FAIR releases online videos

[_beastie]

by the way, I updated the horses page on my website with this new information, and also added some links.

(ps, thank god for snow days!!)

[_beastie]

Heres the problem with this Statement Beastie...

That 1800BC Carbon Date and the 400AD ceramic date could demonste this to be false. It all depends on how you interpret the data. How did these Bones show up in Mayan ruins (dare I say Museums) and caves? Or does that data show contemporary existance... side by side.

This data could show us that the Plestocene horse survived until Book of Mormon times and then went extinct. Again that would follow with the destruction of the Nephites with all there horses and Cattle that the gatherted together for the last battle. What did the Lamanites do with the booty when they killed the nephites? Did they eat them or continue breeding them?

Its all becoming subjective.

While strongly concurring with Chris' statement above, I want to add this:

I don't have a problem with people trying to prove that the accepted scientific paradigm may be wrong. That's one way science advances. I do have a problem with an individual making a statement that flatly contradicts the accepted scientific paradigm, and making the statement in such a way that does not clearly reveal that the statement flatly contradicts the accepted scientific paradigm.

The "expert" cited in the tape wasn't alerting the audience that he was actually contradicting known, accepted science. THAT is why the omission was so egregious it's best called a lie.

[Guest]

And that's why I think the "Dinosaur bone" buried in the back yard analogy doesn't work here because...

1) These bones werent fossils
2) Indians didn't generally collect dinosaur bones to put on their Mantles as conversation pieces.
3) They Generally Hunted and then used the bones to make tools etc.

What exactly does the non-fossilized bones appearing with the ceramics and the 1800BC charcoal actually indicate?

[_beastie]

What exactly does the non-fossilized bones appearing with the ceramics actually indicate?

Right now it indicates that Sorenson's summary seems to contradict the other references to Schmidt's study.

[_Zakuska]

On the contrary...

IMHO, It indicates that there where horses and other "Now extinct" Plestocene animals here during Book of Mormon times. Contra... what the critics have been claiming for more than a century now.

Would it help you if one of those horses had branded on its hind leg "Property of King Lamoni"?

PS. But as Chris says... it matters where exactly the 1800BC charcoal is in the level...

[_beastie]

On the contrary...

IMHO, It indicates that there where horses and other "Now extinct" Plestocene animals here during Book of Mormon times. Contra... what the critics have been claiming for more than a century now.

Would it help you if one of those horses had branded on its hind leg "Property of King Lamoni"?

PS. But as Chris says... it matters where exactly the 1800BC charcoal is in the level...

First, I have to say it is utterly, utterly bizarre that you are pretending this evidence is so clear and overwhelming that critics are being unduly stubborn and wanting a "branding". Utterly bizarre, and, frankly, disconnected from reality.

Aside from that, I'll once again challenge you to provide any evidence, other than Sorenson's summary of Schmidt's findings that support this assertion that the Equus conversidens was in a much later, ceramic level. This is a serious request, not a rhetorical question. I've looked for it and haven't found it, but since you are so convinced of it, perhaps you have.

[_Zakuska]

I just had a look at your update... and while I can appreciate the accusation that the original C14 dating was wrong I find it intresting... you profer an example of where a carbon date of an earlier find was wrong and then only an assumption for "evidence" that this time it must be the same. Until the bones are actually carbon dated you are still only assuming. I challenge you right back beastie and now we are at an Impass waiting for Schmidt and the missing Pages of the Fuanna Book It would be intresting to find out how "off" the other finding really was... that way we could find how much drift we are actually talking about. This is quite alot further south than wisconsin... have you factored in how many years it would take a glacier to get from Wisconsin to Myapan? The Myans would have been living on the edge of the Glaciers.

See that's why I think the scientists are getting all flubbed up. They say they went extinct at X date. (10,000 BP) but that assumes they all died in a cataclismic event... the last cataclismic event shown in Lotun strata is the volcanic ash in level ~16.

[_truth dancer]

Does anyone know who (or where) FARMS has asked to do the C14 dating?

Does anyone know if it has been done?

Does anyone know who at FARMS may have information regarding the dating?

