a scientific paper describing an anomalous date of 250.000 years for
stone tools discovered at the Hueyatlaco site in Mexico.
In the 1960’s, highly sophisticated stone tools rivaling the best work of Cro-
magnon man in Europe were unearthed by Juan Armenta Camacho and Cynthia Irwin-
Williams at Hueyatlaco, 75 miles southeast of Mexico City. Dr. Steen-McIntyre
was one of three U.S. Geological Survey team members who dated this site using
four different dating methods independently: uranium series dating, fission
track dating, tephrahydration dating and study of mineral weathering. Human
beings capable of making the kind of tools found at Hueyatlaco are not thought
to have come into existence until about 100,000 years ago in Africa.
Although Steen-McIntyre first presented a paper describing the incredible
250,000 date at a symposium in 1975, it was not until 1981 that an article
about her findings was published in a scientific journal, and this article was
hotly contested and discounted by established scientists. Archeologists were
in an uproar over Hueyatlaco and refused to even consider this anomalous
date. The editor of a scientific publication to whom Dr. Steen-McIntyre had
submitted her manuscript not only concealed her findings by not publishing
them, but also censored them by drastically editing most of the Hueyatlaco
materials to the extreme point of changing one of her data tables so as to
alter the information! After being labeled a publicity seeker and an
incompetent geologist by her colleagues, she ended up leaving her profession
because of the negative consequences resulting from her efforts to document
these scientific truths.
Thanks to the credibility given to her findings by Forbidden Archeology,
Virgina Steen-McIntyre has again resumed work in her field.
<...>
Some famous scientists have occasionally nurtured heretical ideas, despite
the personal risks involved in opposing prevailing academic views. One
example is Louis Leakey, world renowned for his discoveries in Africa. In
1964 he excavated the Calico site in the Mojave Desert of California and
recovered some 11,400 artifacts, the oldest dated at 200,000 years.
Leakey recalls a story from his beginning days: "Back in 1929-1930 when I was
teaching students at the University of Cambridge I was so impressed by the
circumstantial evidence [for early man] that I began to tell my students that
man must have been in the New World at least 15,000 years. I shall never
forget when Ales Hrdlicka, that great man from the Smithsonian Institution,
happened to be at Cambridge, and he was told by my professor (I was only a
student supervisor) that Dr. Leakey was telling students that man must have
been in America 15,000 or more years ago. He burst into my rooms - he didn’t
even wait to shake hands - and said, "Leakey, what’s this I hear? Are you
preaching heresy?’" Leakey said, "No, Sir!" To which Hrdlicka replied, "You
are! You are telling students that man was in America 15,000 years ago.
What evidence have you?" Leakey replied, "No positive evidence. Purely
circumstantial evidence. But with man from Alaska to Cape Horn, with many
different languages and at least two civilizations, it is not possible that
he was present only the few thousands of years that you at present allow."1
As happened with Texas Street, mainstream archeologists tended to reject the
artifacts discovered at Calico over the eighteen year period of excavation as
products of nature, and the Calico site tends to be passed over in silence in
popular accounts of archeology. Indeed, it seemed that the iconoclastic
Leakey, famous for so many revolutionary archeological discoveries, had
committed a grave error in judgment in his foray into the New World.
Leakey’s biographer Sonia Cole said, "For many colleagues who felt admiration
and affection for Louis and his family, the Calico years were an
embarrassment and a sadness."2
1 Leakey, L.S.B. (1979) Calico and early man. Quarterly of the San
Bernardino County Museum Association 26(4): 91. 2 Cole, S. (1975) Leakey’s
Luck, The Life of Louis Leakey. London, Collins, p. 351.
<...>
A. Rutot, conservator of the Royal Museum of Natural History in Brussels, made
a series of discoveries that brought the question of anomalous stone tool
industries into new prominence during the early twentieth century. Writing of
his findings, Rutot concludes,
".it appears that the notion of the existence of humanity in the Oligocene,
at a time more ancient than that represented by Thenay, has been affirmed
with such force and precision that one cannot detect the slightest fault."
He then clearly framed the essential question posed by his discoveries: "When
we take into consideration the analogies, or rather the identities, between
the Oligocene eoliths of Boncelles and the modern eoliths of the Tasmanians,
we find ourselves confronted with a grave problem - the existence in the
Oligocene of beings intelligent enough to manufacture and use definite and
variegated types of implements. Who was the intelligent being? Was it
merely a precursor of the human kind, or was it already human?"1
The attempt to systematically invalidate Rutot's discoveries in a debunking
report published by Abbé Henri Breuil of the Institut de Paleontologie Humaine
typifies the argument employed by gatekeepers of the status quo. Breuil's
main support in his attack was simply his unfounded belief that humans or
protohumans capable of manufacturing even the crudest stone tools could not
have existed in the Eocene.
