[exodus]

Hier nog een andere zeer interessante case, de olduvai man.

Dit is een volledig menselijke skelet (homo sapiens) dat gevonden is in 1913, dat de aanwezigheid van de homo aspiens 1.1 miljoen jaar geleden in Afrika aantoont. Wat dus ook de evolutietheorie falsificeert.

Natuurlijk wilden de debunkers de leeftijd naar beneden halen en claimden ze dat het een recente begraafplaats was (intrusive burial), de originele statements negerend:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Reck

The sediment . . . is so constituted that the artificial breaking of the bed with its visible layering by the digging of a grave would necessarily be recognizable. The wall of the grave would have a definite border, an edge that would show in profile a division from the undisturbed stone. the grave filling would show an abnormal structure and heterogeneous mixture of excavated materials, including easily recognizable pieces of calcrete. Neither of these signs were to be found despite the most attentive inspection. Rather the stone directly around the skeleton was not distinguishable from the neighboring stone in terms of color, hardness, thickness of layers, structure, or order. 631.

http://atlantisrisingmagazine.com/20...gorge-mystery/

De originele vinders stonden er eerst achter, maar hebben dan hun mening teruggetrokken, onder druk. Hier zien we ook weer dat peer review zich gaat bemoeien en tegenwerken, als het niet aan de wetenschappelijke consenus voldoet. Zoals het altijd gaat met zulke cases. Bewijs tegen de evolutietheorie wordt tegengewerkt, dat zien we keer op keer. Van wiki:

Back in Cambridge, the skeptics were not impressed. To find supporting evidence of the antiquity of Reck's Olduvai Man, Louis returned to Africa, excavating at Kanam and Kanjera. He easily found more fossils, which he named Homo kanamensis.[15] While he was gone, the opposition worked up some "evidence" of the intrusion of Olduvai Man into an earlier layer, evidence that seemed convincing at the time, but is missing and unverifiable now. On his return Louis' finds were carefully examined by a committee of 26 scientists and were tentatively accepted as valid.

[...]

A panel at Cambridge investigated his morals. Grants dried up, but his mother raised enough money for another expedition to Olduvai, Kanam and Kanjera, the latter two on the Winam Gulf.[17] His previous work there was questioned by P. G. H. Boswell,[18] whom he invited to verify the sites for himself. Arriving at Kanam and Kanjera in 1935, they found that the iron markers Louis had used to mark the sites had been removed by the Luo tribe for use as harpoons and the sites could not now be located. To make matters worse, all the photos Louis took were ruined by a light leak in the camera. After an irritating and fruitless two-month search, Boswell left for England, promising, as Louis understood it, not to publish a word until Louis returned.

Boswell immediately set out to publish as many words as he was able, beginning with an article in Nature dated 9 March 1935, destroying Reck's and Louis' dates of the fossils and questioning Louis' competence. Louis on his return accused Boswell of treachery, but Boswell now had public opinion on his side. Louis was not only forced to retract the accusation but also to recant his support of Reck.[19] Louis was through at Cambridge. Even his mentors turned on him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Leakey

Er zijn echter toch nog altijd bronnen die de het originele stratigrapische bewijs negeren. Het is niet de eerste keer dat debunking sites foute en onvolledige informatie gebruiken (remember Boule en Valois), waaronder deze site.

Zie de kitieken erop:

The accusation that stratograghy was not performed correctly conflict with the original reports. Leakey backed Reck until the disgruntled peer review insinuated threats against Leakey’s upcoming review if he did not stop backing Reck.One peer review rejected Recks finding based on his belief in the authenticity of piltdown man.I would urge everyone to read the original reports along with the criticism of the peer review board which is reprinted in “forbidden archeology”.No, it is NOT a “creationist” book.It is just compilation of all the facts and the truth of how they mishandled and mistreated by scientist who are supposed to be unbiased.

