• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, seven years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Use the coupon code ufo20 to receive a 20% discount on five-year or lifetime subscriptions. And PayPal now accepts cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, in payment. We also offer a second payment method for major credit or debit cards (which also includes Apple Pay and Google Pay), so act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

The Hidden History of Humanity



mstuartm

Paranormal Novice
I like some of the work Michael Cremo has done, but he also draws some conclusions that rub me the wrong way. In a couple of his Coast To Coast AM / Dreamland interviews, for example, Cremo veers too close to creationism / "intelligent design" for my taste. And I have very little patience for that particular line of thought.
 

Will Penguin

Skilled Investigator
This show, and the others I've listened to, are just fascinating! Props to Mr Ecker for sharing this, and to Gene and David for hosting it. I can't say how much I'm looking forward to listening to the rest.

:)
 

skunkape

Paranormal Maven
Hey, Don...1/4000th of an inch? I'm guessing that was a misquote and you're not a machinist. He probably meant .004". I respect your investigative skills. I just thought I'd be a dick and point out that you didn't catch that.;) Otherwise a fine show so far.
 

Decker

Administrator
Staff member
Hey, Don...1/4000th of an inch? I'm guessing that was a misquote and you're not a machinist. He probably meant .004". I respect your investigative skills. I just thought I'd be a dick and point out that you didn't catch that.;) Otherwise a fine show so far.

10,000 radio critics outta work and guess what ....... ?? :eek:

Decker
 

Kandinsky

Curious Cat
I'm not a big fan of Cremo & Thompson's work however it's the first time I've heard him in interview (part 1 so far) and he came across quite well. At no point did I detect his agenda and I went in assuming he'd be criticizing scientists, pointing at conspiracies and making big claims.

I should point out that his work is financed and supported by his branch of Krishna. They take a similar tack as Creationists do with the Theory of Evolution. By pulling out objects and claiming footprints are 'millions' of years old they want to undermine the science and make space for the possibility of that aircraft-building super race that had a nuclear warfare in India millenia ago.

Those attractive spheres (I want one!) are cherry picked. It's the same couple that get shown. The hundreds of misshapen, conjoined conglomerates are never shown. The Corso artifact is a Champion sparkplug. The reliance on 19th Century newspaper articles and archaeologist reports isn't quite for the 'honesty' that he describes. Look at the Cardiff Giant (The Cardiff Giant ) to see why 19th Century news reports are as accurate as The Enquirer today.

The focus on these early articles allows Cremo's presentation to elegantly omit or sidestep a century of advances in science. How many of his 'anomalous artifacts,' his ooparts, are photographed? Many are simple sketches and hearsay. I grew up on this stuff and swallowed every word...then I wanted to know more and it all came unstuck.

He refers to evolution as 'Darwinism' and the only folk that seem to use that word are the people that prefer to believe God or aliens created us. I don't have a problem with that. Each to their own, but undermining good science to buttress their beliefs pisses me off. As far as I can work it out, God and aliens can exist alongside evolution.
 

Xylo

Paranormal Adept
Good show Don. I've not heard Cremo before, but I've been mildly interested in the subject matter. One question I would have asked that was not asked: "Is it possible that these artifacts were placed at these geologic levels or that they were made at times different than the geological level would indicate?"

It just seems to me that humans have been digging holes and digging mines for thousands of years...so it wouldn't seem out of place to find, say, an 18th century shovel or footprints at a deeper depth than 18th Century strata. True, it's possible to date the material (slate) but it's impossible to date the footprint itself, we can only infer based upon it's level in the strata.

Maybe it's just the skeptic in me that's coming out. A year ago and I wouldn't have questioned any of the interview.
 

UBERDOINK

Skilled Investigator
... undermining good science to buttress their beliefs pisses me off.

"All it takes is ONE black swan to prove all swans aren't white" even if he doesn't have warehouses full of artifacts and data, all he needs is one valid example to prove everything else is faulty or needs serious reconsideration.

Evolution points to one or two humanoid fossils (mostly partial) as pillars of proof, but no-one argues over that. Why is one or two "good" examples enough for "proof", but one or two good example's isn't good enough for discounting that proof?

