"Trust me, I'm a paleoanthropologist"


 

We can laugh about this picture "Trust me, I'm a robot." from Elaine Morgan's book Pinker's List (2005).

I think we should laugh at the fact that we trusted Arthur Keith and Charles Dawson and their Piltdown Man for forty years. And we should laugh at, and not trust, other well known paleoanthropologists and their claims to fame: Eugene Dubois (Java Man), Davidson Black (Peking Man), Donald Johanson (Lucy), Mary Leakey, Richard Hay, and Terry Harrison (Laetoli fossils), Alan Walker, Richard Leakey, Kamoya Kimeu, Pat Shipman (Turkana Boy), Ronald J. Clarke (Little Foot.)

If you want to know why I think these claims are laughable, read this manuscript:  
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344220554_The_story_of_human_evolution_is_based_on_fictional_fossil_evidence 


--
AquaticApe.net


fceska_gr
 

Allan:

In a new version of the aquatic-ape theory, Homo sapiens evolved directly from isolated chimpanzees on Galapagos-like volcanic islands in western Africa.

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously if you are still saying humans evolved from chimpanzees? You're going to make AAT a laughing stock and ridiculed even more than it is in scientific circles. Even school kids mostly know we did not evolve from chimpanzees. It's embarrassing that you're publishing this and linking it to AAT.

The concept of allopatric speciation is correct in our case, but Bioko is not the place where it happened. While you try to claim that the African fossil 'hominins' are all fakes, they are very real and tell an interesting story. Only it is not our story but the story of the ancestors of chimpanzees/bonobos and gorillas (none of which yet existed when those fossil species were alive). Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Chimpanzees and humans evolved from a very different common ancestor that was probably already more human-like than chimpanzee-like in a number of ways.

Try to build your hypothesis on evidence, rather than on dismissing the evidence that there is.

F.


On 26/9/2021 6:39 μ.μ., Allan Krill wrote:

We can laugh about this picture "Trust me, I'm a robot." from Elaine Morgan's book Pinker's List (2005).

I think we should laugh at the fact that we trusted Arthur Keith and Charles Dawson and their Piltdown Man for forty years. And we should laugh at, and not trust, other well known paleoanthropologists and their claims to fame: Eugene Dubois (Java Man), Davidson Black (Peking Man), Donald Johanson (Lucy), Mary Leakey, Richard Hay, and Terry Harrison (Laetoli fossils), Alan Walker, Richard Leakey, Kamoya Kimeu, Pat Shipman (Turkana Boy), Ronald J. Clarke (Little Foot.)

If you want to know why I think these claims are laughable, read this manuscript:  
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344220554_The_story_of_human_evolution_is_based_on_fictional_fossil_evidence a


--
AquaticApe.net
--
Francesca Mansfield Odyssey Sailing Tel: 0030 24280 94128 Mobile/WhatsAp: +30 6974 659 156 f-ceska@...


 

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 02:19 AM, fceska_gr wrote:
African fossil 'hominins' are all fakes, they are very real and tell an interesting story. Only it is not our story but the story of the ancestors of chimpanzees/bonobos and gorillas
Hi Francesca,
I'm not concerned with being taken seriously, or being a laughingstock, or with what school kids know about human ancestors. I WANT PEOPLE TO STOP IGNORING AAT. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win." So let them laugh. 

I'm very interested in Australopithecus fossils. One of my hypotheses is to accept them as real, in which case I think they were probably hybrids of Bioko-humans and apes, and not ancestors of any living primates.

I've not noticed that any specialist believes Australopithecus was an ancestor of chimpanzees/bonobos or gorillas. If you know of any who do think that (other than Marc and yourself) please give me the name and reference. Thanks.

--
AquaticApe.net


Marc Verhaegen
 







------ Origineel bericht ------
Van: krill@...
Aan: AAT@groups.io
Verzonden: woensdag 29 september 2021 14:58
Onderwerp: Re: [AAT] "Trust me, I'm a paleoanthropologist"

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 02:19 AM, fceska_gr wrote:
African fossil 'hominins' are all fakes, they are very real and tell an interesting story. Only it is not our story but the story of the ancestors of chimpanzees/bonobos and gorillas
Hi Francesca,
I'm not concerned with being taken seriously, or being a laughingstock, or with what school kids know about human ancestors. I WANT PEOPLE TO STOP IGNORING AAT.

