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.
drivers1492
reply to post by SLAYER69
Excellent info. Seems like I have seen that vid but I'm going to watch/listen while I fall asleep this evening. Unless I'm remembering the wrong lady McIntyre had her career adversely effected by this find. Never made much sense to me she seemed to just get a bad rap because it didn't fit what was currently held as fact.
Quadrivium
I think we both agree that human history should be rewritten. That being said I do not see the problem with it being rewritten. Why would someone try and suppress this information?
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
Shiloh7
Quadrivium
reply to post by Shiloh7
Of course u know that Young Earthers just came into being the last century or so? No where in the bible does it say how old the earth actually is.
If it were the case that man was in Mexico 500k years ago it would not shake my faith in the least.
On the other hand it may set the evolution of man back farther than many care to admit. The farther you push back man's evolution into modern man the less amount of time there is for it to have been a slow and gradual process.
Think about it....... most scientists/archeologist gladly accepted proof that man was in Africa 500k years ago......why shun the same evidence from the Mexico? Bcause it messes with their evolutionary model.
I had not meant for us to be debating your faith, which is nothing to do with me or this thread - or my faith either. As I understood it Young Earthers - old Earthers are people who believe in the bible literally and consist of both Christians and Jews etc. Both these groups, especially the latter who do have tremendous sway within funding and certain institutions etc - are not averse to letting their religious views influence their actions I suspect.
With our evolution although I did use to accept the view that it took hundreds of thousands of years for us to move from round stones to shaped flint tools etc etc. I have changed my mind about how quickly man can adapt and learn simply by looking at the incredible changes that have taken place over the last 300 odd years. Since the industrial revolution in the West, we have gone from basically an illiterate society with no basic sanitation, food supply or education to a society so technically advanced its quite an amaxing feat what we have achieved within 300 years.
What did bother me most was how determined in the video the scientist was not to change his opinion, despite the evidence - and as another scientist commented, that is not science. We tend to trust scientists good judgement especially within archaeology and I would like to get the the truth, warts and all rather than mouthing acceptance of outdated ideas. When one hears historian professors from Oxford saying we need to rewrite history, but its unlikely to happen, its hardly inspiring and just leaves those who benefit from the current status quo being maintained sitting there smugly.
Cathcart
Quadrivium
I think we both agree that human history should be rewritten. That being said I do not see the problem with it being rewritten. Why would someone try and suppress this information?
The lifetime's work, academic credentials, and professional reputation of nearly all historians rests on the current model of history. New information could smash the current model. It would invalidate their work. Hence why they must protect the system.
It's an understandable human reaction. But it baffles me when people assume academics are somehow immune to this.
GezinhoKiko
Heres the full story
Abstract:
Important artifacts have been found in situ (i.e., not redeposited) within lacustrine deposits in the Valsequillo region. These deposits contain many diatoms which indicate an age corresponding to the Sangamonian Interglacial sensu lato (80,000 to ca. 220,000yr BP). Two of the four samples in this study are associated with the Dorenberg skull or with stratigraphic units which contain bifacial tools. The remaining two samples are from diatomaceous deposits which are also Sangamonian and stratigraphically above the artifact units. These four diatomaceous samples yielded 30 extinct and 143 extant diatom taxa. The ages of the four samples correspond to other diatomaceous samples (some of which are associated with artifacts) from nearby Valsequillo localities. A post-Sangamonian age for these four diatom-bearing samples is discounted by the presence of Navicula bronislaae and N. dorenbergi, both of which have short stratigraphic ranges and are known only from the Sangamonian (or its equivalents), and by 13 diatoms which evidently have known long stratigraphic ranges and extinctions before the end of the Sangamonian. An age no older than Sangamonian for the artifacts and their enclosing diatomaceous deposits is indicated by the presence of two diatoms (Epithemia zebra var. undulata and Navicula creguti) known only from Sangamonian (or = age) or younger and by an extant diatom, Cymbella cistula var. gibbosa (C. gibbosa), which has its first occurrence in the Sangamonian
Topper is an archaeological site located along the Savannah River in Allendale County, South Carolina in the United States. It is noted as the location of controversial artifacts believed by some archaeologists to indicate human habitation of the New World earlier than the Clovis culture, previously believed to be the first people in North America. Artifacts at this site may predate Clovis by 3,000 years or more. The primary excavation has gone down to the 50,000 B.C. level, searching for any other archaeological evidence.
Until increasing challenges in the first decade of the 21st century to the Clovis theory based on this site and others, it was unusual for archaeologists to dig deeper than the layer of the Clovis culture, as they then believed that no human artifacts would be found older than Clovis. Among the objects from the "pre-Clovis" stratum dated to 16,000-20,000 years BP, is a large piece nicknamed the "Topper Chopper", which offers some of the most compelling evidence for human agency, including bifacial flaking of the edge.
Abstract:
A carved sacrum from a fossil camelid was found near Tequixquiac in 1870 in Upper Pleistocene deposits of the Valley of Mexico. At that time it was described as one of the first discoveries that proved the co-existence of man with extinct fauna in the New World. The specimen was apparently lost at the end of the 19th century and serious doubts have been expressed about its authenticity. This carved bone was rediscovered in 1956, and recent studies of the specimen tend to demonstrate its authenticity and scientific value. A survey of all known examples of similar finds in North America suggests that the Tequixquiac bone is probably the only example of true art that has yet been found in Paleo-Indian levels in the New World.
www.jstor.org...
Cathcart
Quadrivium
I think we both agree that human history should be rewritten. That being said I do not see the problem with it being rewritten. Why would someone try and suppress this information?
The lifetime's work, academic credentials, and professional reputation of nearly all historians rests on the current model of history. New information could smash the current model. It would invalidate their work. Hence why they must protect the system.
It's an understandable human reaction. But it baffles me when people assume academics are somehow immune to this.