Bias? ;)
 

UBERDOINK

Skilled Investigator
"Is it possible that these artifacts were placed at these geologic levels or that they were made at times different than the geological level would indicate?"

if that's true... then couldn't all, even mainstream scientific data also suffer from that same possibilities?

If it is true, then wouldn't any dug-up "proof" just become a very "faith" based thing?
 

Xylo

Paranormal Adept
if that's true... then couldn't all, even mainstream scientific data also suffer from that same possibilities?

If it is true, then wouldn't any dug-up "proof" just become a very "faith" based thing?

To a certain extent, yes. But what we are then faced with is an overwhelming amount of fossil evidence at a particular geologic layer. And of these fossils, no living animals are found. Therefore we do have to postulate (guess) that a large amount of evidence would be more credible than a small and seemingly obscure amount of evidence.
 

Kandinsky

Curious Cat
Evolution points to one or two humanoid fossils (mostly partial) as pillars of proof, but no-one argues over that. Why is one or two "good" examples enough for "proof", but one or two good example's isn't good enough for discounting that proof?

Evolution points to all lifeforms that have ever been known to exist. It wasn't invented by Darwin and the last hundred years have seen it being supported by cross-disciplinary sciences. The evidence is actually overwhelming to the point that there isn't a single viable alternative. Even if all life was created by aliens or God...evolution is still a reality.

Remember your first cellphone? Look at the one you have now...it's another aspect of evolution. The best way of checking it out for yourself is to rub that little bone at the base of your spine. It's a vestigial tail from our tailed mammal ancestor. :)
 
P

pixelsmith

Guest
The best way of checking it out for yourself is to rub that little bone at the base of your spine.
ohhh... at the base of the spine... note to self, read the whole post first. :D
 

Schuyler

Misanthrope
"All it takes is ONE black swan to prove all swans aren't white" even if he doesn't have warehouses full of artifacts and data, all he needs is one valid example to prove everything else is faulty or needs serious reconsideration.

That begs the question of the examples. They aren't really that good. (I have the book in front of me right now.) They tend to be quite anecdotal. For example, in a secrion on the Sasquatch Cremo quotes someone from 1840 who lived with the Spokane Indians who told him they believe there is a race of giants who steal their salmon and eat them raw. That's third hand evidence from almost 200 years ago about a 'belief.' A lot of Cremo's evidence is like this. It's just that there is a lot of it. You'd be hard pressed to find the black swan here.

He kind of reminds me of a guy who throws as much shit on the wall as possible to see what sticks. It's a scattergun approach with no real theme to it. What does a 19th century Native American's beliefs about a Sasquatch have to do with possible ancient civilizations? I think he's got to focus.

Evolution points to one or two humanoid fossils (mostly partial) as pillars of proof, but no-one argues over that. Why is one or two "good" examples enough for "proof", but one or two good example's isn't good enough for discounting that proof?

Actually there are hundreds, if not thousands. There are over 100 complete skeletons of Homo erectus from Choukouthien, China alone, plus many more have been found in Southeast Asia (such as Java Man) and Africa. Homo erectus was not us. They were much shorter, had much smaller brains (circa 800-900cc vs our 1400-1500cc). Even Homo afrensis is a near complete skeleton, but Lucy is icing on the cake. Then there are the DNA studies showing we have more in common with rats than dogs.


Quite clearly from Cremo. He's a member of a Hare Krishna sect whose holy books teach the ancient origins of man.

I'm actually not opposed to some of Cremo's stuff. I suspect there was a near-Renaissance era culture based in India a few thousand years ago the traces of which are rare today. If we ultimately discovered and proved there was such a civilization existing, let's say, from 17,000 BCE to 12,000 BCE, that would be a stupendous discovery, but it really wouldn't mess with the archaeological record or our ideas about evolution that much. Everything still fits. Nothing would be invalidated. But Cremo wants us to go back billions, far further back than 60 million for the dinosaurs. There's no real support for any of that. If there's evidence, where is it? let's see it, please. A few dozen line drawings in a 1300 page book isn't good enough.
 