Wh

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win." So let them laugh.

I'm very interested in Australopithecus fossils. One of my hypotheses is to accept them as real, in which case I think they were probably hybrids of Bioko-humans and apes, and not ancestors of any living primates.

I've not noticed that any specialist believes Australopithecus was an ancestor of chimpanzees/bonobos or gorillas. If you know of any who do think that (other than Marc and yourself) please give me the name and reference. Thanks.

--
AquaticApe.net



fceska_gr
 

Hi Allan,

I also want people to stop ignoring AAT. Problem is, some of them already think we believe in mermaids and other nonsense fantasy scenarios. Your Bioko fantasy only adds fuel to the fire. It's counter to what we all want to achieve. Especially when you claim we evolved from chimpanzees. At that point, no academic is even likely to continue reading.

I've told you before, regarding the apiths, if you read almost any article that studies the fossils, between the lines they are often saying that the similarities are just as close to, if not closer to, chimpanzees and gorillas.

Here's just one that's a bit more explicit, and was not written by Marc or me.

Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

Abstract

Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.

https://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6568

I've found many, many more in my research. You could do your own.

Of course, the idea that humans evolved from African apiths is entrenched and hard to shake off. It's not easy to undo more than a century of investment in this paradigm. It's going to take a while, but as more and more studies come forward, you are going to see articles moving further away from the idea that they are human ancestors and more moving towards the possibility that here at last are the long-missing fossils of the ancestors of P & G.

Francesca

On 29/9/2021 3:58 μ.μ., Allan Krill wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 02:19 AM, fceska_gr wrote:
African fossil 'hominins' are all fakes, they are very real and tell an interesting story. Only it is not our story but the story of the ancestors of chimpanzees/bonobos and gorillas
Hi Francesca,
I'm not concerned with being taken seriously, or being a laughingstock, or with what school kids know about human ancestors. I WANT PEOPLE TO STOP IGNORING AAT. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win." So let them laugh. 

I'm very interested in Australopithecus fossils. One of my hypotheses is to accept them as real, in which case I think they were probably hybrids of Bioko-humans and apes, and not ancestors of any living primates.

I've not noticed that any specialist believes Australopithecus was an ancestor of chimpanzees/bonobos or gorillas. If you know of any who do think that (other than Marc and yourself) please give me the name and reference. Thanks.

--
AquaticApe.net
--
Francesca Mansfield Odyssey Sailing Tel: 0030 24280 94128 Mobile/WhatsAp: +30 6974 659 156 f-ceska@...


 

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 02:14 AM, fceska_gr wrote:
between the lines they are often saying that the similarities are just as close to, if not closer to, chimpanzees and gorillas
The authors and articles you are referring to imply that some of the ancestors of modern chimpanzees and gorillas left the forests of western and central Africa, evolved strange features in East and South Africa, and left Australopithecine fossils there. Other ancestors of chimps and gorillas stayed in western and central Africa, where modern chimps and gorillas live. Modern chimps and gorillas did not evolve in East and South Africa where fossils are found. 

If one finds 2000-year-old Latin texts with some unique Latin words in Britain, one does not suggest that Romans evolved their Latin language in Britain, and then dropped those strange words after moving to Rome.

Does anyone suggest that Australopithecines were ancestors of modern chimps and gorillas? Does anyone think that the ancestors of chimps and gorillas were bipedal (not arboreal), bald-bodied, had reduced canine teeth, and other human features? Does anyone one think that the Laetoli footprints could have been made by an ancestor of the modern gorilla or chimp? 