In 1997, after persistent and repeated requests, Michael Cremo obtained
permission to enter the storage rooms of the Royal Museum of Natural Sciences
in Brussels, Belgium, and photographed stone tools collected by Geologist A.
Rutot in the early twentieth century. The tools, from strata 30 million years
old, have been carefully concealed for decades from the public eye.
1 Rutot, A. (1907) Un grave problem: une industrie humaine datant de l’époque
oligocène. Comparison des outils avec ceux des Tasmaniens actuels. Bulletin
de la Société Belge de Géologie de Paléontologie et d’Hydrologie, 21, pp.
448; 480-481.
<....>
Even after a team of Europe’s leading archeologists and anthropologists
conducted a firsthand investigation of Carlos Ribeiro’s Monte Redondo site in
Portugal and several scientists witnessed the discovery by Mr. Bellucci of a
flint in situ bearing incontestable signs of intentional work, Ribeiro’s
findings never received serious attention by the worldwide scientific
community.
Carlos Ribeiro, Director of the Geological Survey of Portugal (1857) and
member of the Academy of Sciences, reported to the scientific community in
1873 that implements of human manufacture were found in Pliocene and Miocene
formations in Portugal, indicating the presence of human beings at least 5
million and perhaps as much as 25 million years ago.
The 1889 meeting of the International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and
Archeology, which was held in Lisbon, Portugal, appointed a commission of
Ribeiro and other scientists to investigate the implements and sites that
Ribeiro had discovered. Naturally, many objections were raised to his
findings.
If the standards used by the scientific establishment to reject finds such as
Ribeiro’s were applied in the same manner to conventionally accepted finds,
then the accepted finds would also have to be rejected. And this would
deprive the theory of human evolution of a substantial portion of its
evidential foundation!
<...>
Political maneuvers and ridicule were employed to discredit the anomalous
findings discovered by Thomas E. Lee, anthropologist at the National Museum of
Canada, at the Sheguiandah site on Manitoulin Island in northern Lake Huron.
Lee gave the following testimony in 1966: "Several prominent geologists who
examined the numerous excavations in progress during four years at
Sheguiandah privately expressed the belief that the lower levels of the
Sheguiandah site are interglacial. Such was the climate in professional
circles - one of jealousy, hostility, skepticism, antagonism, obstructionism,
and persecution - that, on the advice of the famed authority, Dr. Ernst
Antevs of Arizona, a lesser date of ’30,000 years minimum’ was advanced in
print by some of the geologists to avoid ridicule and to gain partial
acceptance from the more serious scholars. But even that minimum was too
much for the protagonists of the ‘fluted-point-first-Americans’ myth. The
site’s discoverer [Lee] was hounded from his Civil Service position into
prolonged unemployment; publication outlets were cut off; the evidence was
misrepresented by several prominent authors among the Brahmins; the tons of
artifacts vanished into storage bins of the National Museum of Canada; for
refusing to fire the discoverer, the Director of the National Museum [Dr.
Jacques Rousseau], who had proposed having a monograph on the site published,
was himself fired and driven into exile; official positions of prestige and
power were exercised in an effort to gain control over just six Sheguiandah
specimens that had not gone under cover; and the site has been turned into a
tourist resort. All of this, without the profession, in four long years,
bothering to take a look, when there was still time to look. Sheguiandah
would have forced embarrassing admissions that the Brahmins did not know
everything. It would have forced the re-writing of almost every book in the
business. It had to be killed. It was killed."1
1 Lee, T.E. (1966) Untitled editorial note on the Sheguiandah site.
Anthropological Journal of Canada, 4(4): 18-19.
<....>
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, controversial
discoveries of stone implements, carved bones, and other signs of a human
presence in Argentina during the Pliocene, Miocene, and earlier served to
increase the fame of internationally known and respected paleontologist
Florentino Ameghino. Yet Ales Hrdlicka and W. H. Holmes, anthropologists at
the Smithsonian Institution, saw fit to execute a "demolition job" on the
reports of Ameghino by discrediting them.