UBERDOINK

Skilled Investigator
Actually there are hundreds, if not thousands... Then there are the DNA studies showing we have more in common with rats than dogs.

95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish.6 Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals together make up very little of the fossil record—in fact, 5% of 5%, which is a mere 0.25% of the entire fossil record. The number of dinosaur skeletons in all the world’s museums (both public and university) totals only about 2,100. Furthermore, of this 0.25% of the fossil record which is vertebrates, only 1% of that 0.25% (or 0.0025%) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! For example, there’s only one Stegosaurus skull that has been found, and many of the horse species are each represented by only one specimen of one tooth!

If you read the latest data on DNA, it is not an answer to how we are made, but just the opening of a door to much larger and puzzling questions.

How can DNA be the whole story of life's information when rapidly changing DNA leads to stable inheritance?

“Current methodology really doesn’t allow the sequencing of centromeric DNA. Thus, nobody has sequenced the centromeres of the human genome, the fly genome, or that of any other complex organism. They remain big black holes often millions of bases in length in every chromosome.”
- Steven Henikoff

Another "paradox" here's a link from the National Academy of Sciences:
The hotspot conversion paradox and the evolution of meiotic recombination — PNAS

and another:
The DNA methylation paradox. [Trends Genet. 1999] - PubMed Result

basically directed "evolution" is something that is not talked about, but with an unbiased view of the data, the evidence is mounting for it.

Quite clearly from Cremo. He's a member of a Hare Krishna sect whose holy books teach the ancient origins of man.

Well, i guess if you believe that nothing written before the modern age, (or about 100 years ago starting with Darwin) could possibly have any validity. If you believe that the ancient ideas about the origin of man just has to be wrong. Even though most ancient texts talked about a regression of humans not progression.

But... "what if" our ancestors weren't just idiots, but instead accept a past we have chosen not to believe in.
 

skunkape

Paranormal Maven
Quite clearly from Cremo. He's a member of a Hare Krishna sect whose holy books teach the ancient origins of man.
I'm only slightly more than superficially aware of the Hare Krishna philosophy. That's enough for me. I thank all the Hairy Hares for leaving more meat available for omnivores like myself. For that I will refrain from criticizing their shitty, gay-ass music. All is one.
 

Schuyler

Misanthrope
95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish.6 Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals together make up very little of the fossil record—in fact, 5% of 5%, which is a mere 0.25% of the entire fossil record. The number of dinosaur skeletons in all the world’s museums (both public and university) totals only about 2,100. Furthermore,....

Impressive stats, but I was responding specifically to your claim that only a couple of hominid skeletons existed. I wasn't addressing the entire fossil record and neither were you. You're doing a bait and switch here. That's illegal. :)

If you read the latest data on DNA, it is not an answer to how we are made, but just the opening of a door to much larger and puzzling questions.
Whether we know everything about DNA or not, it clearly shows kinship. This lays to rest, forever, the idea that we 'came from the stars' and were planted, shipwrecked, or whatever from somewhere else. Not only do we have a clear fossil record back past Homo erectus, we also have the DNA record of kinship to the rest of Earth's creatures. That was my point, which you well know.

Well, i guess if you believe that nothing written before the modern age, (or about 100 years ago starting with Darwin) could possibly have any validity. If you believe that the ancient ideas about the origin of man just has to be wrong. Even though most ancient texts talked about a regression of humans not progression.

It's rather unfair to accuse me of that. Because I think Cremo is sloppy does not mean I sweep thousands of years of writings along with him. I know about Cremo's de-evolution schtick. He is, in essence, a Hindu creationist. I've read his book, all 1300 pages, clear through. It is a rather tedious amalgamation of mostly unsubstantiated claims of anomalies gleaned from historical traveler's journals, 19th century newspaper accounts, amateur archaeologists, and a few, a very few, credible researchers. When you dip below the surface you discover that his documentation is lacking. It's more of 'a guy who told a guy who told a guy' that he found some big bones in a cave, therefore giants existed millions of years ago, God exists, and we've 'de-volved.'

