The Pre-history Before the Pre-history

[uniface]

Attached is a collection of links to several sites in Mexico that have long been proven -- by multiple dating techniques -- to have been inhabited by people in the time frame 250,000 to 275,000 years ago. No, I didn't throw in extra zeros for laughs. That old. The bone is so old it has no measurable 14C left, making the dating a matter of geology and other disciplines -- all carried out by heavyweights. For 50 years, the archaeological establishment has told the site investigators and specialists called-in, "You're all simply wrong" and closed the door. The artifacts are sequestered, the research accounts are ignored by archaeological journals, and the Mexican government has declared the sites off-limits to investigators, refusing to issue licenses for further investigations.

I had to click the refresh icon to see each picture -- you may not have to.

http://www.palanth.com/legacy/index.php/topic,1327.0.html

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Twitch]

I guess the stupid question I'm going to stumble in and ask is if this is true'why the cloak and dagger' cover up? I'm an idiot, fire away.

 

[bravowhiskey]

Twitch,

Because all the powers that be are stuck in the quagmire that states "man crossed the Bering Strait" and proceeded to populate the "new World" from there some 12,000-15,000 years ago. (Am I close?)

 

[uniface]

It probably started with the Darwinian followers re-imaging man as a stooped-over, brutish savage who lived in caves and spoke in grunts (if he even did at all). That way, "progress" was a good thing, no matter who went under the wheels of it. The only way the modern world could look better was if the ancient world looked worse. And it helped that the "survival of the fittest" idea they projected into it "validated" the values they operated with themselves.

It's a good question -- really pertinent to what's going on in archaeology/anthropology.

I think BW's certainly right -- once people get locked into belief systems, what used to be science (that examines the unexplained) turns into what poses as it ("explaining" the unexamined).

Orwell : Whoever controls the past controls the future.

 

[Lone Star]

Hey Twitch, Uniface has a point. Those benefiting within the network of any belief system have more to gain by supporting their own agenda. Many times integrety, enlightenment, and logic are dammed from the start. Thats basic human nature I guess. Global warming, Obama-care, Federal income tax, are all perfect examples current in this day and age.
A few years ago I found a book ( yes, and read it too) Called "the peopling of the americas" or something like that. It discussed the population explosion from the far north to the tip of south america. It discussed and compared all the dating, lithics, faunal remains , and maybe DNA, with the climate and sea levels from 75,000 years ago to about 5,000 years ago. To hold to the Clovis first theory after seeing the already corraborated results makes no sense. The info , as well as the BS is out there. G.

 

[joshuaream]

Cool site, Uni. There is a lot of work from Mexico, Brazil and Argentina that has been done by local or European archaeologists that have come up with some very early dates, but is mostly ignored by US archaeologists...

One of the big realities of paleo archaeology is that not many archaeologists are interested in it anymore (a lot more specialize in post archaic areas.) A grad student now a days is going to have access to very little new US material (sites, artifacts, etc.) with which to study/publish and get tenure at a university. It's easier to focus on something later and publish a huge thesis that few people will read and become a recognized expert in something no one cares about... Honestly, collectors seem more interested in the Clovis Pre-Clovis debat than all but about 15 professional archaeologists.

 

[uniface]

A good point, JR.

For anyone who thinks the kind of evidence suppression & misrepresentation I've talked about is some wild exaggeration or "conspiracy theory," check out this comment by Richard Firestone :

Before we published our PNAS paper, Sharma et al (Dartmouth) independently found convincing evidence for large Osmium anomalies in Pacific Ocean sediments dated to about 12,000 years ago. His paper was rejected by PNAS because “no impact occurred at that time”.

In other words, "Evidence like that can't possibly be there, because it can't possibly be there." And this is one of the major journals in the field that people have to publish in, or perish.

http://cosmictusk.com/firestone-blo...ford-sharma-and-courty-left-out-of-discussion