Michael Cremo: “Forbidden Archaeology” | Talks at Google

Michael Cremo: “Forbidden Archaeology” | Talks at Google

MALE SPEAKER: Thanks to all
of you for coming to this talk by Michael Cremo on forbidden
archaeology here at Google. So when was the last time
somebody questioned evolution? Do you know? In your experience, any numbers? I’m just trying to say how
often it happens, somebody questioning such a major
theory as evolution. Any guess? I mean, before the talk. Sorry? AUDIENCE: It happens
all the time in the US. MALE SPEAKER: OK. That’s good. That’s good that people
are aware of that debate. Some people don’t even
know that it’s a theory and know it’s being
debated, and they just take it for a fact
as much as gravity. That’s good to know that
you are aware of that. So we have Michael Cremo here. So he has a lot of
extensive introduction about how we got
into this topic. So I don’t want to steal that
as part of my introduction. And so I’ll just go over
the introduction of him as a person. I’ve known him for
more than 10, 15 years. And he’s a very thoughtful,
methodical person with extreme
intellectual honesty. And he expects that of others. So that’s where his research
was born into this book. So the scope of
this talk is just questioning the current
theory and based on the evidences available. But he’s not going to present an
alternate theory in this talk. We have to wait
for a year for that to happen if he have
a job until then. So now, the scope of
this talk is questioning the current theory based
on the available evidences from researched literature. And the next topic
he usually presents is called human devolution,
presenting an alternate theory. So there are books
for that outside. So that’s your only
resource right now. So with that, let’s
welcome Michael Cremo to Google with a big hand. [APPLAUSE] MICHAEL CREMO: Thank you
for the nice introduction. And thank you,
ladies and gentlemen, for coming to hear a little
something about the topic forbidden archeology, evidence
for extreme human antiquity. So just to keep
things honest, I’m a researcher in human
origins for the International Society for Krishna
Consciousness. And my research is
inspired by my studies in the ancient Sanskrit
writings in India, especially the Puranas,
the historical writings. Now, for many today,
those two things would be complete
disqualifications for me to say anything about
a scientific topic in scientific circles. However, quite
surprisingly to me even, there are people within
the scientific world who are interested in hearing
what I have to say. And I’ve been invited to present
my ideas at some of the leading scientific institutions
of the world, such as the Royal
Institution in London, the Russian Academy
of Science in Moscow Department of Anthropology,
the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, and many
others around the world. So the question
I’m dealing with is how old is the human species. Today, the most common
answer to that question comes from the modern followers
of Charles Darwin, who propose that the
first humans like us came into existence less
than 200,000 years ago. Before that, they
would say there were no humans like us
present on this planet, simply more primitive,
ape-like human ancestors. However, the Puranas,
the historical writings of ancient India,
give a different idea, namely that humans
have been present for vast periods of time
on this planet going back many millions of years. Now of course, in
scientific circles, I wouldn’t expect anyone
to take a statement from some ancient
writings as evidence. So in the scientific circles
where I’m invited to speak, I do something else. I make a prediction, namely
if what the Puranas say about human antiquity
is true, there should be reports of
archaeological evidence for humans existing much further
back in time than 200,000 years ago, perhaps going
back many millions of years. So my method for
testing that prediction is to examine all archaeological
reports from the time of Darwin to the present. And not just in English. I have a reading
knowledge of most of the major European languages. So when I speak about
examining reports from the scientific
literature, I mean two kinds of scientific
literature, the primary and the secondary
scientific literature. By primary scientific
literature, I mean original reports by
archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists, and
other Earth scientists reported in the professional,
peer reviewed, scientific literature. By secondary literature,
I mean things that are based on the primary
literature, such as textbooks, for example. So I had two principal findings. The first finding is
not so surprising. There are no reports of evidence
for extreme human antiquity in the current secondary
literature, textbooks, survey studies, and
things of that sort. My second finding was a
little more interesting. There are many
reports of evidence for extreme human antiquity
in the primary scientific literature of past and present. So I collected those
reports and this book, “Forbidden Archeology,”
which was reviewed in most of the
professional, academic, and scientific
journals that deal with the question
of human origins. So this constitutes a
kind of peer review. Now, as you might expect, many
of those reviews were negative, some extremely so. However, quite
surprisingly to me even, even some of my critics
were able to point out some positive
aspects of the work. For example, David Oldroyd,
a noted historian of science, in a 28 page review
article about the book asked the question, so
has forbidden archeology made any contribution
to the literature on paleoanthropology. Our answer is a guarded
yes for two reasons. First, he said, much of
the historical material has not been scrutinized
in such detail before. In other words, as a
professional historian of science dealing with
these particular questions, he had not encountered
any work which had gone into history
in such depth before. And second, he said,
the book raises, quote, a central problematic
regarding the lack of certainty in
scientific truth claims. Now, after the
book was published and many of the
reviews came out, I began speaking about
the topic of the book at scientific conferences. The first time I
did that was in 1984 at a meeting of the World
Archaeological Congress. It’s the world’s largest
international organization of archaeologists. I presented a paper there
called “Puranic Time and The Archaeological Record.” And that paper was
selected for publication in a peer reviewed conference
proceedings volume called “Time and Archaeology,”
which came out from Rutledge, a major scientific publisher. And subsequently, I’ve
presented papers on my work at many other meetings of the
World Archaeological Congress, and also meetings of
the European Association of Archaeologists. And the reason I’m
mentioning this is just to show that the
kinds of things I’m saying are part of the
scientific discourse in the scientific
disciplines that are related to human origins. Now, admittedly, it’s
not a popular voice. It’s an extreme minority
voice limited maybe even to a minority of one. But still, surprisingly
enough to many people, it is a part of the discourse. So one of the questions I had
about the kind of evidence I’m talking about is
why exactly is it missing from the current
secondary literature if it’s there in the
primary literature. And I’m proposing it’s because
of a process of knowledge filtration that operates
in the world of science. And here, I’m not talking
about a Satanic conspiracy to suppress truth. I’m talking about
something that philosophers of science and
historians of science have understood for
a long time, namely that theoretical preconceptions
can influence how scientists may react to different
categories of evidence that come to their attention. We can call the blue box
the knowledge filter. And what it represents
is the dominant consensus in the scientific discipline
at a particular point in time. And reports of
evidence that conform to the dominant consensus will
pass through the knowledge filter fairly easily,
whereas reports of evidence that
radically contradict a dominant consensus
tend to be filtered out, ignored, forgotten,
set aside, dismissed. And this was something that one
of the reviewers of “Forbidden Archeology” noted, the
French archaeologist Marylene Patou-Mathis noted in her
review of “Forbidden Archeology” in “L’Anthropologie.” “Cremo and Thompson have
written a provocative work that raises the problem of the
influence of the dominant ideas of a time period on
scientific research. These ideas can
compel the researchers to orient their
analyses according to the conceptions
that are permitted by the scientific community.” So it was interesting to
me that an archaeologist grasped correctly
what the point we were trying to make in the book
and wasn’t just dismissing it as, oh, these are
conspiracy theorists. I’m now going to go over
some of the kinds of reports that I’m talking about. This is Virginia Steen-McIntyre,
an American geologist. She was involved in dating
an archaeological site at Hueyatlaco in Mexico. There, archaeologists had
discovered projectile points and other stone
tools and weapons. And they were, of
course, interested in how all these things were. This is the excavation
at Hueyatlaco. And the artifacts were
