Bigger Than Bigfoot

[Guest LAL]

The prints at Paluxy are plantigrade and digitigrade dinosaur tracks. Some of the locals started forging because they found "humanlike" prints sold well. Glen Kuban examined the "handprint", too:

In June 2006 I examined the loose slab in person at Baugh's little museum in Glen Rose, Texas. I was only allowed to examine the block for a limited period of time, and without further documentation, it may be impossible to determine whether the rock is ancient or relatively recent, and whether the marking is a natural print, enhanced from a less distinct non-human impression or print, or entirely carved. My initial impression was that parts of it (mostly on the right side) looked more natural than others. This left me suspecting that it may well have been a nonhuman impression that resembled part of a human hand print, which was then enhanced and extended by carving.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hand.htm

Have any anachronistic objects been found in legitimate archeological digs? The site seems to have lots of stories (gold necklace found in a lump of coal, e.g.) but no pictures, no documentation, no indication exactly where these artifacts now reside. Kind of reminds me of old newspaper stories about hairy giants in the hills.......................

In a "Forbidden Archeology" film posted on another forum an archeologist complained her career was ruined because she wouldn't budge on the dating of modern human remains found in ancient strata. Did it ever occur to her it was a modern burial in ancient strata? A discovery like that happened around the time L.S.B. Leaky was beginning his excavations.

I'd like a ruling on whether or not it's okay to debate Creation Science. Creationists tend to claim it's science, not religion, although the courts routinely disagree.

<fixed typo>

Edited August 12, 2011 by LAL

[Guest Lesmore]

Good posting, Lal. You've brought me to a greater realization of myself. As a child I was a dinosaur bookworm bent upon becoming a paleontologist. (Didn't.) As an adult, I've long been an avid birder. Birds are closely related to reptiles, their digestive/reproductive parts intermingle. I pack a bird ID book when I travel.

::note: opinion:: It's readily apparent (to me) birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. It's a natural progression (quiz: name that Guess Who song.) PM with the guess/answer.

Interesting post...as usual.

But I am baffled by your quiz....need to know the answer. :D

BTW, Burton Cummings and the Guess Who come from my home town. My Mother used to work in the same office as Burton's mother.

Les

[Incorrigible1]

As a (far too long) fan of Burton Cummings and the Guess Who, very interesting personal connection you/your mother have about Burton Cummings.

Life in the Bloodstream, from the 1971 LP So Long, Bannatyne.

(Burton Cummings)

You don’t believe that this whole universe

Could be inside your little sister’s purse

You don’t believe you’re just a living glob

Like Lucy, Freddy, Ricky, Frank, and Bob.

We’re life in the bloodstream, baby

That’s the natural progression

We’re life in the bloodstream

I hope the little boy don’t fall and skin his knee.

Ain’t it hard when you discover

Your energy has to leave you for another

Don’t it make you wanna lay down and cry

When they tell you it’s time you have to die.

We’re life in the bloodstream, baby

That’s the natural progression

We’re life in the bloodstream

I hope the little boy don’t fall and skin his knee.

[Guest]

I'd think of mixed strata or a ceremonial axe being dropped down a fissure before I'd think of one dating to the age of the coal seam.

There are two problems with that explanation for the anachronistic axe:

1) the unbroken rock above the coal seam (no fissure)

2) the coal was formed AROUND the the axe, indicating that the axe was imbedded in the substrate during the coal formation process, thus dating it to the time of the coal layer deposit.

Is there something unusual about a copper axe being found in a mound?

That was the result of a mixup between me and the other poster...I thought he was referring to the anarchonistic axe, not a more recent axe.

[Guest]

I'm sure a vast a majority of these items have perfectly logical explanations or are hoaxes. You would think that these out of place artifacts would garner much more scientific attention, if they were actually worth studying.

Argument from recognition and circular reasoning fallacy. IE: "it's only worth studying if science studies it...if science DOESN'T study it, it's not worth studying".

The handprint in the rock looks like it was created out of cement or carved.

Uh...wouldn't a handprint in rock visually logically look similar to "one in cement'?

There is no verified source and thus, no verifiable evidence that this was actually discovered in prehistoric strata.

Except the testimony of the discoverers and the presenters...

Also, notice all of these accounts are from 50-100 years ago. That certainly makes them credible.

It neither makes them credible OR incredible...it simply makes them from 50-100 years ago.

Nothing to see here folks, unless you are a fan of young earth creationism, that is.

Let's see in summary: assumption of scientific infalability, logcial fallacies, dismissalism both of evidence and topic, and ad hom (young earth creationists used as perjorative)...yep...you covered the usual bases.