One of the main tactics employed by Hrdlicka against Ameghino was to show that
the fossil bones of presumed Tertiary human precursors found by Ameghino were
in fact identical to those of morphologically modern humans. However,
Hrdlicka, in the company of Ameghino, personally extracted stone tools at a
depth of 1.5 feet in the upper layer of the Early Pleistocene-Late Pliocene
Puelchean formation at Monte Hermoso. This fact was subsequently reported by
Ameghino in a scientific publication. Hrdlicka and his associates were
anxious to discredit this report, for if accepted, Ameghino’s report on the
discoveries he and Hrdlicka made together at Monte Hermoso would have
contradicted the entire substance of the book Hrdlicka was then writing
entitled Early Man in South America. Hrdlicka’s book was nothing less than a
polite but thorough demolition of Ameghino’s work, designed to prove that the
only early inhabitants of South America had been the Indians, who had arrived
within the past few thousand years.
<....>
Critics scoffed at anomalous claims discovered by George Carter, referring to
his alleged tools as products of nature, or "cartifacts." Carter was later
publicly defamed in a Harvard course on "Fantastic Archeology." However, he
gave clear criteria for distinguishing between his tools and naturally broken
rocks, and lithic experts such as John Witthoft have endorsed his claims.
A good example of a controversial American early stone tool industry
reminiscent of the European eoliths is the one discovered by George Carter in
the 1950s at the Texas Street excavation in San Diego. At this site, Carter
claimed to have found hearths and crude stone tools at levels corresponding to
the last interglacial period, some 80,000-90,000 years ago.
In 1973, Carter conducted more extensive excavations at Texas Street and
invited numerous archeologists to come and view the site firsthand. Almost
none responded. Carter stated, "San Diego State University adamantly refused
to look at work in its own backyard."1
Carter found evidence for a human presence during the last interglacial period
at several other sites in San Diego and elsewhere in the southwestern United
States. But he found it difficult to get his findings published in standard
scientific journals. In 1960, an editor of Science, the journal of the
American Academy for the Advancement of Science, asked Carter to submit an
article about early humans in America. Carter did so, but the article was
rejected on the grounds of it being too controversial for publication in a
general scientific magazine.
1 Carter, G. F, (1980) Earlier Than You Think: A Personal View of Man in
America, College Station, Texas A & M
University, p. 63.
<...>
And the story to continues with...
http://www.sunlink.net/~edconrad/
-
c
~ They know they have a skeleton in their closet
and they don´t want to open the door ~
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
jdm
jdm
Stewart Dean
What have these articles got to do with you subject line?
I see evidence being questioned, standard stuff, on both sides.
For example you last bit on George Carter and stone tools being
products of nature. No wonder critics scoffed. Somehow I don't think
his work was not published because it being too controversial, just
sound like his workings didnt stand up to scrutany.
I can assure you if something is valid it is taken up, not throught
the work of one person but by several testing it and finding it valid.
I'm sure it was looked at closely as an interesting theory but
probably left too many questions unanswered. A theory whos proof
relies on series of assumptions is usually contriversial. If the
theory is valid more work then needs to be done not press home the
exsisting assumptions but to find more concrete links with exsisting
knowledge.
Evolution is a fact of life in that the weight of evidence is huge
from all angles. Even if there are some discrpencies in the human
fossil record there are still many other records, working examples,
studies of populations through recorded history and exploration from
people from different disciplines. If one link is found wanting this
does not effect the thousands of others. I feel your articles will
probably be out weighed by positive ones anyway.
It's good to test the theories though - after all if you really want
to know what's going on 'random testing' is a good idea, just to
assure what you're being told stands up.
Meanwhile evolution remains the only theory for life that stands up to
constant scrutany. Any others are just to, well, controversial - that
is rely on a handfull of links that are fairly frail. In short - no
con, no great coverup or conspiricy - just the scientific method
claiming a few victims.
David P Woetzel
bi...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <774vj7$uj4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
>Who's Behind Society's Closed Doors: Censored Scientists
>http://www.mcremo.com/doors.htm
>
><....>
>The story of J.D. Whitney, State Geologist of California, can be summarized
as
>follows: If the facts do not fit the favored theory, the facts, even an
>imposing array of them, must go.
What's new? Can I suggest for your reading _Forbidden Archaeology_ by Cremo
& Thompson
Dave
Thomas Paine
(snip)
Hi ed .... I thought the garbage looked familiar.
Honus
>
> bi...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <774vj7$uj4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >
> >
> >http://www.mcremo.com/doors.htm
> >
> ><....>
> >The story of J.D. Whitney, State Geologist of California, can be summarized
> as
> >follows: If the facts do not fit the favored theory, the facts, even an
> >imposing array of them, must go.