photographed intact in the layers of rock in
which they were found. Virginia Steen-McIntyre
and her colleagues used four different
methods to date the site. Animal bones with
butchering marks were found in the same
layers with the stone tools. The geologists used the
uranium series method to date those bones. They got an age
of 245,000 years. Above the layer
with the stone tools was a layer of volcanic ash. The geologists used the Zircon
Fission Track method to date that layer of ash. They got an age
of 270,000 years. Using all four methods
that they employed, the geologists
concluded the site must be at least
250,000 years old. However, the archaeologists
refused to accept it. They said humans capable of
making those artifacts didn’t exist anywhere in the
world 250,000 years ago. They hadn’t evolved
yet, what to speak of being present
in North America. They considered the oldest
human presence in North America to go back only
about 20,000 years. So they refused to publish
the age for the site given by their own hand-picked
team of geologists. So Virginia Steen-McIntyre
and her colleagues were a little surprised by that. So they decided to
independently publish the age for the site
in a journal called “Quaternary Research.” But when they did
that, they experienced an extreme negative backlash
from their colleagues in the scientific
world because they had dared to publish
something like this. Virginia Steen-McIntyre
wrote to one of the editors of the journal,
“Not being an anthropologist, I didn’t realize how deeply
woven into our thought the current theory of
human evolution has become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been
rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts
that theory.” So some of the cases I’m
going to be talking about are from the more recent
history of archaeology, some from the more distant
history of archaeology. Some of the cases
are going to be closer to what the
mainstream concepts allow. And some are going to be further
and further distant from what current ideas would
consider possible. This is one of the founders
of modern archaeology, Jacques Boucher de Perthes. And one of his excavations,
Moulin Quignon near Abbeville in Northeastern France, he found
an anatomically modern human jawbone. He found it in the bottom
layers of his excavation with stone tools and weapons. According to modern geologists,
that layer at Abbeville is about 430,000 years old. It was quite a
controversial discovery, even in the 19th century. Many scientists could
not accept that humans existed at that
distant point in time. So some of them proposed,
well, Boucher de Perthes must have been the
victim of a hoax. Somehow or other,
someone must have gone to some Roman cemetery,
gotten a jawbone 2,000 or 3,000 years old and buried it in the
excavation for him to find. And that’s actually
the explanation that we see in
today’s textbooks. However, what we do not
see in today’s textbooks is that after these hoax
accusations came out, Boucher de Perthes made
additional excavations at Moulin Quignon. And these additional
excavations, in the same location
he found over 100 additional anatomically
modern human bones and teeth in the same formation,
which to me indicates a human presence going
back over 400,000 years. And I reported on this case
in this paper, which was later published in a peer reviewed
conference proceedings volume. Recently, just last
year, archaeologists reported the discovery
of footprints at a place called Happisburgh
in the United Kingdom. They were found in
a formation that is at least 780,000
years old and is perhaps up to a million years old. The archaeologist who studied
the footprints published results suggesting
they are consistent with anatomically
modern human footprints. For example, they
studied the foot index, which is the width divided
by the length times 100. The average for all of the
Happisburgh footprints was 39. The average for living Native
American Indians is again, 39. The average for living Eskimos
today, the foot index is 38.26. And other features
of the footprints were consistent with those
of modern human beings. Now, of course they
did not believe that humans like us
existed at that time. They don’t think Homo sapiens
existed over 780,000 years ago. So they attributed
the footprints to a species called
Homo antecessor, an ape man that they believe
inhabited Europe at that time. But from the evidence itself,
they could just as well have been made by
humans like us. And there is evidence that
anatomically modern humans existed at that time. This is the Buenos
Aires Skull, which was discovered early in the
20th century in Argentina. Researchers were
conducting digging. And they had gone
down about 45 feet. And they encountered
a solid layer of limestone rock
locally known as Tosca. And after they broke
through that layer, they found a human skull cap
of an anatomically modern human type in the
[INAUDIBLE] formation, which geologists consider to
be 1 and 1/2 million years old. This discovery was reported
to the scientific world in the primary
scientific literature by the South American
scientist Florentino Ameghino. I reported on this
case and some others in this paper presented
at a meeting of the World Archaeological Congress in
Cape Town, South Africa. Many people have heard
of Olduvai Gorge. Many important discoveries
have been made there. Most people are not aware
of the first discovery that was made at Olduvai Gorge
by the German scientist Hans Reck, who reported
on it in 1913. He found a fairly complete,
anatomically modern human skeleton– that’s the
skull cap of it– buried in upper bed II
of Olduvai Gorge. Upper bed II of Olduvai
Gorge is between 1.15 and 1.7 million years ago. It was a very
controversial discovery. There were decades
of debate about it. Many people thought the
debates were finally settled in the 1970s when
a German scientist named Reiner Protsch did a radiocarbon
test on a fragment of bone that he said was
from Reck’s skeleton. And he got an age of
less than 10,000 years. However, I question
the reliability of that given that Reiner
Protsch was removed from his position at
Frankfurt University after an academic
committee there found him guilty of having forged
dozens of radiocarbon dates during his long career there. Another report from the
earlier history of archaeology, the jaw, fossil
human jar reported by Doctor Robert Coliyer. This anatomically
modern human jaw was found 16 feet deep in the
Red Crag Formation in England at a place called Foxhall. The Red Crag
Formation, according to modern geological studies,
is between two and three million years old. In 1979, Mary Leakey announced
the discovery of footprints at a place called Laetoli
in the country of Tanzania in East Africa. According to her
report, the footprints were indistinguishable from
modern human footprints. Other scientists also agreed. Paleontologist Tim White wrote,
“Make no mistake about it. They are like modern
human footprints.” Now, neither Mary
Leakey nor Tim White believe those footprints
were made by humans like us. They propose they were made
by some type of ape man who lived at that time who just
happened to have feet exactly like those of
modern human beings. Actually, we have the
skeletons of the ape men that existed at that
time in eastern Africa. They’re called Australopithecus. And the foot bones
of Australopithecus have been discovered. And their foot is
not exactly like that of a modern human being. They have very long toes, sort
of like short human fingers. In other words, their feet
were somewhat ape like. Actually, the only creature
known to science today from skeletal evidence that
has a foot exactly like that of a modern human
being is, in fact, modern human beings
like ourselves. So what did Mary Leakey find? I think we have to remain open
to the possibility she found evidence that humans
like us were present almost four million years ago. The footprints were
found in layers of solidified volcanic
ash that were dated using the potassium argon method
as being 3,700,000 years old. I presented evidence
on this case at a meeting of the European
Association of Archaeologists that was held in England. Now, some people might
say, OK, footprints are perhaps a little
bit ambiguous. It would be better if there
were human skeletal evidence almost four million years old. Such things have
been reported in the primary
scientific literature. For example, the
Italian geologist Ragazzoni reported
finding human skeletal remains at a place called
Castenedolo in northern Italy. They were found
in layers of rock that modern geologists
consider to be about four million years old. I went to the village
of Castenedolo. I met this gentleman there. And he gave me a copy of a very
rare geological report dealing with this discovery. And from the information
in the report, we were able to
locate the place where the discoveries were made. Now, the current explanation
of these discoveries is, well, it’s not
really possible that you could have anatomically
modern human skeletons in layers of rock four
million years old. So the proposal is that
maybe about 4,000 years ago, somebody died on the surface. His friends dug a grave
and put the skeleton down in that ancient layer of rock. And that’s why
you think you have a human skeleton four