--
AquaticApe.net


 

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 02:14 AM, fceska_gr wrote:

I also want people to stop ignoring AAT. Problem is, some of them already think we believe in mermaids and other nonsense fantasy scenarios. Your Bioko fantasy only adds fuel to the fire. It's counter to what we all want to achieve. Especially when you claim we evolved from chimpanzees. At that point, no academic is even likely to continue reading.

 

Francesca, We don't 'believe in mermaids', but we do have our 'fantasy scenarios'. Here is your scenario for the evolution of modern chimpanzees and gorillas: https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/69806
I look forward to seeing your book published -- not because I agree or disagree with your fantasy scenario, but because I am interested in it, and others will be too. We need to bring attention, any kind of attention, to AAT. 

The article that Gareth showed us, about the correction of the age estimate of the A00 Y-DNA haplogroup begins with a funny story:

‘Look, if I told you that I keep a goat in the backyard of my house… and if you happened to have a man nearby, you might ask him to look over my garden fence… But what would you do if I said, ‘I keep a unicorn in my backyard'?'

Think about that story: If someone tells people 'I keep a unicorn in my backyard' not only would the neighbor bother to look over the garden fence, but others would too -- to see for themselves how anyone could be so deluded. We need to 'add fuel to the fire' as you say. AAT hypotheses of all kinds are being ignored. Our main challenge is to bring attention to them. 

 
--
AquaticApe.net


Pierre-François Puech
 

To Alan Krill
"Francesca, We don't 'believe in mermaids', but we do have our 'fantasy scenarios'. Here is your scenario for the evolution of modern chimpanzees and gorillas: https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/69806 "

In an origin search you must take unspecialized species. Oreopoithecus is too much specialized. The same is true for afarensis that have to leave the place to anamensis (Garusi)  PF

Le vendredi 1 octobre 2021, 11:30:36 UTC+2, Allan Krill <krill@...> a écrit :


On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 02:14 AM, fceska_gr wrote:

I also want people to stop ignoring AAT. Problem is, some of them already think we believe in mermaids and other nonsense fantasy scenarios. Your Bioko fantasy only adds fuel to the fire. It's counter to what we all want to achieve. Especially when you claim we evolved from chimpanzees. At that point, no academic is even likely to continue reading.

 

Francesca, We don't 'believe in mermaids', but we do have our 'fantasy scenarios'. Here is your scenario for the evolution of modern chimpanzees and gorillas: https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/69806
I look forward to seeing your book published -- not because I agree or disagree with your fantasy scenario, but because I am interested in it, and others will be too. We need to bring attention, any kind of attention, to AAT. 

The article that Gareth showed us, about the correction of the age estimate of the A00 Y-DNA haplogroup begins with a funny story:

‘Look, if I told you that I keep a goat in the backyard of my house… and if you happened to have a man nearby, you might ask him to look over my garden fence… But what would you do if I said, ‘I keep a unicorn in my backyard'?'

Think about that story: If someone tells people 'I keep a unicorn in my backyard' not only would the neighbor bother to look over the garden fence, but others would too -- to see for themselves how anyone could be so deluded. We need to 'add fuel to the fire' as you say. AAT hypotheses of all kinds are being ignored. Our main challenge is to bring attention to them. 

 
--
AquaticApe.net


Gareth Morgan
 

‘I keep a unicorn in my backyard'?'

Mercury is still retrograde.


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 12:30 PM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] "Trust me, I'm a paleoanthropologist"
 
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 02:14 AM, fceska_gr wrote:

I also want people to stop ignoring AAT. Problem is, some of them already think we believe in mermaids and other nonsense fantasy scenarios. Your Bioko fantasy only adds fuel to the fire. It's counter to what we all want to achieve. Especially when you claim we evolved from chimpanzees. At that point, no academic is even likely to continue reading.

 

Francesca, We don't 'believe in mermaids', but we do have our 'fantasy scenarios'. Here is your scenario for the evolution of modern chimpanzees and gorillas: https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/69806
I look forward to seeing your book published -- not because I agree or disagree with your fantasy scenario, but because I am interested in it, and others will be too. We need to bring attention, any kind of attention, to AAT. 