Ook een vermelding van Morell negeert het stratigraphische bewijs volledig, en geeft ook geen bewijs voor de gemaakte claims:

"Meanwhile, in England the death knell was sounding for Olduvai
Man. Several independent geological tests had been run on the
skeleton and soil samples. These showed that the body had been
buried in Bed II in comparatively recent times, when a fault
exposed that horizin. Sometime after the burial, Beds III and IV
eroded away; then Bed II had been covered over by the deposits of
Bed V. Reck had mistaken the soil of Bed V for that of Bed III -
an easy enough error to make as both are a deep red in color."

http://books.google.be/books?id=TKat...20Man.&f=false

Deze statements zijn dus ook vals, want het is zo dat Reck wist dat Bed V boven Bed II gedeposit was. Zijn verklaringen gaan rechtstreeks over Bed II. Zei deze link:

http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=8XLKTFDM&p=47&two=1

In verband met de genoemde testen kan dit gezegd worden, waarbij het duidelijk is dat er één van de twee moet liegen, of toch tenminste enorm slordig was:

Despite the broadsides from Cooper and Watson, Reck and Leakey seemed to be holding their own. But in August 1932, P. G. H. Boswell, a geologist from the Imperial College in England, gave a perplexing report in the pages of Nature. Professor T. Mollison had sent to Boswell from Munich a sample of what Mollison said was the matrix surrounding Reck's skeleton. Mollison, it may be noted, was not a completely neutral party. As early as 1929, he had expressed his belief that the skeleton was that of a Masai tribesman, buried in the not too distant past. Boswell stated that the sample supplied by Mollison contained "(a) pea-sized bright red pebbles like those of Bed 3, and (b) chips of concretionary limestone indistinguishable from that of Bed 5." Boswell took all this to mean that the skeleton had been buried after the deposition of Bed V, which contains hard layers of steppe-lime, or calcrete. The presence of the bright-red Bed III pebbles and Bed V limestone chips in the sample sent by Mollison certainly calls for some explanation. Reck and Leakey had both carefully examined the matrix at different times over a period of 20 years. They did not report any mixture of Bed III materials or chips of limestone like calcrete, even though they were specifically looking for such evidence. So it is remarkable that the presence of red pebbles and limestone chips should suddenly become apparent. It would appear that at least one of the participants in the discovery and the subsequent polemics was guilty of extremely careless observation—or cheating.

The debate about the age of Reck's skeleton became more complicated when Leakey brought new soil samples from Olduvai. Boswell and J. D. Solomon studied them at the Imperial College of Science and Technology. They reported their findings in the March 18, 1933 issue of Nature, in a letter signed also by Leakey, Reck, and Hopwood. The letter contained this very intriguing statement: "Samples of Bed II, actually collected at the 'man site,' at the same level and in the immediate vicinity of the place where the skeleton was found consist of pure and wholly typical Bed II material, and differ very markedly from the samples of matrix of the skeleton which were supplied by Prof. Mollison from Munich." This suggests that the matrix sample originally supplied by Mollison to Boswell may not have been representative of the material closely surrounding Reck's skeleton.

Er is ook een C14 dateringstest geweest die de beenderen op 16.000 jaar schat door Protsch die in de jaren 70 de case definitief wou debunken. Maar het is niet zeker of de beenderfragmenten die het musuem leverde ook werkelijk van het skelet kwamen. Protsch zei dat het "likely"was (men dacht dat de beenderen van het skelet kwamen, en heeft een stikstof test gedaan om te zien of het overeenkwam met een schedel die zeker van de olduvai man was). Blijkt echter dat Protsch geexposed is geweest als een fraudeur. Protsch kon trouwens zelfs niet met een C14 dateringsmachine werken. .

During their investigation, the university discovered that Prof Protsch, 65, a flamboyant figure with a fondness for gold watches, Porsches and Cuban cigars, was unable to work his own carbon-dating machine.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ce.sciencenews

Dus we hebben hier een case waarvan het stratigraphische bewijs er staat, ongeacht de pogingen van debunkers die beweren dat het een intrusive burial is, en een C14 dateringstest die gedaan is door een regelrechte fraudeur. Die C14 test kunnen we dus absoluut niet betrouwbaar noemen.

De verhaal van de hoaxende Protsch is al een blaam op zich:

According to experts, his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten. "Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish.

http://atlantisrisingmagazine.com/20...gorge-mystery/

Dus wederom een case die niet alleen wederom een case is de evolutietheorie verzwakt, maar ook de tegenwerking en fraude, en de valse debunkingen die zomaar voor waar geaccepteerd worden door skeptici, aantoont.