New Evidence of Early Man? The Trilemma...

reply to post by peter vlar


reply to post by peter vlar


I would suspect the reason Steen-McIntyre, has had a hard time in her career has to do with personality more than anything else.
Also at the time of the original dig there weren't many women in the field, and it was a hostile environment with some of the older researchers, so Irwin Williams would have wanted to make sure all of the I's were dotted and the T's crossed. Otherwise the work would have been summarily dismissed.
John hawks has written a couple of good posts on his blog about discriminatory practices and the like regarding women working in the field.
And I believe there is a group from either Stanford or berkely at the site in Mexico doing a current dig.

I ve mentioned in a couple other threads , that an acquaintance of mine consulted on a dig in the Mojave, that had C14 dates in excess of 16k years and much older, his work confirmed the younger dates. That team was concentrating on the younger dates as they are more likely to be accepted.
Still waiting for that paper if it ever comes out

reply to post by punkinworks10


That's pretty much what I was getting at,
That her attitude towards the people she worked under was her undoing. Mary Leaky didnt have any of these problems and was at the forefront of some of the biggest finds in the history of Anthropology. What she and her husband did really rewrote human history in a matter of a few years. Maybe that was the difference for her, the association with her husband who seemed to,in a couple of cases at least, take credit for a couple of Mary's finds. Perhaps the Leakey's just played the politics of it better? Either way some good points you brought up.

Harte

Adramelech
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

This reminds of a time in recent history when the Catholic Church did all that it could to silence new theories - theories that brought their well-established beliefs into question.

Really? Got an example?

Harte

Adramelech
reply to post by Harte

 

Yes. Here:

law2.umkc.edu...

I suppose, if you think the 1600's is "recent history," you might believe this.
And in the context of this section of the forum, since the 1600's is not "ancient history," I'll accept your belief of this being recent without argument.

However, from your own link:

Summoned before Bellarmine on February 25, 1616 and admonished, Galileo--according to a witness, Cardinal Oregius--"remained silent with all his science and thus showed that no less praiseworthy than his mind was his pious disposition." Oregius' account, and Galileo's own writings, indicate that Galileo did not "refuse to obey" the Church's admonition. It is assumed, therefore, that Galileo was not formally enjoined. Yet, surprisingly, in the Inquisition file there appeared the following entry:

At the palace, the usual residence of Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, the said Galileo, having been summoned and being present before the said Lord Cardinal, was...warned of the error of the aforesaid opinion and admonished to abandon it; and immediately thereafter...the said Galileo was by the said Commissary commanded and enjoined, in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the said opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves; nor further to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing; otherwise proceedings would be taken against him by the Holy Office; which injunction the said Galileo acquiesced in and promised to obey.

Many things about the entry are suspicious. It appears in the Inquisition file where one would expect the actual Bellarmine injunction (if it existed) to appear. Moreover, the entry appears on the same page as the entry for the previous day--and every other report, legal act, and entry in the entire file begins at the top of a new page. It is widely believed by historians that the reported injunction of Galileo was "a false injunction": the injunction never happened, but a false report was maliciously planted in the file by one of Galileo's enemies. Seventeen years later, Galileo would stand before the Inquisition charged with violating an injunction that was, in all likelihood, never issued against him.

According to your own source, Galileo was undone by one of his own personal enemies, not by the Church.

Also from your link:

On December 24, 1629, Galileo told friends in Rome that he had completed work on his 500-page Dialogue. The Dialogue has been described as "the story of the mind of Galileo." The book reveals Galileo as physicist and astronomer, sophisticate and sophist, polemicist and polished writer. Unlike the works of Copernicus and Kepler, Galileo's Dialogue was a book for the educated public, not specialists. Although using the form of a debate among three Italian gentlemen, Galileo marshaled a variety of arguments to lead his readers to one inexorable conclusion: Copernicus was right. The character Salviati, a person of "sublime intellect," clearly speaks for Galileo in arguing for a Sun-centered system. Sagredo is a Venetian nobleman, open-minded and hesitant to draw conclusions--a good listener. Simplico is the straw man of the debate, a stubborn, literal-minded defender of the Earth-centered universe.

Early news from Rome gave Galileo reason for optimism that his book would soon be published. The Vatican's chief licenser, Niccolo Riccardi, reportedly promised his help and said that theological difficulties could be overcome. When Galileo arrived in Rome in May 1630, he wrote: "His Holiness has begun to treat of my affairs in a spirit which allows me to hope for a favorable result." Urban VIII reiterated his previously stated view that if the book treated the contending views hypothetically and not absolutely, the book could be published.

Reading the book for the first time, chief licenser Riccardi came to see the book as less hypothetical--and therefore more problematic--than he expected it to be. Riccardi demanded that the Preface and conclusion to revised to be more consistent with the Pope's position. In August 1630, in the midst of his required revising, Galileo received a letter from his friend Benedetto Castelli in Rome urging him, for "weighty reasons" which he "not wish to commit to paper," to print the Dialogue in Florence "as soon as possible." Galileo's Jesuit opponents in Rome were aiming to block publication.

Riccardi seemed paralyzed with indecision. Caught between two powerful forces, he did nothing as Galileo fretted that his great work might never see the light of day. "The months and the years pass," Galileo complained, "my life wastes away, and my work is condemned to rot."

Finally, reluctantly ("dragged by the hair," according to one account), Riccardi gave the green light. The first copy of Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems came off the press in February 1632. The book, which quickly sold out, soon became the talk of the literary public.

So, Galileo published his findings - including the heliocentric theory - in a book written for public consumption.

Tell me again, where was this "coverup?"