million years old. Things like this can
happen, technically. It’s called intrusive burial. However, if you look at
Ragazzoni’s original reports in the Italian
language, which I did, he says– because
even at the time, he was a professional geologist. He was aware of the possibility
of intrusive burial. He said, if it had been
an intrusive burial, the layers of rock
above the skeleton would have been undisturbed. However, he found
that the layers of rock above the skeleton were
all intact and undisturbed. Actually, he said each layer has
its own micro-stratigraphy that was undisturbed. So I take this as evidence
for human presence going back over four million years. This is Carlos Ribeiro, who
was the chief government geologist of Portugal. He found hundreds
of human artifacts in his country of Portugal. He found them in layers
of rock that date back to the early Miocene
Period, which means they would be about 20
million years old according to today’s understanding. He, as a professional geologist,
he said they cannot have come into those layers from any
higher level through any fissure, or crack, or all
the usual kinds of counter explanations. He displayed the artifacts
in the Museum of Geology in Lisbon. But if you go there today,
you won’t see them on display anymore. They’re kept in the
cabinets behind me. But I was able to get
permission from the directors of the museum to
study and photograph some of these human artifacts
from the early Miocene period. I also carefully studied
Ribeiro’s original maps, and field notes,
and correspondence of the museum archives. And then I went into the
countryside of Portugal and I relocated
some of the sites where he made his discoveries. This is the quarry
at Murganheira. And he found human
artifacts there in lower Miocene formations. This is one of them. It’s a flint artifact. It’s interesting what happened. When Ribeiro was
alive, the artifacts were displayed in the museum
with labels showing a lower Miocene age for them,
about 20 million years. After he died, his
colleagues in the museum did something interesting. They left the
artifacts on display, but they wrote new
labels for all of them. This is the new label they
wrote for the artifact I just showed you. Second line gives the
age– Paleolitico Superior, Upper Paleolithic Period. According to geologists
today, that period in Europe goes back about 20,000 years. So it’s interesting. Ribeiro’s colleagues
thought 20 million years, that’s clearly impossible. 20,000 years, that
sounds about right for discoveries like this. So they just wrote new labels
for all of the artifacts. Now, the next generation
of officials in the museum just put the entire
collection away. And I’m the first researcher
to see these things in over 50 years. I presented a paper on
this case at a meeting of the European Association
of Archaeologists that was held in Lisbon,
Portugal in the year 2000. That paper was later
published in a peer reviewed scientific journal from
Europe, “The Journal of Iberian Archaeology.” A case that’s
always fascinated me has been the California
gold mine discoveries. Gold was discovered
in California. And miners went to places
like Table Mountain in Tuolumne County near Sonora. Actually not too far from here. And deep inside the
tunnels, the miners found human bones
and human artifacts. For example, they found
many of these stone mortars and pestles. What makes them so
interesting to me is they were found in
layers of solid rock that date to the early part
of the geological period called Eocene, which
means they would be about 50 million years old. Some of the details about the
dating of the discoveries. It was done in modern times
using the potassium argon method and analyzing
the plant and animal fossils found in
those layers of rock. These discoveries
were originally reported to the scientific
world by Doctor JD Whitney, who was the chief government
geologist of California. His report was published by
Harvard University in the year 1880. But we don’t hear very much
about these discoveries today because of the process
of knowledge filtration that I mentioned. This is the anthropologist
William Holmes, who worked with the
Smithsonian Institution. And he wrote in his report, “If
Doctor Whitney had understood the theory of
human evolution, he would not have published
those discoveries.” In other words, he would’ve
known that humans could not possibly have
existed at that time. A few years ago,
I was a consultant for a television documentary
called “The Mysterious Origins of Man”
that aired on NBC. And the producer
of this documentary had read my book,
“Forbidden Archeology” and wanted to include some
cases in the documentary. I told him he should go to
the Museum of Anthropology at the University of
California at Berkeley because artifacts from
the California gold mines were still in that collection. And the museum officials
refused to allow him to see the artifacts. Anyways, we were able
to get some photographs of the artifacts
that Doctor Whitney had taken in the 19th century. It was interesting what happened
when this documentary aired. Actually, many
scientists were outraged and they wanted the FCC to
investigate NBC, censor NBC, fine NBC millions of dollars for
having aired this documentary. And I’m happy to say the FCC
didn’t do any of those things. But it was interesting that
such attempts were made. Later, I went back
to the museum myself. And I personally was given
access to the discoveries, and they are still there. They also went out to
Table Mountain near Sonora. And we were able to relocate
some of the old 19th century gold mining tunnels where these
discoveries were originally made. I reported on this case at
this meeting of the World Archaeological Congress that was
held in Washington, DC in 2003. So how far back in time can
we go with evidence like this? In 1862, a scientific
journal called “The Geologist” published
an interesting report. An anatomically
modern human skeleton was found 90 feet
below the surface of the ground in Macoupin
County in the state of Illinois near St. Louis. According to the report,
above the skeleton was a thick layer of slate
rock that was unbroken. That’s an important detail,
because it kind of rules out the intrusive burial hypothesis. This report from
“Scientific American” tells of a beautiful,
metallic– whoops. I wanted one more detail. According to modern
geologists, the layer where the skeleton was found
is about 300 million years old. This report from
“Scientific American” tells of a beautiful
metallic vase that was found 15 feet deep in
solid rock in Dorchester, which is in the Boston area. According to modern
geological reports, the age of a formation at
that location and depth is about 600 million years
from the Cambrian Period. Now, I could actually keep
you here for days, and days, and days because
there are hundreds of reports like this in the
primary scientific literature. I’m not going to do that. But I’ll make some
concluding remarks. The significance
of this evidence would be that it
would contradict the now dominant ideas
about human origins. And this was actually
recognized by one of the architects of the
current paradigm, Doctor William Howells of Harvard, who
wrote to me after he read “Forbidden Archeology.” And he said a few
things about it. He said, “‘Forbidden
Archaeology’ represents much careful effort in critically
assembling published materials.” I thought it was nice
that he recognized that. And then he said, “Most
of us, mistakenly or not, see human evolution with
man emerging rather late.” And that’s the actual fact. Most scientists actually
do see things that way. And he went on to say, “To have
modern human beings appearing a great deal earlier would be
devastating to the whole theory of evolution.” So that’s what he saw as the
impact of this kind of evidence if it were to be
taken as genuine. Now, not everybody is willing
to do that, admittedly. Now, another
interesting statement about “Forbidden
Archaeology” was made by archaeologist Tim
Murray in his review published in “British Journal for
History of Science.” Now, Murray is
one of my critics. And still, even though
he’s not really prepared to accept my conclusion, he
has some interesting things to say that I think
are worth repeating. He said, “‘Forbidden
Archeology,'” quote, “provides the historian of
archaeology with a useful compendium of case studies
in the history and sociology of scientific knowledge, which
can be used to foster debate within archaeology about how
to describe the epistemology of one’s discipline.” And that’s actually
what I was trying to do in putting that book
together, to foster debate within archaeology about the
epistemology of the discipline. And to see this acknowledged
in the professional literature was kind of interesting. Now, he went on to say,
“‘Forbidden Archaeology’ is designed to demolish the case
for biological and cultural evolution and to advance the
cause of a Vedic alternative.” Now, I plead guilty
to that indictment. And it’s at this point that many
in the world of science today are really going to
have strong objections to the kinds of
things that I do. This mention of Vedic
alternative, in other words some alternative
that has its roots in some religious
or spiritual idea. According to many in
the world of science today, this is