Just because he footnotes a 19th century National Enquirer-type article does not mean he's academic. I mean, really. The guy went to two years of college, joined the Navy, and then picked up a copy of the Bhagavad Gita at a Grateful Dead concert and people treat him like he has a PhD. Anyone who writes a 1300 page book is certainly persistent, but the fact is he's shilling for his religion. At least he's not asking you for a quarter on the street and telling you how pigs eat stool.

There are a few anomalies he has turned up that beg for explanation, but it's mostly bull shit in an attempt to support Hinduism and 'ancient Vedic texts.' I don't see any reason to take his account more earnestly than some southern Baptist creationist that believes God made the Earth on October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 in the morning, then made Eve from Adam's rib. Both are equally absurd, though the allegory is very poetic.

That doesn't mean ancient writings aren't valuable, or that they do not allude to civilizations that do not appear in the historical record. There's plenty of evidence to sift through for that being the case. Read Graham Hancock's Underworld for an idea of what may have happened. But just because the historical record is clearly wrong does not make Cremo clearly right. He may be right is a spiritual sense, but he is not right in the rocks and dirt and protoplasm sense at all. Homo sapiens did not exist a billion years ago. There's not one shred of credible evidence that this is true and a mountain of credible evidence that it is not.

If anyone would like to prove that, feel free. But let's see the evidence. Where are the big bones that prove 9 foot tall ancient humans? I don't want to talk about them, I want to see them and the cave they came out of. I want them in situ so that corroborating evidence can place the bones in context with their surroundings. This is simple Archaeology 101 stuff.

But that's not what we get. All we get is a guy who told a guy who told a guy that he found some really big bones out of some cave somewhere sometime in the past. If that's the way you do science, then we may as well go back to the Middle Ages and believe whatever the church tells us, like the Sun revolves around the Earth. Hare Rama. Rama Hare.
 

UBERDOINK

Skilled Investigator
Impressive stats, but I was responding specifically to your claim that only a couple of hominid skeletons existed. I wasn't addressing the entire fossil record and neither were you. You're doing a bait and switch here. That's illegal. :)

Well, maybe a little bait and switch, so shame on me, but interesting non-the- less. We BELIEVE an overwhelming amount of evidence exists, but does it really?

ScienceDaily (June 2, 2009) — Researchers have discovered a fossilized face and jaw from a previously unknown hominoid primate genus in Spain dating to the Middle Miocene era, roughly 12 million years ago. Nicknamed "Lluc," the male bears a strikingly "modern" facial appearance with a flat face, rather than a protruding one.

And what did they actually find? a whole skeleton with a sign that read "i'm part of the evolutionary road map to man" - nope, here's what they found:

Their findings are based on a partial cranium that preserves most of the face and the associated mandible.

Now, that screams INTERPETATION of the data to make it fit. And we all know, one interpetation of data is just as good as another right? Look at the controversy that still surround most of this fossil evidence even in the mainstream scientific world.

"The record of animals that were ancestral to Australopithecus is poor." direct quote form a mainstream book on human evolution, which then talks about all the controversies over various fossils. Each camp, if they are proved right, would change how we interpret the data as a whole.

If data that was dug up in the early 1900's or late 1800's isn't valid, then you would have to exclude the majority of the fossil record, and remember some of the fossils have been lost and we only have the reports or castings of them too.

The majority of hominid fossils are partial craniums and lots of teeth. But can you really say that's overwhelming evidence? you can interpret it as that I'm sure.

Whether we know everything about DNA or not, it clearly shows kinship. This lays to rest, forever, the idea that we 'came from the stars' and were planted, shipwrecked, or whatever from somewhere else. Not only do we have a clear fossil record back past Homo erectus, we also have the DNA record of kinship to the rest of Earth's creatures. That was my point, which you well know.


Did you read the reports I posted? Lays to rest forever? can you tell me what scientist focused on DNA research doesn't think we are still missing giant pieces of the puzzle?

When they sequenced the DNA of the platypus for example, their findings were "a puzzling mystery" because it was part bird, part mammal and part reptile in it's DNA, and they can't even imagine how that evolved.

