Virginia Steen- Mclntyre experienced many of the above-mentioned social pressures and obstacles. In a note to a colleague (July 10, 1976), she stated: "I had found out through backfence gossip that Hal [Malde], Roald [Fryxell], and I are considered opportunists and publicity seekers in some circles, because or Hueyatlaco, and I am still smarting from the blow."
The publication of a paper by Steen-Mclntyre and her colleagues on Hueyatlaco was inexplicably held up for years. The paper was first presented in 1975 at a joint meeting of the Southwestern Anthropological Association and the Societe Mexicana de Antropologia and was to appear in a symposium volume. Four years later, Steen-Mclntyre wrote (March 29, 1979) to H. J. Fullbright of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, one of the editors of the forever forthcoming book: "We received your name and address from Dave Snow, who said you were the one to contact about the publication date for the SWAA-SMA symposium volume. We hope that it is soon! I personally have been put in an awkward position by the publication delay. Our joint article on the Hueyatlaco site is a real bombshell. It would place man in the New World 10x earlier than many archaeologists would like to believe. Worse, the bifacial tools that were found in situ are thought by most to be a sign of H. sapiens. According to present theory, H.s. had not even evolved at that time, and certainly not in the New World."
Steen-Mclntyre continued, explaining: "Archaeologists are in a considerable uproar over Hueyatlaco—they refuse even to consider it. I've learned from second-hand sources that I'm considered by various members of the profession to be 1) incompetent; 2) a news monger; 3) an opportunist; 4) dishonest; 5) a fool. Obviously, none of these opinions is helping my professional reputation! My only hope to clear my name is to get the Hueyatlaco article into print so that folks can judge the evidence for themselves. (Geologists have no trouble with it.) The longer the delay, the more archaeologists will be convinced that the whole thing is just a crass attempt of another egomaniac for publicity. I'm quite certain the archaeologist who was in charge of the excavations and who no longer corresponds with me feels this way."
Steen- Mclntyre, upon receiving no answer to this and other requests for information, withdrew the article. Later she got a letter from Roger A. Morris of Los Alamos, who explained that he had taken the liberty of opening a letter addressed to Fullbright, who had been transferred to another group of researchers. Morris said he would return her manuscript, but it never came.
A year later, Steen-Mclntyre wrote (February 8,1980) to Steve Porter, editor of Quaternary Research, about having her article printed. She first explained its status. "It's been languishing down in Los Alamos for almost five years, awaiting publication as part of a symposium volume. During that time I have written or called a dozen times to learn the status of the volume only to receive no response. (The original editor was always 'in conference' or 'out of the office' or would 'return my call,' which he never did.) In the meantime, there's been a lot of false information circulated about the site and the work we did there in 1973. Especially damaging is an article by Cynthia Irwin- Williams published in 1978 (Summary of archaeological evidence from the Valsequillo Region, Puebla, Mexico, in Cultural Continuity in Mesoamerica, Brownman, D.L. ed., Mouton). In it she discounts Szabo' s uranium-series dates (concordant) on butchered bone supplied by herself because she doesn' t believe in the method. She does the same with Naeser's 2 sigma zircon fission track dates for two tephra layers that we proved by a cross-trench and direct tracing of the stratigraphy to overlie beds exposed in the archaeological trenches. Needless to say, she never showed us a draft of this ms or even told us she planned to publish anything on Hueyatlaco!"
Steen-Mclntyre added: "The ms I'd like to submit gives the geologic evidence. It's pretty clear-cut, and if it weren' t for the fact a lot of anthropology textbooks will have to be rewritten, I don't think we would have had any problems getting the archaeologists to accept it. As it is, no anthro journal will touch it with a ten foot pole. Right now I don't even have a copy to send you. The editor's copy is still in Santa Fe and my working copy disappeared into the office of Science 80 (AAAS) months ago and, despite howls and threats, has yet to be returned."
Steve Porter wrote to Steen-Mclntyre (February 25,1980), replying that he would consider the controversial article for publication. But he said he could "well imagine that objective reviews may be a bit difficult to obtain from certain archaeologists." The usual procedure in scientific publishing is for an article to be submitted to several other scientists for peer review. It is not hard to imagine how an entrenched scientific orthodoxy could manipulate this process to keep unwanted information out of scientific journals. The manner in which reports by Thomas E. Lee about the Sheguiandah site were kept out of standard publications provides a good example of this (Section 22.214.171.124).
