Archaeologica.org

The Smithsonian

The 1909 article clearly states that the Smithsonian is involved with studying and excavating the site. However, the Smithsonian denies that any such discovery ever occurred. This brings up the larger question that if this was a true story, why would the Smithsonian have covered up what certainly would be one of the most significant archeological finds of the twentieth century? Believe it or not, there is precedence for the Smithsonian losing information about discoveries that are deemed to not fit in with currently accepted dogma about the history of America and its interaction or lack thereof with other ancient civilizations.

marduk wrote:i researched the claims made by crystalinks on the smithsonian about two years ago
turns out that most of the original claims were made merely to sell newspapers and never had any basis in reality
so its hardly surprising that the smithsonian denies their existence is it
maybe in future you should use a reliable source rather than the one most well known on the internet for writing complete and utter bollox

Starflower wrote:Links?

In any case - without physical proof - there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that ancient Egyptian and Tibets visited the area long ago.

Ethicist Baroness Mary Warnock, who has also joined the debate, added: "What counts as an issue to be debated in class is largely, as David Perks points out, dictated by the press.

"Far too much teaching at school has already degenerated into this kind of debate, more suitable for the pub than the school room."

But the Department for Education and Skills said the qualification would be academically rigorous while encouraging more young people to consider studying science post-16.

A spokesman said under the new programme, pupils would study more than one science subject.

Critics attack new science GCSE

I also call this the work of the "club"

As the copyright holder for the term "The Club" in this board,

Conformism. To get ahead in the local hierarchy, an academic needs to conform to the basic features of the system: the hierarchy itself (including the hierarchy of knowledge), the standard routines of administration and the social niceties needed to keep on the good side of influential individuals. A bit of academic eccentricity is all right, but any challenge to the basics of the hierarchy is a prescription for being marginalised.

Advancing in the academic hierarchy depends on fitting in socially. An academic's personality, interactions with colleagues, and spouse are all scrutinised. Anyone who doesn't fit in - often women, singles, lesbians and gays - has extra difficulties. Loyalty to colleagues, especially those in powerful posts, is expected.

A junior academic would scarcely think of openly questioning the competence of the departmental head, unless influential support was at hand in the attack. The basic procedure is to suffer incompetence quietly. The alternatives are to manoeuvre to outflank the incompetents or, less daringly, to use their good favour to get ahead.

Advanced degree students, for example, are very dependent on the good graces of their supervisors. If they refuse to defer they risk the destruction of their whole careers. (I have been told of numerous cases of victimisation of advanced degree students, including taking credit for students' work, bias in examining theses and the circulation of damaging rumours.) Most academic staff are afraid to do anything which might offend the administration and get them into the administration's dossiers, thereby jeopardising their prospects for promotions and perks. The result of the hierarchy is conformism. Most academics after all have to live in the local hierarchy, and for most of them rocking the boat is not worth the unpleasantness it generates.

What these fossils show is that these earliest modern humans had a mosaic of distinctly modern human characteristics and other characteristics which align them with Neandertals, suggesting some combination of modern humans dispersing into Europe and interacting with and absorbing the Neandertal population," said Erik Trinkaus, Ph.D., the Mary Tileston Hemenway Professor of physical anthropology in Arts & Sciences.

The first comparison of human and Neanderthal DNA shows that the two lineages diverged about 400,000 years ago and that Neanderthals may have had more DNA in common with chimps than with modern humans

Yet, as with many of these other Early Upper Paleolithic modern Europeans, the Muierii fossils exhibit a number of archaic and/or Neandertal features.

That's one possibility. Another would be an, as-yet, undiscovered common ancestor.