[Guest]

Have any anachronistic objects been found in legitimate archeological digs? The site seems to have lots of stories (gold necklace found in a lump of coal, e.g.) but no pictures, no documentation, no indication exactly where these artifacts now reside. Kind of reminds me of old newspaper stories about hairy giants in the hills.......................

LAL, I would have expected better from you. Being found in a "legitimate archaeological dig" is not a pre-requisite for being a legitimate discovery. Ametures and "civilians" make finds of all kinds of things. To dismiss them on the basis of a "non-expert" discoverer is a classic fallacy.

In a "Forbidden Archeology" film posted on another forum an archeologist complained her career was ruined because she wouldn't budge on the dating of modern human remains found in ancient strata. Did it ever occur to her it was a modern burial in ancient strata?

That implies that the archaeologist was not competent enough to discern a "disturbed stata" at the site. Given the portential (and in her case actual) repercussions of taking such a stance, she would have covered all her bases before making such a claim.

I'd like a ruling on whether or not it's okay to debate Creation Science. Creationists tend to claim it's science, not religion, although the courts routinely disagree.

The only ones bringing up YEC so far that I can see are the Skeptics trying to lump anyone who brings up the information into that camp. Some of the documentation comes from YEC sources...but the data and the source are two different things.

Put simply: being intrigued by and wanting to understand the origins of Ooparts/anachronistic artifacts does not require one to be a YEC.

[Guest wtwest]

Argument from recognition and circular reasoning fallacy. IE: "it's only worth studying if science studies it...if science DOESN'T study it, it's not worth studying".

Uh...wouldn't a handprint in rock visually logically look similar to "one in cement'?

Except the testimony of the discoverers and the presenters...

It neither makes them credible OR incredible...it simply makes them from 50-100 years ago.

Let's see in summary: assumption of scientific infalability, logcial fallacies, dismissalism both of evidence and topic, and ad hom (young earth creationists used as perjorative)...yep...you covered the usual bases.

My apologies for the YEC remark, it was out of line, I agree.

You seem to be a smart guy, I believe we can apply Occam's Razor to these out of place artifacts. A vast majority of them are hoaxes and the rest can be explained rather simply.

Extraordinary claims, i.e., out of place artifacts, require evidence. Of which we have very little.

I'll agree that they are interesting oddities and you can't immediately write them off, but look further into each account and it becomes clear that there are perfectly logical explanations.

Edited August 13, 2011 by wtwest

[Guest LAL]

LAL, I would have expected better from you. Being found in a "legitimate archaeological dig" is not a pre-requisite for being a legitimate discovery. Ametures and "civilians" make finds of all kinds of things. To dismiss them on the basis of a "non-expert" discoverer is a classic fallacy.

I asked a simple question; I expected a simple answer. As far as I know none have.

I dismissed no one. Archaeologists and paleontologists frequently thank amateurs for their contributions, but there are also amateurs who tear up sites, loot them, disturb strata and document nothing. There's been a thriving business in forged antiquities as well. Remember the James ossuray and the inscribed pomegranate? I have an interest in anomalies too, but I'd like to see a site that doesn't imply they're proof of a worldwide flood.

[Incorrigible1]

I've a riveting fictional story percolating in the back regions of my mind. A military brass rifle casing. That is the discarded brass portion of a rifle's cartridge. Incorrectly referred to as the "bullet." The bullet is the projectile, the spent cartridge casing is discarded.

Imagine a dynamic fossil recovered from a volcanic eruption. An incongruous spent 7.62 US casing, encased within an event accurately dated to 85 mya (million years ago). Hmm, wonder how that got there.

[Guest Dudlow]

In a "Forbidden Archeology" film posted on another forum an archeologist complained her career was ruined because she wouldn't budge on the dating of modern human remains found in ancient strata. Did it ever occur to her it was a modern burial in ancient strata? A discovery like that happened around the time L.S.B. Leaky was beginning his excavations.

For the most comprehensive source on human archeo- and paleological anomalies see the 1993 book, 'Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race', by Michael A. Cremo & Richard L. Thompson. This is a scholarly interrogation of most of the evidentiary records supporting the extreme antiquity of human life on earth, almost none of which is accepted by the dominant scientific hegemony.

- Dudlow

[Guest LAL]

For the most comprehensive source on human archeo- and paleological anomalies see the 1993 book, 'Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race', by Michael A. Cremo & Richard L. Thompson. This is a scholarly interrogation of most of the evidentiary records supporting the extreme antiquity of human life on earth, almost none of which is accepted by the dominant scientific hegemony.

- Dudlow

I've read too much debunking of Cremo & Thompson. I'm afraid I wouldn't enjoy the book.

