Thread: homo sapiens older than we think? forbidden archeology

(EDIT: this is not new age science propaganda, so please read before you piss off(: )

so... michael cremo is author of book called "forbidden archeology" which says that homo sapiens is far more older than "ortodox sciense" claims to be. in fact he is sending it tens of billions years back in history.

he is relying on existance of laetoli footprints, ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_071_03.html ), 20mil years old artifacts found by carlos ribeiro, 30mil years old artifacts found in belgium by aime rutot, 55mil years old artifacts in california by j.d.whitney, and lots of other unusual things..

here you can find 60 minutes video about his research - http://doxbox.bloger.hr/post/zabranj...ja/545588.aspx (it is croatian website, and first minute of video is speaken on french)

here ( http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/...ology-non.html ) you can read lovely text that negates some of cremos proofs, and it is based mostly on this page ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs...ml#castenedolo )

it is realy hard to make a objective opinnion about this.. for example, one of most interesting things that book mentioned are for sure transvaal spheres ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grooved_Spheres ). if it is not fake thing i cant understand how can this be made by nature? can it?

i think that it is a fact that we still didn't dig up enough dirt to be 100% sure in anything. what do you think?

sorry for my eng, cheers 8)

er the PB.ORG site you mention, looks fake to me, typing "Laetoli Footprints" into google and selecting images, seems to show the PB prints are completely different to all the other pictures, they are just too good, they look to me more like a modern foot...

that image is frame from video. if you play it you can see original footprints.

here ( http://www.sasquatchresearch.net/ichnology.html ) are some images.

cheers 8)

Ahh I see, lower down the page there's a bit about bigfoot.

sorry for that(:

soooo why is this in trash

That is explained by a logical sequence.
1. This is a science forum.
2. The scientific method is valued here.
3. Michael Cremo wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit him on the ass.
4. The post has no place in the regular part of the forum.
5. You were not smart enough to post it originally in pseudoscience.
6. Game, Sett and Match.

I would also like to add that the current specimen most likely to be the ancestor to all primates, Carpolestes simpsonii, existed between 65 and 55 million years ago. The likelihood that modern humans, being primates ourselves, emerged around the same time that the entire primate class was first beginning to evolve, is basically zero.

And I thought Filler was pushing it for claiming the existence of bipedalism 20 million years ago. This is just downright ridiculous.

Originally Posted by John Galt

That is explained by a logical sequence.
1. This is a science forum.
2. The scientific method is valued here.
3. Michael Cremo wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit him on the ass.
4. The post has no place in the regular part of the forum.
5. You were not smart enough to post it originally in pseudoscience.
6. Game, Sett and Match.

so it was difficult to moderators to remove it in regular part of forum and to correct my mistake?

i didn't make this thread to praise cremo or his work, but to hear opinion of people that understand things like this more than i do. i thought that is what forums are about. after all, general reason i am interested in his book is because i find it inspirating for sf comic i am working on.

i was sure that people here would help me and other noobs to get things right and to explain us those scientific methods that are so valued here since "Michael Cremo wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit him on the ass" is not enough for me.
i am sure there is somebody willing to explain why is his research bullshit a bit more seriously (possibly with some links ore anything..)

game, set and match? is this a competition or scientific forum?

it takes me long time to write anything that makes sense due to lack of my understanding of english. it is pretty hard to do any research this way because 75%time i spend on translating, (for example it took me 10 minutes to get it right what "bipedalism" from paraliths post means) and revealing that most words i don't understand are phrases that can't be found in dictionarys... this is why i am so disappointed with your reaction..

read my signature. you can fix that by teaching other people, not by trashing their stupid questions.

cheers......

'Twas me. I apologize. Perhaps I was a little to trigger happy, but when I saw Cremo's name, I knew where his ideas belong quite frankly.

Perhaps I'll come back later today and pick apart some of his claims if I get some more free time. Or you can go to my blog and search "cremo" to get an idea.

Noob,
you asked me why it was in the Trash. I gave you an explanation. I did not say I agreed with the explanation. (I did not say I disagreed.) I expressed no opinion about placing your thread in the Trash. I'm sorry if that objective explanation upset you. I was trying to be brief.