completely verboten. That’s why I called the
book “Forbidden Archeology.” But it’s interesting what Tim
Murray had to say about that. He said, “The ‘dominant
paradigm’ has changed and is changing. And practitioners
openly debate issues which go right to the conceptual
core of the discipline. Whether the Vedas have
a role to play in this is up to the individual
scientist’s concern.” And I think that’s an
enlightened attitude that I can support. No ban, but it’s just
up to each individual to make up their
mind whether or not they’re going to try to do
something like I’m doing or agree with it. Gets you into a whole discussion
about religion and science. Now, I’m going to close
with some of my experiences in presenting this kind
of thing at university audiences around the world. I’ve spoken at hundreds of
universities around the world. My books are now in about
25 different languages. One of them is Russian. So I’ve lectured at a lot
of universities in Russia, from Vladivostok to
Saint Petersburg. And usually, the
lectures go fine. At this particular university,
the Tyumen State University, there was a little
bit of a problem. Some professors there
had invited me to speak. And a lecture was scheduled. But when other faculty
members found out that I was being
invited to speak, they approached
the administration of the university and
said, we can’t have this. We shouldn’t allow this person
to speak at our university. First of all, he’s
contradicting a dominant theory. And second, and
even more damningly, he’s doing it from some Vedic
spiritual kind of perspective. So the president of the
university cancelled the lecture. The professors who invited me
and wanted to hear me speak went to the president and tried
to get him to change his mind. But the pressure from the
other side was just too big, so the lecture was cancelled. So then, the professors
who invited me went to the local branch of the
Russian Academy of Sciences. And they spoke to
the director there. And he said, OK,
if they won’t let him speak at the university,
he can speak here at the Russian Academy
of Science building. So they had buses bring
students and professors from the university to the
Russian Academy of Science building. And the professors who invited
me said, more people came then would’ve come if the lecture
had been held at the university. And then the next year,
something interesting happened. I went back to the
same university, and I was able to speak
at the biology department there no problem. I guess they just thought,
better let him talk and let people just make
up their minds about what he’s saying. They’re intelligent. They’ll be able to figure out
if they can agree or not agree. It’s not going to be the end
of the world if he talks. These are some of my works–
“The Forbidden Archaeologist,” “Forbidden Archaeology,” “Hidden
History of the Human Race,” “Human Devolution,” “My
Science, My Religion.” Some contact information. And if you do like the kinds
of things you’ve heard today and are interested
in hearing more, you may want to
come on this cruise where I’m the speaker
in June, 2015. Go up and see the glaciers
and hear some weird stuff. So I have ended five minutes
before I intended to. [APPLAUSE] I did want to leave
some time for questions. MALE SPEAKER: Thank you. We’ll start from here. AUDIENCE: So I was also hoping
to get your point of view from Vedic or Purana on
the how old is humanity, and what did you find there. Because I think in
the talk, somebody replied that you would also come
to know about religious books, like Ramayana or
Mahabharata, how much of that is true based on the
archaeologic [INAUDIBLE]. MICHAEL CREMO: Well, it depends
upon what kind of circles I’m speaking in. For example, if I go to
Rishikesh or Haridwar in the Himalayan
mountains and sit around with a bunch of Vedic
scholars who accept statements from Vedic literature
as evidence, then, well, I can say in
the Bhagavad Purana, there are statements
that humans were existing during the [INAUDIBLE]
Period, which is in the first part of
the Culpa, or the day of– and they’ll understand
what I’m saying. And they’ll accept
that as evidence. If I’m at a meeting of the
World Archaeological Congress, or speaking at
Google headquarters, my audience is not
necessarily going to accept a statement
from the Bhagavad Purana or the
Mahabharata as evidence. So it’s like if you
go to a baseball game, you have to play by the
baseball game rules. And one of the rules is that
you can’t use a statement from a spiritual
text as evidence. Now, you can. So for the people who do–
I get questions like yours from many people. They want to say,
OK, you’ve given all this archaeological
evidence that you say is consistent with
Vedic texts, which talk, according to you,
in a general way about extreme human antiquity. But what do they actually
say, the Vedic literature themselves? So for such people,
I’m writing a book in which I will collect
all those Vedic statements. And then they can see. But that’s not the audience
that I am presented with today, that I’m presenting to today. It’s not the audience that
I get at universities. It’s not the audience
that I get at meetings of the World Archaeological
Congress or European Association of Archaeologists. A good question. And I’m writing a
book to answer it. AUDIENCE: Could you say more
about the actual contradiction between the extreme antiquity
of humans and evolution? Because in my mind,
it would just seem, well, the evolution
theory could just be oh, you just have to push
it back a few million years and it could still hold up. It’s just that it happened a
lot earlier than people thought. That seems like a
simplistic resolution. But is there
something else that’s constraining the timeline which
makes it really inconsistent? MICHAEL CREMO: Well,
it’s a good question. I’ll refer you back to the
statement of William Howells, who said, if the kind of
evidence that I’m talking about is consistent, it’s inconsistent
with the general theory of evolution. Because he said– I
didn’t quote everything he wrote to me in his letter. He said, but you’re
putting evidence for an anatomically
modern human presence before the known presence
of even the most simple apes and monkeys, which would be
our prospective ancestors. So you could conceivably
come up with another version of the evolutionary
theory, but it would be quite
different from anything that’s being proposed today. So that would be one
possible response, to do something like that. And if you feel inspired
to do it, then right on. This AUDIENCE: So you talked a lot
regarding your critics throwing out the archaeological
evidence based on it just being out of their paradigm,
filtering it away, and so on. But some of the critics who’ve
truly engaged your work, has it been just
that, or do they have valid,
scientific reasons why they’re refuting your evidence? MICHAEL CREMO: Normally–
I mean, everybody’s going to have to make up their
own minds about these things. What I try to do in
“Forbidden Archeology” was provide in each case all
of the different opinions, all sides of the
question, and leave it up to the reader to make up
their own mind whether they think it’s valid or not. Typically, the
reactions are to suggest first of all, it’s old evidence. In other words, but
this is very selective. It’s the idea that–
kind of like a milk carton, scientific evidence
got an expiration date. That any science
conducted before midnight, January 1, 1900
somehow has expired. But I noticed that those who
make that type of criticism are applying it
very selectively, because the standard
textbooks of archaeology are full of
discoveries that were made in the 19th century,
early 20th century. So it can’t just be that
just because something is from the earlier
history of archaeology, it has to be wrong. Another category
of objection has to do with lists of ways in
which something could be wrong. It’s possible there was a hoax. It’s possible it could’ve
slipped in through a fissure. It’s possible that the original
investigator made a mistake. It’s possible this,
it’s possible that. My general response to
that category of criticism is everything is
certainly possible. But if you’re going to
proceed in a scientific way, you should be able to show that
in this particular location, there was a fissure. There were artifacts
on the surface that resemble those that were
found at that level. And there definitely was a way
they could have got down there. So that’s another
category of objection. And of course, I’m willing
to engage on that level. And it’s one of
the things I hope to accomplish with the book is
to have a second look at some of these things. And if there are
objections, raise them. AUDIENCE: My question
is you mentioned about a guy that in 19th century
found a jawbone in a layer that was 400,000 year old. How did they knew
in 19th century that this particular
layer was that old without any dating methods? MICHAEL CREMO: OK. It’s a good question. What I said, if you
listened carefully, was that according
to modern geologists, the layer is a certain
number of years old. At that time, they characterized
things in another way, not using necessarily
years, but characterizing things as early Pleistocene,
early middle Pleistocene, and things of that sort. So if you translate those
terms to the modern dates that are attached to those