Anyone know if there is an expert around somewhere who could be contacted?

~dancer~

[_beastie]

I just had a look at your update... and while I can appreciate the accusation that the original C14 dating was wrong I find it intresting... you profer an example of where a carbon date of an earlier find was wrong and then only an assumption for "evidence" that this time it must be the same. Until the bones are actually carbon dated you are still only assuming. I challenge you right back beastie and now we are at an Impass waiting for Schmidt and the missing Pages of the Fuanna Book It would be intresting to find out how "off" the other finding really was... that way we could find how much drift we are actually talking about. This is quite alot further south than wisconsin... have you factored in how many years it would take a glacier to get from Wisconsin to Myapan? The Myans would have been living on the edge of the Glaciers.

See that's why I think the scientists are getting all flubbed up. They say they went extinct at X date. (10,000 BP) but that assumes they all died in a cataclismic event... the last cataclismic event shown in Lotun strata is the volcanic ash in level ~16.

Zak,

Some of this response just doesn't make sense. But as near as I can figure it out, I'll respond.

I offered the example of erroneous early carbon dating not to specifically refute the Loltun bones, because, as far as I know, they weren't carbon dated in the first place. I offered the example to generically explain one reason that the research apologists tend to depend on is usually very dated.

I'm not talking about the carbon dating in my challenge. I'm talking about whether or not there were horse remains in Level V. I already offered evidence from a text that used Schmidt as a resource that flatly stated that the extinct* horse remains were in the lower level of Level VII, underlying the ceramics. Now it's your turn to provide evidence that supports Sorenson's summary of Schmidt that claims the opposite.


*or what the scientists believe are extinct horses

[_Zakuska]

This is from you web site beastie...

The aforementioned book The Ice Age Cave Faunas of North America, page 262, makes this statement:

Stratigraphic and chronological sequences for the excavated units were established, but contradictory data from the field notes imply possible mixing of biological and cultural remains. The sequence as reported is as follows (Schmidt 1988)

1. Levels I through VII are from the Ceramic stage, but extinct animal remains occur at the bottom of Level VII.

2. Level VIII represents the preceramic stage, including some lithic elements and extinct fauna. The boundary between the Pleistocene or the Holocene may be located here or at the bottom of Level VII.

Note that the author is utilizing information provided in Schmidt's report. This statement clarifies that the extinct animal remains were at the BOTTOM of Level VII, which is the possible demarcation for the Pleistocene Era. In fact, elsewhere in this same text, it is asserted that, indeed, Level VII is Pleistocene in dating:

Loltun Cave is found at 40m. elevation in the southeastern portion of the state of Yucatan., 7 m. south of Oxkutzcab. Several publications about the studies undertaken on the remains from this cave are available, including Hatt and his collaborators (Hatt et al 1953) and by personnel of the National Institute of Anthropology and History (Velazquez 1980, Alvarez 1982, Alvarez and Polaco 1982, Alvarez and Arroyo-Cabrales and Alvarez 1990, Pollaco et al 1998, see also Chapter 10 of this volume). The known stratigraphy contains sixteen levels; sediments from levels VII to XVI are Pleistocene in age. (page 285)



While it is not possible to make categoric remarks about what the Schmidt article actually contains without access to it, I find it very unlikely that Sorenson's summary is accurate, given how the same source was utilized in the Ice Age text.

The problem with the picture you're painting beastie... is it forgets all about the horse remains found on the surface down to 10cm. By Mercer and Hatt... which even according to you where "Modern Horse"... nor the "Misclassified dubiously identified "Ursus Bones". Even the Farms paper says this... that Mercer Classified them as Equus Equus. According to Farms they looked more like Equus ocidentalis and where on the surface down to about 10cm. And down to level 5. They even foot note that so you can verify it. ;)