My Point 5. may seem personal, so I shall rephrase it.
If you knew a little more about the scientific method then it would have been clear to you that Cremo was talking rubbish. You would then, automatically, have posted your thread in pseudoscience.

Saying you were not smart enough does not mean you are not intelligent. In this case it just means you don't know enough about the subject. (A point you agree with, since you say that's why you are here.)

game, set and match? This is a common way in everyday English speech to say "So that concludes my reasoning." or "So that proves my point." It is a way of announcing completion.

Your written English is fine. The work you are putting into it is not visible. That is a good thing.

Good luck with the comic.

@john galt - thank you 8)

@skinwalker - very interesting blog with lot of good texts. i have only one critic, please take it as a kind suggestion: don't be so seductive with comments like "i don't know what is happening in their brains" while talking about pseudo-sciencientists. you self-descent your own investigation by talking as cremo himself about "ortodox scientists". (i m not sure i wrote this precisely(: )

now, only thing that i find evidence worth of investigation are excavations of artifacts by carlos ribeiro, aime rutot, and jb whitney. i found some texts about them, but nothing objective. i understand that their research is old (over 100years) and perhaps unreliable for that reason, but it is hard for me to ignore it only because of that.

let's say that their discoverys are not fake. can this be explanation why artifacts
were found attached to stone millions of years old?

Three million years ago, some poor ape with some few (sic) humanlike features in its bones fell down into the cave and died. The bones were incorporated into the rock. And then later some human scientists found the bones and called them our “ancestor,”

http://ahotcupofjoe.net/2006/10/forb...of-man-part-2/

noob, 100 years ago researchers did not have very many ways to accurately date the bones and the artifacts that they found. Today there are a variety of techniques to date these things, some of them quite accurate and reliable, and to my knowledge no ancient hominid, let alone Homo sapiens, bone or associated artifact has ever been dated to the time periods you describe - 10, even 50 million years ago. There is simply no evidence to support that date.

The quote you gave, however, gives a date of 3 million years, and this is far more reasonable. At this time the Australopithecines would be living in Africa - a genus of hominids that was most likely the first to evolve after the split from the last common ancestor between chimpanzees/bonobos and humans. These are not Homo sapiens, though - modern humans have probably only been around for the last 250,000 years or so. The Australopithecines were probably only slightly smarter than chimps, and of a similar body size, but were more bipedal than chimps.

Its no coincidence that the majority of what Cremo relies on in his spurious examples of "out of place artifacts" and the like is 100 year old anecdotes.

Anecdotal evidence is already the worse kind of evidence to rely on. But, on top of this, these anecdotes are conveniently old enough that there is no hope of obtaining any verification or making any attempt at falsification. Hypotheses that are not falsifiable cannot be used within science.

Originally Posted by noob

(EDIT: this is not new age science propaganda, so please read before you piss off(: )

so... michael cremo is author of book called "forbidden archeology" which says that homo sapiens is far more older than "ortodox sciense" claims to be. in fact he is sending it tens of billions years back in history.

he is relying on existance of laetoli footprints, ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_071_03.html ), 20mil years old artifacts found by carlos ribeiro, 30mil years old artifacts found in belgium by aime rutot, 55mil years old artifacts in california by j.d.whitney, and lots of other unusual things..

Usually in science when we find evidence for the existence of something 55M old we do not extrapolate that to tens of billions of years. It's one of these silly science rules.

Interestingly the link you gave isn't about homo sapiens at all. Interestingly it seems to be about some documentary made by someone with no scientific credentials.

What's even more interesting is that there was a paper this year in Science on this topic.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

They compare footprints of 1.5 Ma with those of modern humans, and....insert drumroll... the laetoli footprints.

And after your post I was expecting an amazing controversial study. And what do I see? They just place the 1.5Ma old prints in between the laetoli footprints and those of modern humans based on measurable characteristics.

Apparently scientists have failed to see that the laetoli footprints are made by homo sapiens.

so my conclusion for your argument:

Fail.

Ancient thread resurrected just to provide a link? Locked.