Steen-Mclntyre wrote to Porter (March 4, 1980): "Often it is next to impossible to get a controversial paper published that even indirectly challenges current archaeological dogma; George Carter is a case in point!" In a letter to Steen- Mclntyre, Carter had called the dominant clique of New World archeologists "priests of the High Doctrine" and complained that they bragged among themselves about having blocked him from publishing in the major journals. He compared his treatment to a modern Inquisition. Steen-Mclntyre then stated: "I had thought to circumvent these 'true believers' by publishing in an obscure symposium volume, but no such luck."
The competence of Steen- Mclntyre's associates was also called into question. Steen-Mclntyre informed Porter: "there's the old saw that Fryx wasn't in his right mind when he did the work. Those folks forget that I saw the stratigraphy too, and once you get into a cross-trench, it was relatively simple, thanks to a magnesium-stained bed that traced on the excavation wall like a pencil mark!"
On March 30,1981, Steen-Mclntyre wrote to Estella Leopold, the associate editor of Quaternary Research: "The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of 'Enigmatic Data,' data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn't realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period. Their reasoning is circular. H. sapiens sapiens evolved ca. 30,000-50,000 years ago in Eurasia. Therefore any H.s.s. tools 250,000 years old found in Mexico are impossible because H.s.s. evolvedca 30,000- . . . etc. Such thinking makes for self-satisfied archaeologists but lousy science!"
As demonstrated in this book, the stone tools of Hueyatlaco are not an isolated example of "impossible" evidence that challenges the recent origin of Homo sapiens by a Darwinian evolutionary process. We have already discussed numerous examples of such impossible evidence from the Pliocene, Miocene, and earlier periods. And there is much more to come in the remainder of this volume. We have simply paused briefly in order to demonstrate that the suppression of such evidence did not end with the nineteenth century—it has continued to the present day. We also take the current examples of suppression of anomalous evidence as confirmation that our interpretation of what went on in the nineteenth century (and early twentieth century) is in fact correct. "
On May 18,1981, Steen-Mclntyre wrote to Estella Leopold and Steve Porter about "suppression of data on Hueyatlaco and other possible Pre-Wisconsinian Early Man sites in the New World by unethical means." She told how she had submitted a general paper on her dating techniques to be included in a volume in a scientific series. Steen-Mclntyre then learned from the editor that "he had decided to 'drastically edit' this manuscript, essentially by deleting most of the section on Hueyatlaco and by treating the remainder in a negative way." In her letter to Leopold and Porter, Steen-Mclntyre stated: "I protested strongly, and he agreed to reinsert some of the deleted material, but only in a way that will hold both me and my research up for laughter and ridicule." In a note to our researcher, Steve Bernath, dated January 29,1989, Steen-Mclntyre explained that the editor had, in the course of his drastic editing, altered one of her data tables. According to Steen-Mclntyre: "when I threatened him he replaced the missing material [in the text] but forgot to retype the table."
Steen-Mclntyre's case is not unique. Some American scientists reporting anomalous evidence for a human presence in North America have found it necessary to publish overseas. Steen-Mclntyre said in her letter to Leopold and Orter that "Roy Schlemon, a pedologist who has helped date Calico and who is working at other sites in Southern California... had been publishing outside the country." A pedologist is a scientist who studies soils.
Eventually, Quaternary Research (1981) published an article by Virginia Steen-Mclntyre, Roald Fryxell, and Harold E. Malde.
It upheld an age of 250,000 years for the Hueyatlaco site. Of course, it is always possible to raise objections to archeological dates, and Cynthia Irwin-Williams (1981) did so in a letter responding to Steen-Mclntyre, Fryxell, and Malde. Her objections were answered point for point in a counter-letter (Malde and Steen-Mclntyre 1981). But Irwin- Williams did not relent. She, and the American archeological community in general, have continued to reject the dating of Hueyatlaco carried out by Steen-Mclntyre and her colleagues on the U.S. Geological Survey team.
As in the case of Sheguiandah, the anomalous findings at Hueyatlaco resulted in personal abuse and professional penalties for those who dared to present and defend them in the scientific literature. This involved withholding of funds and loss of job, facilities, and reputation for at least one of the geologists involved in the dating project (Steen-Mclntyre, personal communication).
The case of Virginia Steen-Mclntyre opens a rare window into the actual social processes of data suppression in paleoanthropology, processes that involve a great deal of hurt and conflict. In general, however, this goes on behind the scenes, and the public sees only the end result—the carefully edited journals and books that have passed the censors.