>
> & Thompson
And may *I* suggest storing said volume under the bathroom sink, for
when your t.p. supply runs low. (Be sure not to get any ink on your ass.
Overexposure to their *work* would not be good.) And might I *further*
suggest doing a little bit more research than it appears you have
regarding Cremo and Thompson? Your unabashed support of these two might
end in some embarrassment for you.
--
"Science rules." "Death to spammers."
-Bill Nye the Science Guy- -Honus-
Replace the spam-defeater 'STRANGEFLESH' with 'net' to respond via
email.
bi...@my-dejanews.com
>David P Woetzel wrote:
>>
>> bi...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <774vj7$uj4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> >
>> >
>> >Who's Behind Society's Closed Doors: Censored Scientists
>> >http://www.mcremo.com/doors.htm
>> >
>> ><....>
>> >The story of J.D. Whitney, State Geologist of California, can be summarized
>> as
>> >follows: If the facts do not fit the favored theory, the facts, even an
>> >imposing array of them, must go.
>>
>> What's new? Can I suggest for your reading _Forbidden Archaeology_ by Cremo
>> & Thompson
>
>And may *I* suggest
Nope, you may not!
>storing said volume under the bathroom sink,
Why?
>for when your t.p. supply runs low.
t.p. what?
>(Be sure not to get any ink on your ass.
perv.
>Overexposure to their *work* would not be good.)
I fully agree. :)
>And might I *further* suggest
Definitely not.
>doing a little bit more research
12 years of research, and you?
>than it appears you have regarding Cremo and Thompson?
You mean, research the individuals behind the claims rather then...
well, that makes a lot of sense, coming from you.... :)
>Your unabashed support of these two might
>end in some embarrassment for you.
Believe me, the final embarrassment is on you my friend.
-
c
Honus
>
> On 8 Jan 1999 11:23:48 -0500, Honus <hon...@earthlink.STRANGEFLESH> wrote:
> >And may *I* suggest
>
> Nope, you may not!
Try and stop me.
> >storing said volume under the bathroom sink,
>
> Why?
Why am I not surprised to learn that you never wipe your ass? I guess
that when one is as full of shit as you are, it would be a never ending
job. All the more reason to keep Cremo's stuff under the sink. :)
> >for when your t.p. supply runs low.
>
> t.p. what?
It's toilet paper. Buy some, try some. Please.
> >(Be sure not to get any ink on your ass.
>
> perv.
I don't mind you dreaming about me...I just don't want to hear about it.
> >Overexposure to their *work* would not be good.)
>
> I fully agree. :)
Let me climb back into my chair.
> >And might I *further* suggest
>
> Definitely not.
Why not? Because you don't like it?
> >doing a little bit more research
>
> 12 years of research, and you?
You've been investigating Cremo and Thompson for 12 years? Might I
suggest a hobby?
> >than it appears you have regarding Cremo and Thompson?
>
> You mean, research the individuals behind the claims rather then...
> well, that makes a lot of sense, coming from you.... :)
Picky, picky. It wouldn't take much of investigating their claims to see
how wrong they are. And, FYI, researching the individual is quite
appropriate. It's called a background check. Why do you have such a
problem with that? Wait...never mind. :)
> >Your unabashed support of these two might
> >end in some embarrassment for you.
>
> Believe me, the final embarrassment is on you my friend.
<g>
David P Woetzel
Honus wrote in message <36963235...@earthlink.STRANGEFLESH>...
>David P Woetzel wrote:
>>
>> bi...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<774vj7$uj4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> >
>> >
>> >http://www.mcremo.com/doors.htm
>> >
>> ><....>
>> >The story of J.D. Whitney, State Geologist of California, can be
summarized
>> as
>> >follows: If the facts do not fit the favored theory, the facts, even an
>> >imposing array of them, must go.
>>
Cremo
>> & Thompson
>
>when your t.p. supply runs low. (Be sure not to get any ink on your ass.
>Overexposure to their *work* would not be good.) And might I *further*
>suggest doing a little bit more research than it appears you have
>regarding Cremo and Thompson? Your unabashed support of these two might
>end in some embarrassment for you.
I will write off your rude comments as professional jealousy.
DW
Heinrich
In message <774vj7$uj4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> , Mr.