The article that Gareth showed us, about the correction of the age estimate of the A00 Y-DNA haplogroup begins with a funny story:

‘Look, if I told you that I keep a goat in the backyard of my house… and if you happened to have a man nearby, you might ask him to look over my garden fence… But what would you do if I said, ‘I keep a unicorn in my backyard'?'

Think about that story: If someone tells people 'I keep a unicorn in my backyard' not only would the neighbor bother to look over the garden fence, but others would too -- to see for themselves how anyone could be so deluded. We need to 'add fuel to the fire' as you say. AAT hypotheses of all kinds are being ignored. Our main challenge is to bring attention to them. 

 
--
AquaticApe.net


fceska_gr
 

My hypothesis is constantly evolving and changing and adapting the more I research and according to the evidence I come across. It's changed quite a bit since I wrote that post. I don't think Oreopithecus was in any way a direct human ancestor, but, as one of the aquarboreal apes of the late Miocene in Europe, it was a stem hominid, probably closely related to many of the other hominids in Europe. It was a specialised wader living in swamps by day and probably sleeping in the trees by night. When the Med started to dry out and those Tuscany/Sardinia islands were connected to the mainland again, large predators finished it off finally in the late Miocene.

Each of the species is a stem on its own branch. I'm not suggesting they form a direct line to Homo / Pan or Gorilla. Each species is specialised to its own niche, and each eventually died out. The extant species alive today all branched off somewhere along those lines and obviously are the only ones to have made it thus far.

F.

On 1/10/2021 12:50 μ.μ., Pierre-François Puech via groups.io wrote:
To Alan Krill
"Francesca, We don't 'believe in mermaids', but we do have our 'fantasy scenarios'. Here is your scenario for the evolution of modern chimpanzees and gorillas: https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/69806 "
 
In an origin search you must take unspecialized species. Oreopoithecus is too much specialized. The same is true for afarensis that have to leave the place to anamensis (Garusi)  PF
 
Le vendredi 1 octobre 2021, 11:30:36 UTC+2, Allan Krill <krill@...> a écrit :
 
 
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 02:14 AM, fceska_gr wrote:

I also want people to stop ignoring AAT. Problem is, some of them already think we believe in mermaids and other nonsense fantasy scenarios. Your Bioko fantasy only adds fuel to the fire. It's counter to what we all want to achieve. Especially when you claim we evolved from chimpanzees. At that point, no academic is even likely to continue reading.


Francesca, We don't 'believe in mermaids', but we do have our 'fantasy scenarios'. Here is your scenario for the evolution of modern chimpanzees and gorillas: https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/69806
I look forward to seeing your book published -- not because I agree or disagree with your fantasy scenario, but because I am interested in it, and others will be too. We need to bring attention, any kind of attention, to AAT. 

The article that Gareth showed us, about the correction of the age estimate of the A00 Y-DNA haplogroup begins with a funny story:

'Look, if I told you that I keep a goat in the backyard of my house... and if you happened to have a man nearby, you might ask him to look over my garden fence... But what would you do if I said, 'I keep a unicorn in my backyard'?'

Think about that story: If someone tells people 'I keep a unicorn in my backyard' not only would the neighbor bother to look over the garden fence, but others would too -- to see for themselves how anyone could be so deluded. We need to 'add fuel to the fire' as you say. AAT hypotheses of all kinds are being ignored. Our main challenge is to bring attention to them. 

 
--
AquaticApe.net
--
Francesca Mansfield Odyssey Sailing Tel: 0030 24280 94128 Mobile/WhatsAp: +30 6974 659 156 f-ceska@...


fceska_gr
 

I recently watched a Youtube video about Homo erectus presented by some amateur paleoanthropologist enthusiast. He had some interesting and generally known facts but made a lot of assumptions including that erectus probably used to chase prey across the savannah, etc. He talked about how erectus had managed to cross to many parts of the world, including across large bodies of water, ie, to Crete, Sahul, Java, perhaps Oceania, etc. and suggested that they must have rafted, or drifted somehow. He considered the possibility that erectus may have swum the distance to (I can't quite remember where now) but at once dismissed it because it was 'around 40 miles', a distance 'even modern humans would have difficulty swimming today', as if modern humans are way more "progressed" than erectus, and with the basic assumption that whatever they could do, we could surely do much better. He then inserted an aside along the lines of: Please don't leave comments about any of that AAT rubbish below the line, and he moved on.