A final note—we ourselves once tried to secure permission to reproduce photographs of the Hueyatlaco artifacts in a publication. We were informed that permission would be granted only if we gave a date of no more than 30,000 years for the artifacts. But permission would be denied if we intended to cite a "lunatic fringe date" of 250,000 years. We grant that the 250,000-year date may be wrong. But is it really appropriate to apply the term "lunatic fringe" to studies such as the one carried out by Steen-Mclntyre and her colleagues?"
John Anthony West and geologist Robert M. Schoch have uncovered undeniable geological evidence that the Egyptian Sphinx is thousands of years older than conventionally assumed, yet conventional Egyptology refuses to self-correct, insisting that evidence that doesn't fit the prevailing theory is inadmissible. In a recent Open Letter to the Editors of Archaeology in response to a special issue that trashed West's and Schoch's work, West summarizes,
"To bring Archaeology readers up to date on the geology-- since developments in this ongoing investigation somehow do not find their way into your pages-- here is a brief update. Our geological evidence was presented first at the Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America in 1991; further compelling evidence was presented at the GSA Meeting in 2000, both times with the overwhelming support of attending geologists -- and shrieks of outrage from archaeologists and Egyptologists.Over the intervening years a handful of opposing geologists, most with a stake in academic archaeology or Egyptology, have offered mutually exclusive alternative theories to account for that weathering ranging from demonstrably just plain wrong (K. Lal Gauri) to certifiably inept and inane (James 'Wet Sand' Harrell's theory.) All have been easily, systematically and conclusively dismantled and rebutted point by point. Meanwhile, two English geologists, Colin Reader and David Coxill, independent of each other and of ourselves, have studied the matter on site and support the theory (precipitation-induced weathering) unconditionally, categorically necessitating re-thinking the dating of the Sphinx and with it pretty much everything archeologists accept as dogma regarding very ancient history. "
Legions of other archeological anomalies (such as structures and objects that would be difficult to replicate even with modern technology, or show that the builders had advanced knowledge of astronomy) suggest that present-day humanity is not the pinnacle of evolution, but the product of a devolution from advanced civilization that has existed in the remote past. Replicating the great pyramid of Gizah would create formidable engineering problems even today, with modern technology; the claim that slaves moved and lifted granite blocks such as the 70-ton monolith over the King's chamber is extraordinary in the extreme. There have been a few successful demonstrations of pyramid and obelisk building, but they involved scaled-down versions of the original which have no evidentiary value since engineering challenges are highly scale dependent. It is therefore fair to assert that the conventional idea that the great pyramids were built with primitive technology and slave labor is an unproven and highly questionable claim.
But, so the goofy circular logic of the egyptologists goes, the obelisks and temples and pyramids stand, don't they? So they must have been built by slave labor since we know that only our civilization has produced advanced technology.
Writer Lloyd Pye has made a case that re-engineering our modern domesticated plants and animals from their wild varieties from scratch defies even current bio-engineering abilities, and that the very existence of these species therefore proves the existence of advanced scientific knowledge in the remote past. He writes:
Nearly all domesticated plants are believed to have appeared between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago, with different groups coming to different parts of the world at different times. Initially, in the so-called “Fertile Crescent” of modern Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon came wheat, barley, and legumes, among others. Later on, in the Far East, came wheat, millet, rice, and yams. Later still, in the New World, came maize (corn), peppers, beans, squash, tomatoes and potatoes. Many have “wild” predecessors that were apparently a starting point for the domesticated variety, but others—like many common vegetables— have no obvious precursors. But for those that do, such as wild grasses, grains, and cereals, how they turned into wheat, barley, millet, rice, etc., is a profound mystery.
No botanist can conclusively explain how wild plants gave rise to domesticated ones. The emphasis there is on “conclusively.” Botanists have no trouble hypothesizing elaborate scenarios in which Neolithic (New Stone Age) farmers somehow figured out how to hybridize wild grasses and grains and cereals, not unlike Gregor Mendel when he cross-bred pea plants to figure out the mechanics of genetic inheritance. It all sounds so simple and so logical, almost no one outside scientific circles ever examines it closely.
Gregor Mendel never bred his pea plants to be anything other than pea plants. He created short ones, tall ones, and different colored ones, but they were always pea plants that produced peas. (Pea plants are a domesticated species, too, but that is irrelevant to the point to be made here.) On the other hand, those Stone Age farmers who were fresh out of their caves and only just beginning to turn soil for the first time (as the “official” scenario goes), somehow managed to transform the wild grasses, grains, and cereals growing around them into their domesticated “cousins.” Is that possible? Only through a course in miracles.