Harte

nfflhome
"No, Steen-MacIntyre, a grad styuident at the time, jumped the gun in her report - publishing dates that the boss, Irwin-Williamns, likely wanted to check on (understandably.) It's important to note that, at that time, there was no "Pre-Clovis" theory going around, yet Irwin-Williams told her crew to publish (in the preliminary report) that the tools were at least 20,000 years old - twice as old as Clovis". Harte

In the above statement you say "likely", meaning you do not know.
Maybe she published because her boss would not publish the real dates.

Your "maybe" in the above statement means you do not know.

Did you decide not to read the part in my post about how Cynthia Irwin-Williams actually did publish the date they arrived at in the actual paper she wrote reporting on her findings?

Did you skip the part about how Irwin -Williams (always reminds me of the paint company LOL) published in preliminary findings that the finds were at least 20,000 years old - in a time when it was thought that humans had been here no longer than 12,000 years or so?

Are you saying that an Anthropologist finding human artifacts in the Americas that pre-date HSS, wouldn't want to recheck such an astounding finding?

Harte

reply to post by SLAYER69


With all I have read in recent years, I think they have several things wrong. When, and who, came her e first, for starters, and the dating methods. Those are very prone to errors and interpretation, and I can't see how anyone finds them reliable at all. I think a lot of information, too, is concealed so as not to disturb the political status quo.

reply to post by Harte


Well, after ripping that article apart, I found a few more, although they are not scholarly works. I do, however, stand corrected. According to these articles, the Church was on the verge of accepting the heliocentric model, then

However, the article also notes that Copernicus gained ridicule from poets and Protestants, who condemned it as heresy. While the Catholic Church initially accepted heliocentricity, Catholics eventually joined the wave of Protestant opposition and banned the book in 1616. The Protestant churches accepted Copernicus’ findings after more evidence emerged to support it. The Catholic Church, however, remained ground in its anti-Copernican beliefs until the 19th century. The ban on Copernicus's views was lifted in 1822, and the ban on his book until 1835.

I suppose it wasn't necessarily a text-book "cover-up", but many people felt a censure was necessary. It reminds of situations in court proceedings where a witness may say something "against the rules", and the jury is told to disregard, even though it is forever in their thoughts with high potential to influence their verdicts.

As to my original reply to this thread, it would have been better to not blame the Church, as many people did not agree with the evidence provided at the time.

As for my use of the phrase "recent history", recent is a comparative term that has no fixed measurement of time. I personally use it subjectively. As far as the way I think about history, anything from 1500 CE - present is "the other day" or "recent".

www.universetoday.com...

www.catholic.com...

www.csmonitor.com...

Adramelech
reply to post by Harte

 

Well, after ripping that article apart, I found a few more, although they are not scholarly works. I do, however, stand corrected. According to these articles, the Church was on the verge of accepting the heliocentric model, then

Yeah, I'd read about what really happened years ago. The thing is, everybody simply "knows" Galileo was silenced by the Church. In fact, that wasn't the case but it's common knowledge (which very often is wrong.)

As to my original reply to this thread, it would have been better to not blame the Church, as many people did not agree with the evidence provided at the time.

As for my use of the phrase "recent history", recent is a comparative term that has no fixed measurement of time. I personally use it subjectively. As far as the way I think about history, anything from 1500 BCE - present is "the other day" or "recent".

Well, 1600 AD isn't exactly "recent" to me, and the way you put it I thought maybe you were thinking of something more recent.

But I agreed with you that it is, at least, far more recent than the supposed age of the artifacts in the case.

Harte

reply to post by SLAYER69


Thank you so much for this thought provoking subject.

I find it fascinating that this find and this topic has been so controversial within the scientific world. Science is not an exact field, but it should strive to be, and every advancement which can be applied to hone in on the truth should be utilized. When scientists are unwilling to stretch beyond their own findings and embrace the truth provided by new technologies, then they have outlived their usefulness as fact finders.

Although the boundaries for this particular subject have just expanded, I feel the truth is still buried in the strata.

BT

reply to post by BearTruth


Thanks for bringing this story to the show

Here...

This is for you

SLAYER69
reply to post by BearTruth

 

Thanks for bringing this story to the show

Here...

This is for you

You are most welcome. I enjoyed it. and thanks for the .

BT

Thanks for the movie! It was great and, as anyone can see, composed of the proverbial dueling experts with opposing views. I personally don't have a problem with the idea that humans or their predecessors may have explored and/or inhabited North America prior to the prevalent Siberian bridge theory. Separate Ice Ages with similar bridges is perfectly reasonable here.

But I detect a bit of hyperbole for these characters to claim that this will "completely re-write history." I won't. It might add to it, of course, but it's a lot like claiming nobody ever heard that Columbus wasn't the first European, Oh perish the thought! Then why did Leif Erickson manage to hit the 5th grade textbooks in the 50's? These sorts of things are not unheard of. And I can do without yet another vast American-led conspiracy meant to derail science. At best this is some boys protecting their turf, as one of the participants in the movie suggested. Because, quite frankly, nobody else cares all that much. Put that stuff aside and we have a real discover, but of what?

In this case we have some projectile points of "advanced" design, with dates that are old, surely, but all over the map otherwise. But that doesn't equate it to Leakey, who, after all, found a few bones as well, something not even hinted at with this issue. In other words, if these finds were to be authenticated, or for that matter, simply assumed for the sake of argument, there's not a whole lot this would change about (what we THINK we know about) human evolution. It doesn't even slow down the Siberian Bridge theory for the relatively modern introduction of modern humans into North America. Even with earlier migrations, this could also have happened. One does not prevent the other either way; they can co-exist.