terms, it works out. So they would have
said, that jawbone was found in an early
Pleistocene layer, which would mean it would have
to be several hundred thousand years old at least. That’s why I went by the modern. To give an age in years, I
went by the modern geological dating of those
layers at Abbeville. For example,
Ribeiro, he would’ve said these stone tools
are early Miocene. Now, in the 19th century,
the conception of the Miocene was there. But it wouldn’t be exactly
the number of years that we now attach to it. But still, it was
considered to be very old in terms of the succession
of geological layers. But just for current reference,
I give the estimates in years that modern geologists have
determined for these layers. The same with Doctor
Whitney’s report. He would have said, these layers
are from the Pliocene Period, which is an old
geological period. Now, the layers that
he considered Pliocene are considered to be Eocene. And the age for them is between
30 and 50 million years. In the 19th century,
they wouldn’t be using the same number
of years that we do. But they had a concept
still that, in terms of the system they were
using, it was older. They expected human
beings like us to appear only in the very
latest, very recent Pleistocene Period. So if it was from the middle
or the early Pleistocene, that would be
anomalous for them. Is that helping? AUDIENCE: Let’s say
it’s 19th century. We dig a hole in the ground
and we find few layers. And they somehow decided,
oh, this layer is younger, this is older
based on the depth. But then they put
some dates to it. And I think it’s almost
the same as right now. We also have layers and they
have dates attached to them. And my concern is that maybe we
just attached the dates badly. How do you know exactly? Just like they might be
wrong about the dates in 19th century, they might
be wrong about the dates right now. MICHAEL CREMO: I’m
prepared to accept that if we want to say we
don’t know how old anything is, really, and all the dating
methods are unreliable, we could certainly do that. That’s one approach to take. The approach, however,
that I’ve taken is you have to have
some kind of framework for discussing things. And I’m addressing an audience
of geologists, archaeologists, paleontologists. And my way of creating a frame
of reference for the discussion is to say, according to
methods that you consider reliable– radiocarbon dating,
potassium argon dating, uranium series dating, zircon
fission-track dating– these layers belong to
this geological period, which you consider to be
millions of years old. Now, if you want to take the
approach that, well, nothing is reliable and we
don’t know anything about the real age
of anything, that’s certainly an approach
that could be taken. And some out in the world–
say if you’re a young Earth Christian creationist who
believes that the Earth is no older than
10,000 years, you’re going to be very critical of all
the different dating methods. And that may be the
way that such a person would approach this. The Vedic time scales
are more or less consistent with the
modern scientific time scales for the universe, and
the Earth, and things like that. So perhaps I’m not
motivated sufficiently to try to dismiss all the
different scientific dating methods. AUDIENCE: Are there
cases where the age of the layer and the dating,
some kind of scientific dating, of the actual bones, say, is
the same and is very ancient? MICHAEL CREMO: Well, there are–
if we’re talking about bone, there are only a
very few methods that can be used to
directly date bone. There’s the radiocarbon method. But that works only
back to about 50,000 or 100,000 years at
most because it’s based on the decay
of carbon-14, which has a half life of
about 5,000 years. And after about 20
half lives, there’s nothing left to measure. There’s the uranium
series method, which is based on
the decay of uranium to different daughter isotopes. And by measuring the
ratios of those isotopes and making certain assumptions
about intake and outflow of ions, you can
date bone going back a few hundred thousand years. But if we’re talking
about the formations that are millions of years old– say
early Pleistocene formations, Pliocene formations,
Miocene formations, there’s no method
that will allow you to directly date the bone. Now, let’s look, for example,
at the Castenedolo discoveries from Italy, where Professor
Ragazzoni found human bones in layers of rock from
the early Pliocene Period, or middle
Pliocene Period. There were attempts about
40 years ago to date those bones using the
radiocarbon method, and a young age was obtained. Now, the problem
with that is if you have a bone that really is,
say four million years old, and it gets contaminated
with the least amount of modern
carbon-14– which can happen in numerous ways
through the groundwater, through just even a
scientist touching the bone it can contaminate
it with recent carbon. Then even if the bone really
is, say, four million years old, if it’s gotten
contaminated with the least amount of modern carbon, which
can take place through bacteria infiltrating it, through
any number of methods, it will show an age of
100,000 years or less. So each case has to be
looked at very carefully. So there are cases–
but as I said, the methods that you can
use to directly date bone are limited to bones of, say, a
few thousand years old or less. For many the cases
that I’m talking about, the appropriate
method is to date the age of the formation
at which the bone is found and show it’s not intrusive. AUDIENCE: But you could say,
OK, well this layer is more than 300,000 or
400,000 years old, and the bone is shown to
be greater than 300,000, something greater than 300,000. But are there any
cases like that, then? MICHAEL CREMO: I can’t
think of any right offhand because usually the attempt
is to show the bone is, in the kinds of cases
that I’m dealing with, there are attempts to
show that bone is not as old as it’s purported to be. Undoubtedly, there
are cases like that. But I can’t– I’m not able to
give you one right off the top of my head. AUDIENCE: I’m curious whether,
from your perspective, the scientific evidence is
sufficient to convince you by itself. And if it is sufficient
to convince you by itself, then why refer to the
Vedic texts at all? Is there something special
about the Vedic texts that mystical texts from
other cultures lack? MICHAEL CREMO: Yeah. It’s a very good question. And I am open about what my
epistemological commitments are. And if we study the
Vedic epistemology, it tells us there are different
ways of getting evidence. There are different
categories of evidence. They’re called pramanas. One is called the
pratyaksha pramana. That means sense
evidence, things we can touch, see, measure. Then there’s anumana, which
means logical inference. If it’s like this and this,
then it must be like that. These methods for getting
knowledge about– especially about things that are beyond
the range of the senses, like what was happening millions
or billions of years ago, they become problematic. And therefore, according
to the Vedic epistemology, one can rely upon another
type of evidence– testimony. It’s called the
sabda pramana, which is based on the idea there
is some kind of higher intelligence that is
aware of these things and can communicate
information about them. And that’s considered to be
a higher kind of evidence. However, as I said, that is not
the epistemological assumption that’s dominant today
in the world of science. If you actually go back
in European science, even to 300 or 400
years ago, you’ll find that many of
the scientists had similar epistemological
commitments where they were– I mean, even, say, somebody like
Michael Faraday, a physicist who did a lot of the work
that unified electricity and magnetism. He worked along with
Maxwell to come up with the electromagnetic
field equations. The reason why he
started looking for unity was because he was a member
of a Christian sect called the Sandemanians, who had the
idea that all energies are unified in God. So based on his
spiritual conviction that energies are
unified, he was inspired to do the work
that led to his integration of electricity and magnetism. And he also tried to bring
gravity into the equation. It’s something that’s still
troubling physicists today, how to bring gravity
into the whole picture. But I understand that’s not
the dominant epistemological position today. So I put that aside. But you’re asking me why. Say if– so my
position is I’m going to represent an idea
from the Vedic text if there is any evidence that
can be used to justify it. If there were no
evidence, then I wouldn’t have anything to say
about it in scientific circles. On my own, I might still
have the conviction that that’s true. But I might stop trying
to represent that idea. Say if somebody could convince
me that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence
for extreme human antiquity, I would still believe in extreme
human antiquity for the reasons that I stated. But I might stop trying to
talk about it to audiences that don’t have similar
epistemological convictions. MALE SPEAKER: Cool. I think with that, we
will end the session. And we’ll thank Michael Cremo
for visiting Google once again and giving us this
wonderful talk.