I understand the points you are trying to make, but they aren't based on actual facts, only beliefs based on a popular science view of the facts.

Which is fine, because everyone is pushing an agenda, you believe in evolutions, no matter what, so you push that. Thats what makes America great, you can believe and push whatever you want, but that doesn't make you right. ::)
 

Schuyler

Misanthrope
ScienceDaily (June 2, 2009) — Researchers have discovered a fossilized face and jaw from a previously unknown hominoid primate genus in Spain dating to the Middle Miocene era, roughly 12 million years ago. Nicknamed "Lluc," the male bears a strikingly "modern" facial appearance with a flat face, rather than a protruding one.

You're speaking of Anoiapithecus brevirostris, an ape. Since hominoids go back at least twice that to circa 25 million years, I don't see it as a big deal. It's right in the time frame to be expected. 'Hominoid' includes all primates: Chimps, gorillas, orangutangs, and gibbons. Hominid includes humans and their ancestors. See: Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution. You can read about Lluc here: Lluc, Anoiapithecus brevirostris, A New Hominoid Species from Abocador de Can Mata, Spain Primatology.net where they ALSO state:

Lluc’s got an array of primitive features, such as super thick dental enamel and teeth with bulbar cusps {In other words, a pretty nasty set of teeth}. The mandible is also very robust. All of which are characteristics of afropithecids — primitive hominoids from the African Middle Miocene.

"The record of animals that were ancestral to Australopithecus is poor." direct quote form a mainstream book on human evolution, which then talks about all the controversies over various fossils. Each camp, if they are proved right, would change how we interpret the data as a whole.

Absolutely correct, but almost irrelevant. You're back a couple million years at this point and wouldn't expect to find much. But you'll notice they said 'ancestral to' meaning they are not questioning 'descended from' though that, of course, is also open to question. The Homo florensis issue is actually, to me anyway, more interesting.

World of the Little People - Map Interactive - National Geographic Magazine

If data that was dug up in the early 1900's or late 1800's isn't valid, then you would have to exclude the majority of the fossil record, and remember some of the fossils have been lost and we only have the reports or castings of them too.

No you wouldn't. The question is, what constitutes 'data.' We still have a lot of the 'fossil record' (note the term 'record') that can still be examined today. It's in museums. It can be analyzed. Cremo doesn't have data. He's still saying a guy told a guy that the Indians thought a big guy was eating their fish. I don't accept most of Cremo's so-called 'data' because it is anecdotal and unsubstantiated. I'm not saying Cremo's data is invalid because of the date. I'm saying it's invalid because he can't prove anything. Show me the bones! He can't do it.

The majority of hominid fossils are partial craniums and lots of teeth. But can you really say that's overwhelming evidence? you can interpret it as that I'm sure.

That-is-not-true. We have over 100 near complete skeletons of Homo erectus alone. They have been found on at least three continents in many different locations, and THAT'S ALL YOU NEED. Even Homo afrensis is a near complete skeleton, and it predates austrolopithecus by a million years. That anthropologists are not quite sure is Homo Florensis is a different species or a diminuitive Homo erectus does not invalidate the general principle. In fact, it is what keeps the field exciting as new developments occur.

Did you read the reports I posted? Lays to rest forever? can you tell me what scientist focused on DNA research doesn't think we are still missing giant pieces of the puzzle?

When they sequenced the DNA of the platypus for example, their findings were "a puzzling mystery" because it was part bird, part mammal and part reptile in it's DNA, and they can't even imagine how that evolved.

They don't know therefore god did it, huh? Once again you are suggesting that because we don't know everything that we don't know anything. I can prove in a court of law whether I am related to you or not by using DNA. What we do know about DNA is useful enough that it can be the definitive piece of evidence that convicts you of murder.
 

UBERDOINK

Skilled Investigator
Hominid includes humans and their ancestors. See: Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution.

even according to your own link, the only full skeleton seems to be Turkana Boy, and the rest, like I said, is parts of skulls and teeth. That's from your link, not mine.