This is fairly common with AAT. Most people have heard of it at some point, but it often comes with a sort of disclaimer to not be taken seriously. This is thanks to lobbying from the scientific community over the decades. They want to protect their interests of course. The nonsense fantasy aspect of AAT has now become so prevalent, that most people will dismiss it out of hand, even before they've really heard what it's about or listened to any of the arguments for it.

If we really want to be taken seriously, we have to play them at their own game. We need to turn their own evidence against them. Many of us here have been trying to do exactly that, including specialists in their own fields using scientific evidence to tell us about brains, fat, ear exostoses, pathology, tools, geology, sweating, pregnancy & birth, wading and bipedalism, modern diving groups, diving capabilities, etc. This accumulating evidence is making it harder for the naysayers to flock against us. One by one, we are whittling them down and a new generation of scientists are stepping up to the plate with new ideas, new research, new evidence.

Stepping up on to the podium with no research, no evidence, plenty of counter evidence, nothing more than a fairly fantastic hypothesis that seems to collapse at the first hurdle, does not improve our collective credentials. If it draws attention at all, it will only be dismissive attention. The next generation of graduating scientists will just associate AAT with "that bizarre scenario where chimpanzees evolved into humans on a tiny island off west Africa, LOL". It will be another half century before people take it seriously again.

That's the reason we keep saying, please base your theories only on evidence or present a testable hypothesis of some kind.

F.

On 1/10/2021 12:30 μ.μ., Allan Krill wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 02:14 AM, fceska_gr wrote:

I also want people to stop ignoring AAT. Problem is, some of them already think we believe in mermaids and other nonsense fantasy scenarios. Your Bioko fantasy only adds fuel to the fire. It's counter to what we all want to achieve. Especially when you claim we evolved from chimpanzees. At that point, no academic is even likely to continue reading.


Francesca, We don't 'believe in mermaids', but we do have our 'fantasy scenarios'. Here is your scenario for the evolution of modern chimpanzees and gorillas: https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/69806
I look forward to seeing your book published -- not because I agree or disagree with your fantasy scenario, but because I am interested in it, and others will be too. We need to bring attention, any kind of attention, to AAT. 

The article that Gareth showed us, about the correction of the age estimate of the A00 Y-DNA haplogroup begins with a funny story:

'Look, if I told you that I keep a goat in the backyard of my house... and if you happened to have a man nearby, you might ask him to look over my garden fence... But what would you do if I said, 'I keep a unicorn in my backyard'?'

Think about that story: If someone tells people 'I keep a unicorn in my backyard' not only would the neighbor bother to look over the garden fence, but others would too -- to see for themselves how anyone could be so deluded. We need to 'add fuel to the fire' as you say. AAT hypotheses of all kinds are being ignored. Our main challenge is to bring attention to them. 

 
--
AquaticApe.net
--
Francesca Mansfield Odyssey Sailing Tel: 0030 24280 94128 Mobile/WhatsAp: +30 6974 659 156 f-ceska@...


 

On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 03:45 AM, fceska_gr wrote:
If we really want to be taken seriously, we have to play them at their own game. We need to turn their own evidence against them. Many of us here have been trying to do exactly that
I think that you can't beat paleoanthropologists at their own game, because they don't play fair. They claim to have picked up fossils that were lying loose on the ground ('surface finds'), with nothing more found by digging. They don't try to use chemical analyses, DNA tests, or carbon-14 tests to demonstrate that the fossils actually are old or came from that particular ground. They won't let skeptics or impartial scientists test their materials, or even inspect them. No scientists are allowed to publish doubts about the authenticity of other's material. These are the same old problems that led to the Piltdown Man hoax.