Christer M. Palmstrom, A.K.A. "bipc" or " bi...@my-dejanews.com"
wrote:
+Who's Behind Society's Closed Doors: Censored Scientists
+http://www.mcremo.com/doors.htm
+<....>
+ The story of J. D. Whitney, State Geologist of California,
+ can be summarized as follows: If the facts do not fit the
+ favored theory, the facts, even an imposing array of them,
+must go. ...
+
+On July 16, 1866, J.D. Whitney presented to the California
+Academy of Sciences a report on the Calaveras skull,
+affirming that it was found in Pliocene strata.
..... material deleted ...
I discuss the Calaveras Skull in a FAQ that I prepared in
commenting about this claim by "Forbidden Archeology."
It is titled "The Calaveras Skull Revisited" and can be
found at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/calaveras.html
Even, Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson in "Forbidden
Archaeology," stated about the Calaveras Skull:
"The evidence is so contradictory and confusing
that although the skull could have come from an Indian
burial cave we might regard with suspicion anyone who
comes forward with any kind of definite conclusion."
What Mr. Palmstrom ignores are recent reanalysis of the
authenticity of the Calaveras Skull by Taylor et al. (1992)
and Dexter (1986). Their reanalysis, including a
radiocarbon date of about 1,000 BP from bones found with
the skull, substantiate the claim that it is only the skull
of a prehistoric Native American. They also document the
popularity of practical jokes and pranks in the California
mining camps and evidence showing that the Calveras Skull
was one of them.
Boutwell (1911) was so intrigued with this find that while
studying the geology of the area, he interviewed a number
of the people involved with its discovery. He found that
this skull was locally regarded as a prank on Dr. Whitney
and the miner who "found" the skull. Also, one of the
principal participants in the discovery of the skull even
admitted that it was a prank as the below testimony
indicates.
(Note: below quotes came from a government publication,
so there is no copyright.)
Boutwell (1911) wrote:
"About half a mile northeast of Altaville, at Bald
Hill, is the locality in which the "Calaveras skull,"
described by Whitney, was reported to have been
discovered in stream gravels overlain by Tertiary
tuffaceous lavas. In as much as the authenticity of
this skull is still open to discussion, the original
information procured in the course of the present
study is pertinent. Bald Hill is a lenticular, moonlike.
knob trending northeast and southwest, somewhat
over 100 feet in height." ... geological data omitted Š
"Near the top of the knob are two dumps, one made up
of some rhyolitic tuff, much andesitic tuff, and
considerable quantities of well-washed siliceous and
porphyritic gravels. Just beyond and sunk in the
gravels forming the top of the hill is the second shaft,
which penetrates, to judge from the dump, siliceous
and porphyritic gravels, probably-some rhyolite, and
possibly some andesite. The second dump appears to
be much the older, and thus in all probability is the
one from which the Calaveras skull is stated to have
been taken. The writer was fortunately able to interview
old residents of the region, including one of the three
living principals in the affair, Mr. S. F. Schaeffle, an
intimate friend of a second one of the principals, and
to check the statements of these men by other reliable
first-hand information. This accordant
testimony may be briefly summarized as follows:
'At the time of the event under discussion, some very
perfect trunks of palms were found in workings in gravels
at Bald Hill. This was unusual and occasioned
considerable talk and discussion. About this time also
a stream in Salt Spring Valley in cutting away its banks
exposed an old Indian burying ground and washed out
some skeletons. Dr. Kelly, one of the local physicians,
obtained one of these skeletons and had it on exhibition
in his office. One Ross Coon, who had become noted
as the local joker through his many humorous acts,
some of them of such character that he was cited to
appear in court to answer for them, saw an opportunity
for another joke. Another local doctor named Jones,
who was as amateur scientist and friend of the State
geologist, J. D. Whitney, had a collection of specimens
of odd and interesting things, including many old bones,
and so was commonly regarded as some what of an
authority on the subject of fossils. It was stated that
the finding of the palms, the discovery of the Indian
skeleton, and the presence of the eager doctor collector
led to tale hatching of a plot. Coon and Scribner (the
second conspirator) are said by Schaeffle to have taken
the skull from Dr. Kelly's office and had it placed (some
say by one Siebold) in gravels in the shaft then being
sunk on Bald Hill by a man named Mattison. Then, either
Dr. Jones was asked to visit the locality and observe the
skull reported to have been found, or it was removed by
Mattison and sent to him at his own request by Scribner's
partner. Dr. Jones is said to have accepted it as
authentic, and in order to carry the joke further a
description of the skull was written by Siebold and
published in a newspaper. At this point Prof. Whitney,
the State geologist, was invited to investigate the
matter. The was assuming a more serious phase, but
to carry it through and to protect Jones in the eyes of
his friend Whitney both Scribner and Mattison gave
testimony regarding their respective parts in the
discovery, to the general support that the skull was
authentic. Thus, the skull came into the hands of
Prof. Whitney and the practical joke was accepted in
good faith as a scientific discovery of the highest
import.