Actually, it requires countless miracles within two large categories of miracles. The first was that the wild grasses and grains and cereals were useless to humans. The seeds and grains were maddeningly small, like pepper flakes or salt crystals, which put them beyond the grasping and handling capacity of human fingers. They were also hard, like tiny nutshells, making it impossible to convert them to anything edible. Lastly, their chemistry was suited to nourishing animals, not humans. So wild varieties were entirely too small, entirely too tough, and nutritionally inappropriate for humans. They needed to be greatly expanded in size, greatly softened in texture, and overhauled at the molecular level, which would be an imposing challenge for modern botanists, much less Neolithic farmers.
Despite the seeming impossibility of meeting those daunting objectives, modern botanists are confident the first sodbusters had all they needed to do it: time and patience. Over hundreds of generations of selective crossbreeding, they consciously directed the genetic transformation of the few dozen that would turn out to be most useful to humans. And how did they do it? By the astounding feat of doubling, tripling, and quadrupling the number of chromosomes in the wild varieties! In a few cases they did better than that. Domestic wheat and oats were elevated from an ancestor with 7 chromosomes to their current 42, expansion by a factor of six. Sugar cane expanded from a 10-chromosome ancestor to the 80-chromosome monster it is today, a factor of eight. The chromosomes of others, like bananas and apples, only multiplied by factors of two or three, while peanuts, potatoes, tobacco and cotton, among others, expanded by factors of four.
This is not as astounding as it sounds because many wild flowering plants and trees have multiple chromosome sets. But that brings up what Charles Darwin himself called the “abominable mystery” of flowering plants. The first ones appear in the fossil record between 150 and 130 million years ago, primed to multiply into over 200,000 known species. But no one can explain their presence because there is no connective link to any form of plants that preceded them. It is as if….dare I say it?….they were brought to Earth by something akin to You-Know-What. If so, then it could well be they were delivered with a built-in capacity to develop multiple chromosome sets, and somehow our Neolithic forebears cracked the codes for the ones most advantageous to humans.
However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of genetic material in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them to grow much larger than their wild ancestors. As they grew, their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen, picked up, and manipulated by human fingers. Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree where they could be milled, cooked, and consumed. And at the same time, their cellular chemistry was altered enough to begin providing nourishment to humans who ate them. The only word that remotely equates with that achievement is: miracle.
Of course, “miracle” implies there was actually a chance that such complex manipulations of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen in eight geographical areas over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because in each case in each area someone had to actually look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would become. Then they had to somehow insure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling, and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some remotely distant future.
It is difficult to try to concoct a more unlikely—even absurd—scenario, yet to modern-day botanists it is a gospel they believe with a fervor that puts many “six day” Creationists to shame. Why? Because to confront its towering absurdity would force them to turn to You-Know-What for a more logical and plausible explanation.
To domesticate a wild plant without using artificial (i.e. genetic) manipulation, it must be modified by directed crossbreeding, which is only possible through the efforts of humans. So the equation is simple. First, wild ancestors for many (but not all) domestic plants do seem apparent. Second, most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. Third, the humans alive at that time were primitive barbarians. Fourth, in the past 5,000 years no plants have been domesticated that are nearly as valuable as the dozens that were “created” by the earliest farmers all around the world. Put an equal sign after those four factors and it definitely does not add up to any kind of Darwinian model.
Botanists know they have a serious problem here, but all they can suggest is that it simply had to have occurred by natural means because no other intervention—by God or You-Know-What—can be considered under any circumstances. That unwavering stance is maintained by all scientists, not just botanists, to exclude overwhelming evidence such as the fact that in 1837 the Botanical Garden BIN RAS in St. Petersburg, Russia, began concerted attempts to cultivate wild rye into a new form of domestication. They are still trying because their rye has lost none of its wild traits, especially the fragility of its stalk and its small grain. Therein lies the most embarrassing conundrum botanists face.
To sumarize: many independent lines of evidence exist, some merely suggestive, some strong, and some nothing less than commanding that should have forced a major reappraisal of the entire time line of human prehistory by now, but no such thing is forthcoming from academic archeology and paleoanthropology. The modus operandi remains "evidence that doesn't fit theory is inadmissible".
©TDB This text may be freely copied and/or reposted as long as it is not changed and reproduced in its entirety.