These guys are like sleight-of-hand artists, stage-performing magicians, and card sharks that use tapered and marked playing cards. They can impress people, but they won't let anyone inspect the cards, or 'look behind the curtain'. People are happy because they want to be impressed.

You have been trying to 'play their game': To promote your model of early bipedal hominins in Europe, you believe the Trachilos layer shows authentic footprints. The photograph you show of those footprints is an obvious falsification.  https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/69489
Fake footprints were stained or photo-shopped using brown color, which has nothing to do with the actual structures seen or the natural color of the rock. The footprints and the layer itself were destroyed, either naturally or intentionally, and cannot be studied.
The sedimentary layer of those supposed footprints is marine, not terrestrial. It was dated using marine microfossils (forams) not terrestrial pollen. Marine sediments simply don't preserve mammal footprints, and commonly have strange patterns such as these. The footprints themselves are probably some sort of dewatering structures -- not fossils at all. 

So you can play their own game, but don't suggest that I am 'Stepping up on to the podium with no research, no evidence, plenty of counter evidence, nothing more than a fairly fantastic hypothesis that seems to collapse at the first hurdle.' That is simply not true.

Do you really think that the Y-DNA haplogoup being right next to Bioko should be ignored, and that you can say there is 'no evidence'? That is actually evidence, and there is more, in support of Bioko. 
 
--
AquaticApe.net


Gareth Morgan
 

Mercury still retrograde, then



From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 11:39 PM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] "Trust me, I'm a paleoanthropologist"
 
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 03:45 AM, fceska_gr wrote:
If we really want to be taken seriously, we have to play them at their own game. We need to turn their own evidence against them. Many of us here have been trying to do exactly that
I think that you can't beat paleoanthropologists at their own game, because they don't play fair. They claim to have picked up fossils that were lying loose on the ground ('surface finds'), with nothing more found by digging. They don't try to use chemical analyses, DNA tests, or carbon-14 tests to demonstrate that the fossils actually are old or came from that particular ground. They won't let skeptics or impartial scientists test their materials, or even inspect them. No scientists are allowed to publish doubts about the authenticity of other's material. These are the same old problems that led to the Piltdown Man hoax.

These guys are like sleight-of-hand artists, stage-performing magicians, and card sharks that use tapered and marked playing cards. They can impress people, but they won't let anyone inspect the cards, or 'look behind the curtain'. People are happy because they want to be impressed.

You have been trying to 'play their game': To promote your model of early bipedal hominins in Europe, you believe the Trachilos layer shows authentic footprints. The photograph you show of those footprints is an obvious falsification.  https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/69489
Fake footprints were stained or photo-shopped using brown color, which has nothing to do with the actual structures seen or the natural color of the rock. The footprints and the layer itself were destroyed, either naturally or intentionally, and cannot be studied.
The sedimentary layer of those supposed footprints is marine, not terrestrial. It was dated using marine microfossils (forams) not terrestrial pollen. Marine sediments simply don't preserve mammal footprints, and commonly have strange patterns such as these. The footprints themselves are probably some sort of dewatering structures -- not fossils at all. 

So you can play their own game, but don't suggest that I am 'Stepping up on to the podium with no research, no evidence, plenty of counter evidence, nothing more than a fairly fantastic hypothesis that seems to collapse at the first hurdle.' That is simply not true.

Do you really think that the Y-DNA haplogoup being right next to Bioko should be ignored, and that you can say there is 'no evidence'? That is actually evidence, and there is more, in support of Bioko. 
 
--
AquaticApe.net


Gareth Morgan
 

 They claim to have picked up fossils that were lying loose on the ground ('surface finds'), with nothing more found by digging.

Norwegian geology professor, Allan Krill, was hiking with his students when he made a surprising discovery. Lying next to the trail, in plain view of the many hikers, was a boulder containing conspicuous fossil footprints."  

Another hoax, obviously.

G.