Also, the Lluc also according to your link, is some skull fragments and some teeth. again, LOTS OF INTERPETATION is part of those conclusions when looking at the larger picture.

"Tempers flared last week in a sweltering salon at the French Academy of Sciences here as scientists hotly debated the attributes of anthropology's most famous thighbone, the 6-million-year-old femur of an ancient Kenyan hominid called Orrorin tugenensis."

"Senut proposed that Orrorina's gait was more humanlike than that of the 2- to 4-million-year-old australopithecines. If so, australopithecines would be bumped off the direct line to humans a dramatic revision of our prehistory."

that doesn't sound like concrete, un-arguable picture of our past.

They are fitting the data INTO their theory, not fitting a theory around the data for the most part. It's just teeth and skull fragments, can they really know that much about them?

Case in point:
Prehistoric monsters may not have been as monstrous as once believed
"Journal of Zoology, examined the method traditionally used to estimate the weight of extinct animals from their fossilised bones and find it wanting. Their revised version has slimmed some of the giants by 50%."

this is just an EXAMPLE of how when we guess about the past, we can find out we are wrong.

No you wouldn't. The question is, what constitutes 'data.' We still have a lot of the 'fossil record' (note the term 'record') that can still be examined today.

"Consequently, most researchers have access to only photographs or, at best, casts. In view of this fact, it is not surprising that major disagreements are common. Most anthropologists must rely only on descriptions and interpretations put forward by the discoverer of the fossils the very person who has a vested interest in proving his own theories."

There are other, non-examined anomalies as cataloged in William Roger Corliss's Source Book's projects that list thousands of "things that do not fit" into the current theory's that were written up IN THE scientific journals as anomalies. But, these anomalies aren't talked about, BECAUSE they don't fit into the theory.

again one of many examples, this comes from the femur controversy referenced above:

"Senut declared indignantly that she is not a creationist and then asked White to provide his own evidence about the mysterious Ardipithecus ramidus. A partial skeleton of that 4.4-million-year-old species was discovered by Whites team, the Middle Awash Research Project, in Ethiopia from 1994 to 1996, but the bones remain unpublished."

That's confirmational bias, and narrative fallacy building a "scientific" framework that only works if you disregard all the data, and only keep what fits your idea.

Even the Economist Magazine last month or so wrote an article on how 40-60% of scientists "fudge the data" to fit their theories.

example given (there are many more without even mentioning piltdown man)
Other skulls were wrongly dated by Von Zieten as well. After redating the evidence, it was concluded that he had methodically falsified the dates on numerous artifacts: he had simply made up the dates to fit his theories. Testing revealed that all the skulls dated by Potsch were, in fact, much younger than he had claimed. Thomas Terberger, who discovered the hoax, stated that as a result of the hoax, anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago

What do you do with that kind of info? it's empirical and with out a doubt proves that an agenda has usurped the legitimate search for truth.

They don't know therefore god did it, huh? Once again you are suggesting that because we don't know everything that we don't know anything. I can prove in a court of law whether I am related to you or not by using DNA. What we do know about DNA is useful enough that it can be the definitive piece of evidence that convicts you of murder.

Again, I can say the same for Evolution, because we don't know i.e. "giant black holes in DNA" then Evolution did it! (or your version of God)

I could say the fingerprints have convicted people in a court of law for years, does that mean I can look at fingerprints and understand the origins of humanity? Or even get the whole story about a persons lineage etc. from the fingerprints?
 

Schuyler

Misanthrope
Interesting that you mention Piltdown Man. That's a very interesting example of a situation that the popular press ran with, but that the most every anthropologist said at the time was fake. One guy, Arthur Keith, who certainly considered himself an expert, proclaimed it genuine. The whole issue came about because there were fossil finds from Africa and even France, but none from England. There was a sense of 'pride lost' because of no finds in Great Britain, so the situation was ripe for a hoax. Also, Piltdown fit, at that time, into the prevalent idea of a 'missing link.'