100 thoughts on “Michael Cremo: “Forbidden Archaeology” | Talks at Google

  1. The case with Virginia Steen-McIntyre losing her job because she honestly published the results which went against current reigning models & theories is troubling when you think about it. How much evidence has not been giving a fair trial or even the light of day due to people not wanting to upset the current most popular & cherished models?

  2. What about using one's own INNATE KNOWING / INTUITION because we are leaving the world of facts/ figures/ proof/ CONTROL/ forced learning etc., according to old school ideas, and hearing another view without the' unspoken' suspicion or skepticism…..in other words ….. we live in a similar time to when people did not believe that we could fly a plane into the sky or see that the Earth is round not flat!

  3. note the spelling of the word "archaeology." It's a giveaway that this guy is not an archaeologist, not even an American archaeologist. But I guess "vedic" credentials and a good story will suffice for some folks here.

  4. It appears Dr Cremo's theories are based on old datingscience from the 19th and early 20th century before modern dating methods were available. He should have had the sites he mentions retested to prove the original dates were accurate. That's what a real scientist would have done. There is no proof that modern humans walked the Earth earlier than 250,000 years ago. The Laetoli footprints found by Mary Leakey are believed to have been made by Australopithecus afarensis, but they are too smudged to positively identify the species that made them. They are generally cited as proof of early bipedalism. They are not proof that homo sapiens lived 3.7 million years ago.

  5. We know people seem to be lazy. Those in all 'professions' are afraid to step out of line of the current of politicly accepted trends. Most have fear of criticism by peers. The average researcher is not a brave Michael Cremo. – We know who spoke up against you Michael. They are the most egotistic supremacist types in this world! They know their own politics and religion, and that's all they want to know. They deny truth in defending Darwinism still today. That's their religion, which binds their mind!

  6. This guy is a sham that is my first thought before I even watch the video and i am very open minded. Ok now i will watch the video and edit this response after this………………….oh yeah this dude is stupid. He hasn't been out in the field personally. He is just judging from others material of science and archaeology. He might of checked out some stuff like paid for a tour to see the Pyramids in Ghiza and then all of a sudden thought he was a theoretical scientist. Lol. Every humam has theories. Lol. Are people going to college for this stuff? Lol.

  7. Ok my bad. He might be legit. Even if he is not right…. But maybe he might be or not…. But i can say he is definitely not trying to mislead us on purpose just in case he's got it wrong

  8. I see so many people criticising his slow speech.. At his age, standing up and speaking for so long itself is an exhausting thing. May be for our generation, we wouldn't even live upto his age to be able to speak..

  9. Suck on the fruits of democratic scientific consensus.
    Seems to me that in almost every case he presented, the geology time scale was used.
    But why does he trust geology time scale? It's also based on theories and presumptions.
    Just flush it all down the toilet and use some paper to wipe out the creationist crap while you're at it.

  10. We can question anything and everything we want but once you read things like the Enumi Elish and compare it to the book of spells( Bible). You might learn to read for yourselves versus playing other folks games.

  11. Then you might try moving beyond Sitchin's contrived story line and see the real truth, Try this video then check out my We Are Not Alone parts 1-3 books on Amazon.


    Also see my book Gutting Mysticism and Th Truth About the 'Divine' Soul to see through every religion on the planet.

  12. I cannot believe that nothing exploded into something; the result being the start of our earth. I cannot buy into the monkey theory either as we have only ever seen species decline, and never ever seen one animal or plant turn into another species plus there's no remains of interspecies, not one. Origen of LUCY; Unknown species of a monkeys skull bones were found, all smashed and worn; they stuck them together with glue adding a human jaw bone and used the legs as arms and vice versa, this thing had no hands or feet by the way, so they just invented some for the display. This is apparently science even though the same people say that only life comes from life.

  13. 0.26 My parents always questioned Evolution but then came Mr Eric Dubay who proved with facts what my parents felt with their hearts.

  14. Does anyone understand the definition and difference of a Native American vs a American Indian ,In the Americas at that time there were no Native Americans, just American Indians !

  15. As long as you don't try to tell me. Black people are designed to productively function in western civilization. Because we know it's a farce.

  16. Sad how vicious to the point of deliberately destroying careers archeologist have been over the past 100 or so years… Very unscientific. Pathetic actually for so-called objective field if study.

  17. I don't understand why this is supposed to challenge evolution? Just pushing the time back, even by millions of years, doesn't make any difference, does it?

  18. What's the actual purpose of these knowledge filters? The same is done with ancient Egyptian artifacts and information. It seems like there is a real fear of losing the status quo regardless of whether they are wrong.

  19. The Earth is Not Moving! The heliocentric theory, literally “flying” in the face of direct observation, experimental evidence and common sense, maintains that the ball-Earth is spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the expanding Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour, yet no one in history has ever felt a thing! We can feel the slightest breeze on a summer’s day, but never one iota of air displacement from these incredible speeds! Heliocentrists claim with a straight face that their ball-Earth spins at a constant velocity dragging the atmosphere in such a manner as to perfectly cancel all centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces so we do not feel the tiniest bit of motion, perturbation, wind or air resistance! Such back-peddling, damage-control reverse-engineered explanations certainly stretch the limits of credibility and the imagination, leaving much to be desired by discerning minds. If the Earth and atmosphere are constantly revolving Eastwards at 1,000 mph, how is it that clouds, wind, and weather patterns casually and unpredictably go every which way, often travelling in opposing directions simultaneously? Why can we feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth’s incredible supposed 1,000 mph Eastward spin!? And how is it that the magic velcro of gravity is strong enough to drag miles of Earth’s atmosphere along, but weak enough to allow little bugs, birds, clouds and planes to travel freely unabated in any direction?

    We must take it on faith as mathematical proof doesn't exist.

    N.A.S.A. on Speed:
    The Earth's orbital speed around the sun is 67,000 m.p.h.
    The sun's orbital speed around the galaxy is 450,000 m.p.h.
    The speed of the ground beneath your feet, as a result of the Earth's rotation is
    600 m.p.h. at the latitude of Sheffield (53 degrees);
    1,000 m.p.h. at the equator.
    The Earth travels 584 million miles per year (one trip around the sun); that's

    1,600,000 miles per day; 66,667 miles traveled each hour

    “The distance across St. George's Channel, between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbour, near Dublin, is at least 60 statute miles. It is not an uncommon thing for passengers to notice, when in, and for a considerable distance beyond the centre of the Channel, the Light on Holyhead Pier, and the Poolbeg Light in Dublin Bay. The Lighthouse on Holyhead Pier shows a red light at an elevation of 44 feet above high water; and the Poolbeg Lighthouse exhibits two bright lights at an altitude of 68 feet; so that a vessel in the middle of the Channel would be 30 miles from each light; and allowing the observer to be on deck, and 24 feet above the water, the horizon on a globe would be 6 miles away. Deducting 6 miles from 30, the distance from the horizon to Holyhead, on the one hand, and to Dublin Bay on the other, would be 24 miles. The square of 24, multiplied by 8 inches, shows a declination of 384 feet. The altitude of the lights in Poolbeg Lighthouse is 68 feet; and of the red light on Holyhead Pier, 44 feet. Hence, if the earth were a globe, the former would always be 316 feet and the latter 340 feet below the horizon!” — Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, ~ Earth Not a Globe!