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 11:39 PM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] "Trust me, I'm a paleoanthropologist"
 
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 03:45 AM, fceska_gr wrote:
If we really want to be taken seriously, we have to play them at their own game. We need to turn their own evidence against them. Many of us here have been trying to do exactly that
I think that you can't beat paleoanthropologists at their own game, because they don't play fair. They claim to have picked up fossils that were lying loose on the ground ('surface finds'), with nothing more found by digging. They don't try to use chemical analyses, DNA tests, or carbon-14 tests to demonstrate that the fossils actually are old or came from that particular ground. They won't let skeptics or impartial scientists test their materials, or even inspect them. No scientists are allowed to publish doubts about the authenticity of other's material. These are the same old problems that led to the Piltdown Man hoax.

These guys are like sleight-of-hand artists, stage-performing magicians, and card sharks that use tapered and marked playing cards. They can impress people, but they won't let anyone inspect the cards, or 'look behind the curtain'. People are happy because they want to be impressed.

You have been trying to 'play their game': To promote your model of early bipedal hominins in Europe, you believe the Trachilos layer shows authentic footprints. The photograph you show of those footprints is an obvious falsification.  https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/69489
Fake footprints were stained or photo-shopped using brown color, which has nothing to do with the actual structures seen or the natural color of the rock. The footprints and the layer itself were destroyed, either naturally or intentionally, and cannot be studied.
The sedimentary layer of those supposed footprints is marine, not terrestrial. It was dated using marine microfossils (forams) not terrestrial pollen. Marine sediments simply don't preserve mammal footprints, and commonly have strange patterns such as these. The footprints themselves are probably some sort of dewatering structures -- not fossils at all. 

So you can play their own game, but don't suggest that I am 'Stepping up on to the podium with no research, no evidence, plenty of counter evidence, nothing more than a fairly fantastic hypothesis that seems to collapse at the first hurdle.' That is simply not true.

Do you really think that the Y-DNA haplogoup being right next to Bioko should be ignored, and that you can say there is 'no evidence'? That is actually evidence, and there is more, in support of Bioko. 
 
--
AquaticApe.net


fceska_gr
 

"... you believe the Trachilos layer shows authentic footprints. The photograph you show of those footprints is an obvious falsification.  https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/69489
Fake footprints were stained or photo-shopped using brown color, which has nothing to do with the actual structures seen or the natural color of the rock. The footprints and the layer itself were destroyed, either naturally or intentionally, and cannot be studied.
The sedimentary layer of those supposed footprints is marine, not terrestrial. It was dated using marine microfossils (forams) not terrestrial pollen. Marine sediments simply don't preserve mammal footprints, and commonly have strange patterns such as these. The footprints themselves are probably some sort of dewatering structures -- not fossils at all. "

The footprints have not been stained, or faked. Google 'Trachilos footprints' (images) and you'll see plenty of images as they appear, preserved in the rock.

Gierlinski gives a perfectly adequate account of the dating methods used in his paper. These have not been disputed by anyone as being a flawed method. You can read his paper here:

Very few scientists have actually refuted the paper. Mostly they just ignore it, as they did with Elaine, as it doesn't fit the scenario that hominins evolved in Africa and several million years later. As far as I'm concerned, these tracks are very real and a game changer in our understanding of where we came from. There are a number of academics who agree:

David Begun, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Toronto, said the people with the most influence on the major journals are committed Africanists.

“They simply cannot see the possibility that any important event in ape and human evolution could have occurred outside Africa until the first Homo left that continent about 2 million years ago,” he wrote in an email. He said there’s “no earthly reason why there could not have been (pre)humans on Crete 6 million years ago.”

You choose to poo-poo it for the same reasons. It doesn't fit your Bioko model.

The prints have not been destroyed:

Shortly after the research was published, four or five of the 29 prints were chiselled out of the rock in Trachilos and stolen. Fortunately, local authorities soon arrested a 55-year-old high school teacher from the area, and the damaged footprints were recovered, according to Greek news site Themanews.

No scientific data was lost, since the prints had already been laser-scanned in 3D. But Matthew Bennett told CBC Radio’s Quirks & Quarks that what has been lost is the ability to “get that emotional connection with one’s ancestor, to touch those footprints… It’s not as bad as it could have been, but it’s still very, very sad to see.”