In the first half of the 20th century there were lots of weird theories about the origin of man. One, for example, suggested that Asians were descended orangutans, Africans from gorillas, and Caucasians from chimps. Those were very racist times. Modern anthropology has done much to undercut racism because it has taken away the underpinnings and left no basis for such attitudes.

This was before C-14 dating so the anthropologists who doubted the authenticity of the find couldn't really prove a negative. Several correctly identified that the jaw was from an orangutan as early as 1915. Further, as more discoveries were made Piltdown Man made less and less sense. It 'didn't fit' with the newer discoveries and seemed more and more of an aberration. There is no need for a 'missing link' at all, though the term has now shifted to what animal preceded the apes. As soon as C-14 was perfected they pounced and 'discovered' the fraud that many had said it was all along.

This is an excellent example of science correcting itself as new discoveries are made and new tools, such as C14 dating, are made available. We have so much more information available today compared to 100 years ago, that you couldn't pull off a Piltdown man hoax. It would be too easy to detect.

As we find out more and more it may very well be that theories will have to be revised. Certainly they have been within my lifetime. There is no reason to suppose they won't again. But basically, we've got it down. We descended from an ape-like creature. Which exact one it was, Homo hablis or Homo afrensis, or one we don't know, or whether we are REALLY a different species than Neanderthal, i.e: Was he Homo Neanderthalis or Homo sapiens neanderthalis where we are Homo sapiens sapiens, really doesn't matter that much, though it would be nice to know. In any case we have the fossil evidence. We have a scheme. we've put them in order, and we're saying, 'It looks like this is what happened.' If there are not enough bones on the table for a layperson to be convinced, who cares? You're not trained in the field to notice the differences. I wouldn't ask a plumber to analyze it either.

The problem with this contrary evidence is that it tends to be anecdotal and has no provenance, as the Piltdown skull had no provenance either. When you ask to see this contrary evidence, no one can produce it, or else someone will pull a piece of molten aluminum from a sock drawer and whisper to you, "This is from the Roswell crash! I got it from a guy who got it from a guy who got it from a guy who was there!" Further, there is no pattern to them. You can't construct a schema from them because they are unrelated.

That's Cremo's problem. In 1300 pages he cannot produce one anomaly physically for us to examine--not one.

Where's the beef?

Having said all this I still do not want to be labeled as carrying the banner for science as a religion. In other threads here I have explained why I think the science establishment needs a new paradigm about reality, a breakthrough as big as E=MC(2) that allows for a more spiritual outlook and includes some of the ideas religions have long maintained and something that explains the many subjects we discuss on the Paracast board. The reality box of science is not big enough to incorporate this greater reality yet. That does not mean it won't or can't. It did, after all, manage to get to relativity and quantum mechanics from the Newton model. Some people seem to feel we're on the verge of a shift. I don't see much evidence of that myself, but it has to happen.
 

Schuyler

Misanthrope
Here's the kind of stuff Cremo is into when he isn't writing about anomalies:

Drutakarma Dasa (1992a) {This is Cremo's 'initiated name'} explains the Hare Krishna position on capital punishment as follows: The Vedas and books of social codes such as the Manu-samhita sanction capital punishment. According to the laws of karma, a killer must suffer in the next life by being killed violently. But if the killer receives capital punishment in this life, the killer is freed from any further violent karmic reaction in the next life. Capital punishment is thus a legitimate resource for the state in its dealings with criminals and in the context of the law of reincarnation is, in fact, merciful.
That an others are from: Position Statements | ISKCON News Weekly

Absolutely rejecting the rtvik heresy and imposing sanctions on those who try to promote it within ISKCON is the most merciful thing that ISKCON can do for these misguided people. It gives them a clear choice that many of them will hopefully make correctly. Without taking these steps, we will be allowing them to persist in their offenses to Srila Prabhupada, for which they will have to suffer reactions. We also create confusion in our own ranks. So let's get the rtvik heresy out of ISKCON once and for all.
From: VNN Editorial - Inciting Hatred For Ritviks

The man has a right to his own religion and beliefs, of course. I'm not judging these statements, but simply presenting them. I feel they place Cremo in context and that this is necessary to show the basis for his other writings.
 
Top