In further corroboration of critical points, Mr.
Schaeffle, who worked in the shaft at the time, stated
to the writer that he is of the opinion that the skull
is the same one he had previously seen in Dr. Kelly's
office; that it was not incrusted, nor did it in any way
have the appearance of the gravel at the point where
it was said to have been found, but that it was, on the
other hand, black like many skulls found in the marshy
burying grounds; that no other bones were ever found
in the Bald Hill workings; and finally that he is "satisfied
that it [the skull] never came out of that shaft
originally" Again, Dr. Kelly told Mr. Schaeffle that he
was confident the skull was the same one he had in his
office before the reported discovery; that there was no
Bald Hill gravel in or around the skull after being taken
from the shaft, only black earth and some gravel totally
unlike the Bald Hill gravel. All these statements are
exactly corroborated by Mattison, who was an intimate
friend of Coon's.'"
Dr. Boutwell then goes on to say that this explanation,
judging from his other interviews, represents the prevailing
opinion of the residents and friends of the jokesters
throughout the region.
References Cited:
Boutwell, J. M., 1911, The Calaveras Skull. in W. Lindgrens, The
Tertiary Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper no. 73, pp. 54-55.
Dexter, R. W., 1986, Historical aspects of the Calaveras skull
controversy. American Antiquity. vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 365-369.
Taylor, R. E., Louis A. Payen and Peter J. Slota, Jr., 1992,
The age of the Calaveras skull: dating the "Piltdown man"
of the New World. American Antiquity. vol. 57, pp. 261-269.
I discuss the authenticity of a few of the other so-called
"Tertiary artifacts" at:
The Mysterious Origins of Man: The Mortar and Pestle
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/mortar.html
+<...>
+The case of Virginia Steen-McIntyre opens a rare window
+into the actual social processes of data suppression in
+paleoanthropology, processes resulting in personal abuse
+and professional penalties for one who dared to present
+and defend anomalous findings in the scientific literature.
Frank Steiger has much to say about how badly the case of
Dr. Steen-McIntyre has been misrepresented to create the
the case for "suppression" of anomalous finds. Mr. Steiger
gives the "rest of the story" about this case in his review
of the pseudo-documentary "The Mysterious Origins of Man" at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/mom-review.html
+Geologist Virginia Steen McIntyre suffered witholding of
+funds, censorship, as well as loss of job, facilities and
+reputation for her persistent attempts to publish a
+scientific paper describing an anomalous date of 250.000
+years for stone tools discovered at the Hueyatlaco site
+in Mexico.
This is not correct:
In fact, Dr. Steen-McIntyre did continue to work in her
chosen field. She failed to achieve a high degree of
success and recognition. After her involvement in the
Hueyatlaco project in 1973, she published technical
papers in 1975, 1977, and 1981. Her position while working
on the Hueyatlaco site was only a temporary staff position
dependent on funding for the project which ended when
the project ended. At that time, she was one of thousands
of geologists who found getting and keeping jobs was a
professional hazard. Also, she did not help her career by
advocating that Homo sapiens evolved independently in
North America and basing her career on a badly flawed
dating method. Finally, as a lady, she had to contend with
sexism and discrimination which aborted many a women's
career in the sciences. Thus, any connection between her
work at the Hueyatlaco site and her failure as a geologist
is highly tenuous and remains unproved given that her
co-authors of the paper which made the claims for a
250,000 BP age for the stone tools had successful to
spectacularly successful careers.
A revealing book to read is:
Pattatucci, Angela M., 1998, Women in Science: Meeting
Career Challenges. Sage Publications, London.
This book discusses some *real problems* about science.
+In the 1960’s, highly sophisticated stone tools rivaling
+the best work of Cro-magnon man in Europe were unearthed
+by Juan Armenta Camacho and Cynthia Irwin-Williams at
+Hueyatlaco, 75 miles southeast of Mexico City. Dr. Steen-
+McIntyre was one of three U.S. Geological Survey team
+members who dated this site using four different dating
+methods independently: uranium series dating, fission
+track dating, tephrahydration dating and study of mineral
+weathering.
