|
|||||||||||
| "Anomalous and out-of-place discoveries reported by Cremo and Thompson in The Hidden History of the Human Race include convincing evidence that anatomically modern humans may have been present on the Earth not just for 100,000 years or less (the orthodox view), but for millions of years, and that metal objects of advanced design may have been in use at equally early periods. Moreover, although sensational claims have been made before about out-of-place artifacts, they have never been supported by such overwhelming and utterly convincing documentation as Cremo and Thompson present. In the final analysis, it is the meticulous scholarship of the authors, and the cumulative weight of the facts presented in The Hidden History of the Human Race, that really convince. The book is, I believe, in harmony with the mood of the public at large in the world today, a mood which no longer unquestionably accepts the pronouncements of established authorities, and is willing to listen with an open mind to heretics who make their case reasonably and rationally. Never before has the case for a complete re-evaluation of the human story been made more reasonably and rationally than it is in these pages." |
Hancock is also quoted on the front cover of "The Hidden History of the Human Race" as claiming it is "One of the landmark intellectual achievements of the late twentieth century".
Bauval, Hancock and Cremo also went on a lecture tour of America together in 1998. Based on this, and that Hancock is an openly declared supporter of Cremo, Bauval was asked repeatedly whether: (1) He agreed with Cremo's abuse of the scientific method, (2) he agreed with the conclusions reached by Cremo, and (3) whether he supported creationism. To date Bauval has not answered these simple and straightforward questions. Instead, Bauval has responded repeatedly with verbious personal attacks designed to deflect attention away from his inability to deal with a Hindu creationist work that has no basis in basic scientific reality. His posting to the Graham Hancock message board on 28 November 2001 sums up his intellectual position, with the most noteworthy and revealing sentencebeing: "I consider him one of the nicest and most trustworthy person I know, and I regard him as a honest and very good researcher." A posting dated 29 November 2001 reveals that Bauval considers Philip Johnson, a retired lawyer from the University of California and one of the leading proponents of the Christian creationist "Intelligent Design" idea, a reliable authority to cite in support of Cremo.
Bauval has subsequently been asked on numerous occassions why he considers an "Intelligent Design" proponent a reputable reviewer.
On 13 December 2001, I posted the following on the "In the Hall of Ma'at: Weighing the Evidence for Alternative History" message board:
| "The price is very green. Why is Philip Johnson a good supporter of Cremo's book and palaeoanthropologists aren't? If Cremo is so good and honest, explain why he has misrepresented Russell Tuttle." |
So what exactly is this misrepresentation of the palaeoanthropologist Dr Russell Tuttle I am referring to? I explained it on a posting to the Ma'at message board on 12 December 2001, where I stated:
| "Michael Cremo cites the palaeoanthropologist Russel Tuttle as proof that anatomically modern humans made the Laetoli footprints. Russ has kindly shared his research on the prints with me (he called Cremo's work fully of mistakes) and his conclusions are at odds with the impression created by Cremo in "The Hidden History of the Human Race". For example, Russ wrote in 1991, "Although the footprints of the Laetoli hominids are strikingly humanoid, we recommend against assigning them to Homo [me: he is referring to the genus designation, not to Homo sapiens] unless appropriate skeletal specimens, which evidence brain enlargement and Homo-like dentitions, are recovered from Laetoli. It is quite possible that the prints were made by a species of Australopithecus sensu lato, which had feet that are more fully adapted to extensive terrestrial bipedalism. Truly humanoid feet would have been quite advantageous to pioneer bipeds in the sparsely wooded environment at Laetoli 3.5 million years ago." " |
I also cited a review of "Forbidden Archeology" by the palaeoanthropologist Professor Colin Groves on 15 December 2001, and another posting on the 15th which stated:
| "It's a legit. question, like surely Richard Leakey knows more about his father Louis' involvement with and the intricacies of the Hans Reck skeleton than Cremo?" |
And finally, the following from 17 December 2001 puts the last nail in the coffin:
| "I should start making a list of unanswered questions on this topic... Cremo & Thompson cite Charles Oxnard as supposed support for their view the australopiths are not our ancestors. Yet... " In a small teaching resource booklet, which to my knowledge is his latest written opinion on the matter (Oxnard, 1991:30-31), he first gives the basic data on australopithecine postcranial anatomy, then discusses possible functional interpretations, and finally comes to what it means for human evolution. He puts forward four scenarios: it could be (1) mosaic evolution (not all parts evolved at the same rate), or (2) parallel evolution (bipedality evolved more than once from closely related ancestors), or (3) convergent evolution (bipedality evolved quite independently, from quadrupedal ancestors), or (4) the australopithecines could be unrelated to human evolution at all. His preferred option is a combination of mosaicism and parallelism. Creationists should notice that Oxnard rejects option 4 out of hand, and they should stop quoting him as if he supports it." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/desperate_cg.html by Professor Groves Does Bauval agree with Cremo that the australopiths are not ancestral to modern Homo? And does he agree with Cremo's misrepresentation of Oxnard's views? " |
The deafening silence speaks volumes, as does Bauval's disdain for the scientific process with no article of his having ever been submitted for peer-review publication.