Source on the copper axe, please, Mulder? The closest I'm finding is this:

"The rock was found in June, 1934 sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall near London, Texas. (4) The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. (4)

A recent radiocarbon-dating test was performed on a sample of wood removed from the interior of the handle. The results showed inconclusive dates ranging from the present to 700 years ago. (4)

The sandstone, within which the hammer has become embedded was dated by dr. A. W. Med of the British Geological Research Centre.

The Hammer is identical to commonly used 19th century miners hammers, of American provenance.

It was soon pointed out by the geologist NCSE researcher John Cole that minerals dissolved from ancient strata can harden around a recent object (5), making it look impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. He said of it:

The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artefact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble (Cole, 1985)."

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/ooparts.htm

[Guest]

My apologies for the YEC remark, it was out of line, I agree.

Accepted.

You seem to be a smart guy, I believe we can apply Occam's Razor to these out of place artifacts. A vast majority of them are hoaxes and the rest can be explained rather simply.

For that conclusion to be accepted, I personally require evidence sufficient to counter the evidence that the phenomenon under consideration is genuine. If, for example, you want to say that the axe in coal is a hoax, I want to see evidence for it being so, not assertions of Occam's Razor, or claims of "it's up to the purporter to prove it's NOT a hoax", etc.

That's one of my biggest pet peeves with Skeptics on the subject of BF (to tie this back into the board topic): their refusal to apply their own standards to their own case, instead operating from a position of implied and presumed correctness that places the entire burden of proof on the proponent to DISprove the Skeptical presumption.

Extraordinary claims, i.e., out of place artifacts, require evidence. Of which we have very little.

But what we do have for many if not most ooparts, is more evidence for genuineness than for fraud.

I'll agree that they are interesting oddities and you can't immediately write them off, but look further into each account and it becomes clear that there are perfectly logical explanations.

One potential of which must be that they are exactly what they appear to be: artifacts inappropriate to the situ they are recovered from that suggest we don't know our history as well as we think we do.

[Guest]

I've read too much debunking of Cremo & Thompson. I'm afraid I wouldn't enjoy the book.

Source on the copper axe, please, Mulder? The closest I'm finding is this:

"The rock was found in June, 1934 sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall near London, Texas. (4) The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. (4)

A recent radiocarbon-dating test was performed on a sample of wood removed from the interior of the handle. The results showed inconclusive dates ranging from the present to 700 years ago. (4)

The sandstone, within which the hammer has become embedded was dated by dr. A. W. Med of the British Geological Research Centre.

The Hammer is identical to commonly used 19th century miners hammers, of American provenance.

It was soon pointed out by the geologist NCSE researcher John Cole that minerals dissolved from ancient strata can harden around a recent object (5), making it look impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. He said of it:

The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artefact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble (Cole, 1985)."

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/ooparts.htm

I'm still looking for a site that specifically mentions the copper axe...like I said, it's getting hard to find some sites I know were around just a few years ago.

The hammer shares elements with the axe account to be sure. The "concretion" theory might be worth investigating.

Keep looking further down that page you cited, and you'll find a lot more ooparts, including confirmed human footprints may millions years older than the "accepted" date. And the sources are top notch, journals and such, including Smithsonian articles.

[Guest Dudlow]

I've read too much debunking of Cremo & Thompson. I'm afraid I wouldn't enjoy the book.

That's hardly a believable response, 'LAL'. That's tantamount to saying you've been intimidated by all the BF debunking that's gone on for years and therefore dismiss the very notion of Sasquatch. If you keep an open mind you will probably astonish yourself. Try reading the book instead of judging it by what the debunker-stakeholders have to say.

- Dudlow

Edited to add: I worry when folks allow others to do their thinking for them.

Edited August 13, 2011 by Dudlow

[Guest LAL]

That's hardly a believable response, 'LAL'. That's tantamount to saying you've been intimidated by all the BF debunking that's gone on for years and therefore dismiss the very notion of Sasquatch. If you keep an open mind you will probably astonish yourself. Try reading the book instead of judging it by what the debunker-stakeholders have to say.

- Dudlow

I don't see the connection, frankly.

I have shelves full of books I need to finish reading on topics ranging from fossils to the 3rd Earl of Southampton. I've read articles by Cremo & co. and find them unconvincing. The rational explanations are much more interesting to me and my only interest in reading the whole book would be to find more things in need of rational explanations.. I'm not particulary keen on Erich von Daniken, Simcha Jacobovici and Joann Fletcher, either, although I admit Immanuel Velikovsky had me going for a while before I was old enough to know better. Sloppy scholarship is sloppy scholarship.

Some of bigfootery does need to be debunked, IMO.