1. Neither bone nor teeth are "closed systems" in regard
to uranium. As a result, they are very often prone to
giving anomalous dates that are at meaningless as far
providing any sort of valid dating. This something that
has been well documented in the literature.
2. The fission track dates have such large error bars
that it would be difficult to accept them as having
much validity.
3. Tephrahydration dating has been shown to be so badly
flawed as to be useless. In order to calculate an exact date
using tephrahydration dating, a person would have to
consider the chemical composition of the glass, the exact
temperature history of the sample, and moisture content
of the ground in which the glass was buried. The dates
presented by Dr. Steen-McIntyre lack sufficient
consideration of these variables to be considered valid.
4. The rate at which minerals weather is controlled by
the above and other variables. In addition, whether the
minerals were extracted from either clays or sands and
are associated with fossil soil profiles will greatly vary
the degree to which they have weathered. Few of these
factors were at all controlled for. Thus, the mineral
weathering evidence is useless for dating the Hueyatlaco
site.
+Human beings capable of making the kind of tools
+found at Hueyatlaco are not thought to have come
+into existence until about 100,000 years ago in Africa.
There is no solid evidence that the Hueyatlaco site is
250,000 years old as noted above.
+Although Steen-McIntyre first presented a paper describing
+the incredible 250,000 date at a symposium in 1975, it was
+not until 1981 that an article about her findings was
+published in a scientific journal,
That length of lag in time between a symposium paper and
a published journal paper, unfortunately, can happen to
even the most uncontroversial paper. I know of a USGS
Professional Paper which took 6 years from when it was
submitted to when it was finally published. There was a
symposium on "Terrestrial Paleoenvironmental Studies
in Beringina" which was held in 1991 and was finally
published in 1997. All this proves is that Dilbert and
Murphy's Law holds true for science as the rest of life.
+ and this article was hotly contested and discounted by
+established scientists.
She and her co-authors failed to present a convincing
argument. As a result, their conclusions were hotly
contested and ignored.
+Archeologists were in an uproar over Hueyatlaco and
+refused to even consider this anomalous date.
Archaeologists did consider the dates. However, the
dating methods use, as noted above, proved to be flawed
and unconvincing as evidence for the age of the
Hueyatlaco site.
+The editor of a scientific publication to whom Dr.
+Steen-McIntyre had submitted her manuscript not only
+concealed her findings by not publishing them, but also
+censored them by drastically editing most of the
+Hueyatlaco materials to the extreme point of changing
+one of her data tables so as to alter the information!
Could some specific details, e.g. the name of the editor
and journal is provided? If this really happened, Mr.
Palmstrom should be able to supply these and other details
about this incident along with some sort of documentation.
Otherwise, this sounds like nothing more than
unsubstantiated hyperbola and exaggeration.
+After being labeled a publicity seeker and an incompetent
+geologist by her colleagues, she ended up leaving her
+profession because of the negative consequences resulting
+from her efforts to document these scientific truths.
As noted above, Mr. Palstrom has failed provide any real
evidence that demonstrates a clear connection between her
work at the Hueyatlaco site and her failure as a geologist.
This link is highly tenuous and remains unproved. If she
was blacklisted for publishing material showing a 250,000
BP date for the Hueyatlaco site, why did the co-authors of
the same papers, who also put their names this claim, have
had successful to spectacularly successful careers? Having
he annual award for excellence in geoarchaeology named
after you by the Society for American Archaeology, as
happened to Dr. Fryxell, is certainly a strange type of
punishment for publishing on the Hueyatlaco site.
+Thanks to the credibility given to her findings by
+Forbidden Archeology, Virgina Steen-McIntyre has
+again resumed work in her field.
I was unaware that this has happened. If anything, her
credibility has gotten worse with time.
Š material omitted Š
The rest of this article is more stuff rehashed from shows
like the "The Mysterious Origins of Man" and books like
the "The Hidden History of the Human Race: Hidden History,
Hidden Agenda" and "Forbidden Archeology." Good
reviews of all of these can be found at:
"Mysterious Origins of Man"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom.htm
"A review of Forbidden Archeology: Creationism: The Hindu
View," by Colin Groves
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html
"A review of The Hidden History of the Human Race: Hidden
History, Hidden Agenda," by Brad Lepper
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html
+<...>
+And the story to continues with...
+http://www.sunlink.net/~edconrad/
I find it amazing when people are unable to tell the
difference between siderite nodules and fossil bones.