We have "extinct Fuana" In the Plestacene age sediments. (VII - XVI) Carbon dating some where in this layer (VII) which was 2 meters thik has a peace of Charcoal at 1800BC so any remians found above this... which Mercer Did find and you admited where "Modern Horse" have to be dated from then. So again we are talking about who brought the horses that where on the surface to America? Was it the Spanish, or was it some other sea fairing bunch ? OR... where they here all along... surving the ice age?Your Job is to prove that as RAY titled his essay "Pre-Columbian horse in the Yucatan" was not viable from this data. Were the surface horses misclassified by Mercer as Equus Equus as Farms asserts? (Remember the dubiously classified Ursus bones in these layers?) ;)

Remember also we arnt talking about extinct Fuana in Layer 5 and below... we are talking about the "modern horse" remains that where found above Layer 5 by Mercer. In the Schmidt summary they say nothing about animal remains animal remains in the first 5 layers. Again its your Job to prove that those remains got here after the Spanish. So you must show where 1842AD is in the dirty. Pottery which is in Layers 1-5 dates to 900-400BC. Clearly Book of Mormon Times... so any horse remains mixed around here in these 5 layers would be after 1800BC. You need to look at all the digs ands see where these "Modern Horse" remains appear in the picture.

Lets take a look at what we are trying to debunk again...

Subsequent digging has expanded the evidence for an association of humans with horses. But the full story actually goes back to 1895, when American paleontologist Henry C. Mercer went to Yucatan hoping to find remains of Ice Age man. He visited 29 caves in the hill area—the Puuc—of the peninsula and tried stratigraphic excavation in 10 of them. But the results were confused, and he came away disillusioned. He did find horse bones in three caves (Actun Sayab, Actun Lara, and Chektalen). In terms of their visible characteristics, those bones should have been classified as from the Pleistocene American horse species, then called Equus occidentalis L. However, Mercer decided that since the remains were near the surface, they must actually be from the modern horse, Equus equus, that the Spaniards had brought with them to the New World, and so he reported them as such.3 In 1947 Robert T. Hatt repeated Mercer's activities. He found within Actun Lara and one other cave more remains of the American horse (in his day it was called Equus conversidens), along with bones of other extinct animals. Hatt recommended that any future work concentrate on Loltun Cave, where abundant animal and cultural remains could be seen.4

It took until 1977 before that recommendation bore fruit. Two Mexican archaeologists carried out a project that included a complete survey of the complex system of subterranean cavities (made by underground water that had dissolved the subsurface limestone). They also did stratigraphic excavation in areas in the Loltun complex not previously visited. The pits they excavated revealed a sequence of 16 layers, which they numbered from the surface downward. Bones of extinct animals (including mammoth) appear in the lowest layers.

Pottery and other cultural materials were found in levels VII and above. But in some of those artifact-bearing strata there were horse bones, even in level II. A radiocarbon date for the beginning of VII turned out to be around 1800 BC. The pottery fragments above that would place some portions in the range of at least 900–400 BC and possibly later. The report on this work concludes with the observation that "something went on here that is still difficult to explain." Some archaeologists have suggested that the horse bones were stirred upward from lower to higher levels by the action of tunneling rodents, but they admit that this explanation is not easy to accept. The statement has also been made that paleontologists will not be pleased at the idea that horses survived to such a late date as to be involved with civilized or near-civilized people whose remains are seen in the ceramic-using levels.5 Surprisingly, the Mexican researchers show no awareness of the horse teeth discovered in 1957 by Carnegie Institution scientists Pollock and Ray. (Some uncomfortable scientific facts seem to need rediscovering time and time again.)

Meanwhile, Dr. Steven E. Jones of the BYU physics department has for several years been tracking down horse bones in North America considered to predate the European conquest. Professor Jones's purpose for this search is to submit the bones to tests by the radiocarbon method (some of that work has taken advantage of assistance from FARMS). So far, one or more finds appear to be possibly of pre-Spanish Conquest date, although definitive results will take more work. Further work is being done by Yuri Kuchinsky, a researcher in Canada who has been pursuing a variety of other evidence, based mainly on Native American lore, about possible pre-Conquest horses in North America.

http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?id=246&table=jbms

The LDS gripe is who brought those horses on the surface? That Haiit and mercer found? Spanish or others.

If "Modern horse" materials is contemporary with pottery from 900bc what does that tell us?