    “The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed ‘curvature’ given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no ‘curvature,’ on the surface of the sea – ‘the level of the sea,’- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.” — William Carpenter,

    100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe

    Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals and railways, for example, are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles, without any allowance for curvature. (self.conspiracy)

    The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad's highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool. Adding the station's actual height (240 feet) to its theoretical inclination (5,400 feet) gives 5,640 feet as the rail's necessary height on a globe Earth, more than a thousand feet taller than Ben Nevis, the tallest mountain in Great Britain.

    The Suez Canal which connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez on the Red Sea is a clear proof of the Earth's and water's non-convexity. The canal is 100 miles long and without any locks so the water within is an uninterrupted continuation of the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. When it was constructed, the Earth's supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and the water's surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles. The average level of the Mediterranean is 6 inches above the Red Sea, while the flood tides in the Red Sea rise 4 feet above the highest and drop 3 feet below the lowest in the Mediterranean, making the half-tide level of the Red Sea, the surface of the Mediterranean Sea, and the 100 miles of water in the canal, all a clear continuation of the same horizontal line! Were they instead the supposed curved line of globe-Earthers, the water in the center of the canal would be 1,666 feet (502 x 8 inches = 1,666 feet 8 inches) above the respective Seas on either side!

  20. What a douche bag in the beginning
    The guy is clearly a little nervous and it’s not like you didn’t know what he meant you didn’t have to be oh so high and superior “happens all the time in the US” like he doesn’t know the US, what a tool
    I hate people like that
    If I was in that dudes audience I would have just been like “it’s a rarity !”
    Give him a little encouragement

    Cause I man adult and I support my fellow ppl

  21. I wonder if Potassium Argon dating is more reliable than the general consensus used by modern geologists to date differing kinds of rocks like igneous and metamorphic ? Don't get me wrong I believe these seemingly modern ancient civilizations existed and were anatomically comparable to us sapien prior to some distant cataclysm ! Does anyone understand what I'm saying regarding the dating of different rock formations by modern geologists being used as the rule ? Correct me if I'm wrong ! thanks !

  22. This man is a creationist and is no scientist. The following link will explain a little about him. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Cremo. His belief that modern humans have been around for millions of years is bogus.

  23. If google approves of this video I support them, as people who think that we have existed only a few thousand years is right there with the flat earth stuff. Also if we were descendants from apes they would not exist as a separate species today.

  24. There is a conspiracy to withstand and resist all theories that do not line up with Darwinian Evolutionary orthodoxy. “Conspiracy” is actually a fairly good description. “Agenda” might be just as descriptive.

    Modern Darwinian theory –
    -Big Bang about 14.5 billion years ago
    -Initial proto-living began forming about 4.5 billion years ago
    -Hominids began forming about 2 – 3 million years ago.
    -Chimps & humans separated on evolutionary paths about 200,000 years ago.
    -“Modern” humans (homo sapiens sapiens) developed about 100,000 years ago.

    Don’t get too hung up on exact numbers with human evolution. Everyone in the field tries to find some older Apelike ancestor for us. (It’s how they make a name for themselves. The only way).

    All evidence that doesn’t line up with this explanation is Ignored! Not very scientific.

    This “scientific” community is almost universally atheistic in worldview. Evolution is required to explain their “religion” that offers no hope but requires no accountability to any higher being.

    My worldview/explanation incorporates all the archaeological evidence that we have found. I appreciate the speaker’s intent to do the same. Although, I have different conclusions and a different timeline – I share his frustration with the close-minded current status quo.

  25. I believe archeologic dating methods must be questioned. it is all a guess since they have nothing they know the be absolutely that old to compare it with .

  26. WE are not allowed to speak the truth or discover the truth, if you do ,and you wish to reveal it to the public ,you will either be killed or marginalised …

  27. "Evolution is a theory, people think its a fact, like gravity" And that is when you know it's going to be crap.
    What is gravity? Is it space curvature i.e geometric or does it have wave properties as we discovered recently? Is mass a result of subatomic particles interactions with the Higgs Boson? We are not certain. They are all theories. The reason theories like evolution, plate tectonic drift and gravity are considered the closest we can come to "facts", is that they have predictive probabilities.

  28. I think the most important question is what were humans supposedly doing for millions of years? we went from horses to space shuttles in less than 200 years, sure, we were technologically backwards for tens of thousands of years before that, but come on, they were in a stone age for 50 million years? plus, all the reviews were not positive, not even the parts he uses, at best, they were polite/professional and intelligent dismissals that acknowledge just the fact that if Cremo happened, there is something wrong with the archaeological scientific process. "… can be used to foster debate within archaeology about how to describe the epistemology of one's discipline." is actually a burn, because it means that he proposes that Cremo is an example of how the dominant archaeological theories and evidence gathering are actually not so good as the scientific community would like to believe. also, of course he was not allowed to speak at the university, would you allow a person talking about flat earth at geography?

  29. carbon dating became a very missleading sci-artefact… often used wrong… science is so young and selfindulgent… grow up academia,… you are a acne plagued teenager during voicechange just left by the girlfriend… admit you are shit and smell like a rotten oposum… this guy is humble… human history is an open story yet to figure out…

  30. Stop bringing spiritual text in to the equation. If they we were around much longer than initially thought then there should be more sound evidence. Where is the cloth these people used why is there never any hair left behind. I want to believe it but there is simply to little to accept the theory. The motors and pestles should have been the things dated not the sediment above. It dosent add up, please someone send me some text and videos to support this theory.

  31. so google is going to tell us the truth now???? evolution is a topic which is and has been under attack forever . so google is too late. google is trying to be a part of the truth movement…???? ROFL. this is a joke they chose a telugu dude to introduce to make it look authentic. telugus are the most corrupt bastards in indian subcontinent

  32. I do believe they(Proper Scientific Debating circles) invite this guy to every conference because it helps them legitimize their claims because "someone" is scrutinizing their work, which in science is a good thing(Scientific theory needs to be able to stand up to scrutiny). It also makes it seem like he is the opposition to science, like he comes from the side of religion, myths and legends(even though that's not entirely true).. so it makes their science seem more legitimate.

  33. I think what he talks about around 10:00 is very true and it's the real reason why scientists leave out the truth(most people want to blame the Illuminati or secret societies or some kind of satanic agenda created by Freemasons but I think all that isn't true)

    What he says here is more around the lines of truth and why science is starting to seem more and more like a religion to people these days.

  34. xD Sorry but every time he makes that noise with his throat it sounds like he is being sarcastic about what he said xD

  35. This is a great video and Cremo is quite right on most matters. I have challenges on the aspect of the earth being millions of years old. The dating methods by circular logic is the animals are dated by the layer they are in and the layers are dated by the animals in them. This is obscure as the joke about a politician who said, "my policies are a matter of principles and my principles are a matter of my policies." The challenge is that the earliest/lowest layer where lower there were no forms of life had trilobites and other animals. The trilobites had a crude form of eyes. DNA is a program and unless altered a dog will produce a dog for example. DNA is not happenstance but an intentional creation of life. Now today we play with life changing DNA structures producing new things GMO or chimera crosses of animals and humans – reminiscent of what went on before Noadic Flood which many here may pooh pah at.

    Many layers in the earth not only show the animals and plants that are accredited to them but have modern animals and plants mixed with the ancient animals and plants. The filter that focuses on propping evolution extracts all but what many want to find ignoring the rest.