For an analysis of this claim, go to:
"Carboniferous human bones -- an evaluation"
http://geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/carbbones.html
Another example of someone who is unable to differentiate
concretions from artifacts is give at:
"The Mysterious Origins of Man: The South African Grooved
Sphere Controversy"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/spheres.html
Sincerely,
Paul V. Heinrich All comments are the
hein...@intersurf.com personal opinion of the writer and
Baton Rouge, LA do not constitute policy and/or
opinion of government or corporate
entities. This includes my employer.
"To persons uninstructed in natural history, their country
or seaside stroll is a walk through a gallery filled with
wonderful works of art, nine-tenths of which have their faces
turned to the wall."
- T. H. Huxle
Honus
>
> Honus wrote in message <36963235...@earthlink.STRANGEFLESH>...
> >And may *I* suggest storing said volume under the bathroom sink, for
> >when your t.p. supply runs low. (Be sure not to get any ink on your ass.
> >Overexposure to their *work* would not be good.) And might I *further*
> >suggest doing a little bit more research than it appears you have
> >regarding Cremo and Thompson? Your unabashed support of these two might
> >end in some embarrassment for you.
>
> I will write off your rude comments as professional jealousy.
Professional jealousy? <GBG> You go ahead and do just that.
For anyone else who's interested, here's a snippet of a review of "Cremo
and Friends" work from a real professional.
http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/origins/mom/lepper.txt
"Cremo and Thompson's ignorance of the basic data of archaeology is
exemplified by their reference to the Venus of Willendorf as a work
of
"Neolithic" rather than Paleolithic art (p. 84) and their mistaken
identification of a nondescript stone blade from Sandia Cave as a
"Folsom point" (p. 93). Folsom points are highly specialized and
distinctive artifacts and, although the excavators of Sandia Cave did
recover several from that site, a Folsom point is not what is
depicted
in the photograph reproduced by Cremo and Thompson (p. 93). Moreover,
although they have plumbed the depths of 19th-century literature in
search of crumbs of data that support their rather vague notions
about
the extreme antiquity of Homo sapiens, they are not abreast of the
latest developments in the field of archaeology. They refer to claims
of great antiquity for artifacts from the Calico, Pedra Furada,
Sandia
Cave, Sheguiandah, and Timlin sites, but are apparently unaware of
recent (and some not so recent) work concerning these sites which
substantially refutes (or calls into serious question) the claims of
the original investigators (e.g., Cole and Godfrey, 1977; Cole et
al.,
1978; Funk, 1977; Haynes and Agogino, 1986; Julig et al., 1990;
Kirkland, 1977; Meltzer et al., 1994; Preston, 1995; Schnurrenberger
and Bryan, 1985; Starna, 1977; Taylor, 1994)."
This was written by:
"Dr. Bradley Lepper is Curator of Archaeology at the Ohio Historical
Society, an occasional visiting Assistant Professor in the Department
of Sociology and Anthropology at Denison University in Granville,
Ohio, and editor of the journal _Current Research in the
Pleistocene_.
Lepper's research has been featured in popular magazines such as
_Archaeology_, _Discover_, and _National Geographic_."
Like I said...a little bit of a background check is all it takes
sometimes. There's more interesting info at that link above, BTW.
Professional jealousy...gawd, I'm still laughing! Thanks for making my
day!
BTW...just out of curiosity, are you a Robert Connolly fan as well?
Bonz
<david....@gte.net> wrote:
>
>Honus wrote in message <36963235...@earthlink.STRANGEFLESH>...
>>David P Woetzel wrote:
>>>
>>> bi...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
><774vj7$uj4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Who's Behind Society's Closed Doors: Censored Scientists
>>> >http://www.mcremo.com/doors.htm
>>> >
>>> ><....>
>>> >The story of J.D. Whitney, State Geologist of California, can be
>summarized
>>> as
>>> >follows: If the facts do not fit the favored theory, the facts, even an
>>> >imposing array of them, must go.
>>>
>>> What's new? Can I suggest for your reading _Forbidden Archaeology_ by
>Cremo
>>> & Thompson
>>
>>And may *I* suggest storing said volume under the bathroom sink, for
>>when your t.p. supply runs low. (Be sure not to get any ink on your ass.
>>Overexposure to their *work* would not be good.) And might I *further*
>>suggest doing a little bit more research than it appears you have
>>regarding Cremo and Thompson? Your unabashed support of these two might
>>end in some embarrassment for you.
>
>
>I will write off your rude comments as professional jealousy.
How so? Are you under the impression that he is a professional
Krsna devotee? :)
What profession do Cremo and Thompson have, that he is jealous
of?