The footprints have since been buried under gravel and rocks on the beach in Trachilos, for their protection, and will remain so until spring.

Gierlinski said local authorities are now debating whether to remove the entire slab of footprints and relocate it to the local museum or build a protective structure so it can be viewed on the beach at the very place where it was found — his preferred option. He has also looked into options for removing graffiti that has been sprayed on the surface.

In the meantime, science will have to wait for more discoveries to be made in order to understand the truth behind the footprints found in Crete.


Francesca


On 1/10/2021 11:39 μ.μ., Allan Krill wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 03:45 AM, fceska_gr wrote:
If we really want to be taken seriously, we have to play them at their own game. We need to turn their own evidence against them. Many of us here have been trying to do exactly that
I think that you can't beat paleoanthropologists at their own game, because they don't play fair. They claim to have picked up fossils that were lying loose on the ground ('surface finds'), with nothing more found by digging. They don't try to use chemical analyses, DNA tests, or carbon-14 tests to demonstrate that the fossils actually are old or came from that particular ground. They won't let skeptics or impartial scientists test their materials, or even inspect them. No scientists are allowed to publish doubts about the authenticity of other's material. These are the same old problems that led to the Piltdown Man hoax.

These guys are like sleight-of-hand artists, stage-performing magicians, and card sharks that use tapered and marked playing cards. They can impress people, but they won't let anyone inspect the cards, or 'look behind the curtain'. People are happy because they want to be impressed.

You have been trying to 'play their game': To promote your model of early bipedal hominins in Europe, you believe the Trachilos layer shows authentic footprints. The photograph you show of those footprints is an obvious falsification.  https://groups.io/g/AAT/message/69489
Fake footprints were stained or photo-shopped using brown color, which has nothing to do with the actual structures seen or the natural color of the rock. The footprints and the layer itself were destroyed, either naturally or intentionally, and cannot be studied.
The sedimentary layer of those supposed footprints is marine, not terrestrial. It was dated using marine microfossils (forams) not terrestrial pollen. Marine sediments simply don't preserve mammal footprints, and commonly have strange patterns such as these. The footprints themselves are probably some sort of dewatering structures -- not fossils at all. 

So you can play their own game, but don't suggest that I am 'Stepping up on to the podium with no research, no evidence, plenty of counter evidence, nothing more than a fairly fantastic hypothesis that seems to collapse at the first hurdle.' That is simply not true.

Do you really think that the Y-DNA haplogoup being right next to Bioko should be ignored, and that you can say there is 'no evidence'? That is actually evidence, and there is more, in support of Bioko. 
 
--
AquaticApe.net
--
Francesca Mansfield Odyssey Sailing Tel: 0030 24280 94128 Mobile/WhatsAp: +30 6974 659 156 f-ceska@...


 

On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 02:27 AM, fceska_gr wrote:
Very few scientists have actually refuted the paper. Mostly they just ignore it,
 
Marine sedimentary rocks show many interesting patterns, but not mammal footprints. This is like mermaids: some people might think they have seen some, but you can be pretty sure they didn’t. And you don’t want to bother arguing with them. Let them have their harmless delusions. It makes life more interesting for everyone. 


fceska_gr
 

"And you don’t want to bother arguing with them. Let them have their harmless delusions. It makes life more interesting for everyone."

Spot on, Allan.


On 3/10/2021 3:00 μ.μ., Allan Krill wrote:
On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 02:27 AM, fceska_gr wrote:
Very few scientists have actually refuted the paper. Mostly they just ignore it,
 
Marine sedimentary rocks show many interesting patterns, but not mammal footprints. This is like mermaids: some people might think they have seen some, but you can be pretty sure they didn’t. And you don’t want to bother arguing with them. Let them have their harmless delusions. It makes life more interesting for everyone. 
--
Francesca Mansfield Odyssey Sailing Tel: 0030 24280 94128 Mobile/WhatsAp: +30 6974 659 156 f-ceska@...