    After Mt St Helen a small version of the Grand Canyon was formed in weeks. The runoff/washout dirt and rocks formed in layers in a lake. The catastrophe's layers were not millions of years old but very recent. Yet this is ignored as was dinosaur prints with human prints at the River Biloxy in Texas and other findings in CHina etc. Natural washout of a river basin that dried up was at the river. One human print was so clear that they took it to peer review with lead archaeologists which asked for more proof. One person was so upset that he he reportedly flew t see the site himself and was ID's by a visitor at the river bed that reported he used rebar to destroy the print, so much for scientific objectivity. The print is destroyed but not the cast taken some time prior and if it was as the story says I do not know, obviously someone who could not handle truth. What is not told is that the footprints uncovered went under a layer that covered the prints, continuing some distance further than was originally uncovered. They uncovered the covered prints continuing the crisscross path of human and dino prints and found much more, some very clear as the one destroyed. No more was published about the findings and mindset rejected the new findings. Very unscientific indeed.

    Giants are found all the time and carted away from the public. History in drawings and writings ignored. So with dinosaurs. Charlemagne was a giant. The Ica stones were drawn by Inca long ago with a coating reminiscent of centuries old artifacts, not recent drawings on stones. Thousands of stones, half had a lot of pornography and most of a half interaction of humans and dinosaurs. Alexander the Great reported running into a dragon. Lots of civilizations through recorded history speak and drew and painted about both dinos and giants. Do we ignore such and embrace speculation above facts?

    One giants drawing by an American Indian out west fascinates me. It shows what looks like a white man in skins with Indian array and weapons. But clearly the man had a buffalo under his arm. This is reminiscent of the ancient drawing of Gilgemesh/Nimrod found in Babylon with the king having a lion under his arm. Still the prop of evolution goes on. I suppose such facts as I have listed and more are as one person at the peer review of the Biloxy River findings said, "THIS CAN'T BE".

  36. "Thereupon one of the priests, who was of a very great age, said: O Solon, Solon, you
    Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you.
    Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you
    are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition,
    nor any science which is hoary with age. And I will tell you why.
    ***There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of
    many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and
    water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes.*** There is a story, which
    even you have preserved, that once upon a time Paethon, the son of Helios, having
    yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the
    path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by
    a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the
    bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things
    upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals; at such times those who live upon
    the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those
    who dwell by rivers or on the seashore. And from this calamity the Nile, who is our
    never-failing saviour, delivers and preserves us.
    When, on the other hand, the gods purge the earth with a deluge of water, the
    survivors in your country are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains,
    but those who, like you, live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea. Whereas in
    this land, neither then nor at any other time, does the water come down from above
    on the fields, having always a tendency to come up from below; for which reason the
    traditions preserved here are the most ancient. The fact is, that wherever the
    extremity of winter frost or of summer does not prevent, mankind exist, sometimes in
    greater, sometimes in lesser numbers. And whatever happened either in your country
    or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed-if there were any actions
    noble or great or in any other way remarkable, they have all been written down by us
    of old, and are preserved in our temples.
    Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters
    and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from
    heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are
    destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like
    children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or
    among yourselves. As for those genealogies of yours which you just now recounted
    to us, Solon, they are no better than the tales of children.
    In the first place you remember a single deluge only, but there were many previous
    ones; in the next place, you do not know that there formerly dwelt in your land the
    fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, and that you and your whole city are
    descended from a small seed or remnant of them which survived. And this was
    unknown to you, because, for many generations, the survivors of that destruction
    died, leaving no written word. For there was a time, Solon, before the great deluge of
    all, when the city which now is Athens was first in war and in every way the best
    governed of all cities, is said to have performed the noblest deeds and to have had
    the fairest constitution of any of which tradition tells, under the face of heaven."
    [excerpt from Plato's 'Timaeus & Critias']

  37. Even he is laughing at the US intellectualism he is asking you to believe. Believing religion is not science, and disagreeing with the dominant scientific narrative is not evidence of the reality of an existing counter narrative.

  38. I just love and he nailed it "Some satanic conspiracy".

    Yeah, thats nothing to do about it… At all 🙂 /sarcasm

  39. Junk Science: We know sophisticated humans were not here at this time because we can find no evidence that they were here at this time. ….Finds evidence that sophisticated humans were here. …We know the site must have been contaminated because we find no evidence that sophisticated humans were here at this time period.

  40. Well, we certainly can’t say – NOTHING IS CARVED IN STONE HERE – this is interesting – I’m wondering, since Australia was “the first land that appeared on the Globe” – We, they need to dig deep in these areas – ? Or what have we found there?

  41. Even in standard archaeology tool making by humanoids goes back 1 million years. So what was the big deal about 250,000 years. 14 mins in.

  42. Science is most closed minded…or they’re hiding truth…like much of other history we are finding was not true! Great he is speaking out about the truth! Brave man with some balls…unlike most!

  43. Harvard has great info…but it seems once they find it—it ends up buried! So…they’re not even following the scientific model…many are just ASSUMING IT CANNOT BE…sad…”gotta keep the status quo!” 🙄. Darwin’s theory has so many holes…who in their right mind could keep believing it? So what is what they believed was wrong! Obviously the status quo is more important than truth!

  44. what has become of those early civiliations that exis……ted.Have they wiped EACH OTHER out through sheer arrogance or are there other possibilities that can be further studied?

  45. With respects he himself is jumping to quite the conclusion to hang this on evolution per se. The dates of Hueyatlaco for instance can't contradict evolution because there are no human (hominid) remains associated with the site. It instead contradicts the much more narrow dogmas that there were no hominids in the Americas before 20,000BCE and none capable of making those tools anywhere at that time. And you'd expect to be listened to? Just pick your battles already.

    It seems like a gross misrepresentation to assign this to an issue with "evolution" itself. As it very well may be. That modern seeming jaw dated at 400,000 BCE could instead indicate that the human lineage has more twists and turns where diverged lines later rejoin introducing new features perhaps including our modern jaw. Very similar things happened involving H Sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovians and these are already accepted. By casting it as a question about evolutions validity it completely distracts from the much greater likelihood that some much more specific assumptions are in error.

    Or to put it another way, why on Earth would you leap to the most contentious interpretation when those academics will live or die based on when a style of pottery arose? The only way you could possibly alienate the specialists any faster is by showing up dressed like Hitler.

  46. The moment people comprehend that that our current state of human condition is run by CRIMINALS, the sooner well start to take right choices in more positive direction. Other than that, nothing will change.

  47. I wish somebody would date misnamed Meteor Crater in Arizona It is loaded with shards of shocked GREEN quartz! Knowing the date of the anthropogenic nuclear BLAST that caused it would be VERY interesting! Xenon 129 tests could also be some help!

  48. Well Dr, William Howells, it would be even more devastating to the Universities if all these students saddled with lifelong burdens of student debt decided to file a class-action lawsuit against them for deliberately teaching nothing but Lies & propaganda in the disciplines of Science & History!!! These students should get the HINT before all the REAL Scientists & Historians suddenly drop dead of induced rare forms of CANCER as Dr. Carl Sagan did!

  49. Our Mitrorchondrial DNA is a perfect match to that of the Siberian Alma which is a cousin of the Asian Yeti NOT the GREAT apes at all. Wake Up, Michael! Geneticists have already cleared the way for the INTRODUCTION of YOUR lifelong proven studies!!!!!

  50. I feel so wrecked for upsetting this man when put out his speacb years ago, it was party sarcasm and partly through hurt because i was verbally attacked and still am everyday bicause of my neighbour who is the true sociapath she has thrown mud at me called me all the names under the sun you would have thought her family would have put her straight but no all they where interested in was making her worse and making me break down in the proccess i broke down about three or four times at several times through the year then the problems really kicked in where more and more people went against me because she targeted famous people for maximum effect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *