The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?

First of all, we all know that a tooth was found around 1922 in Nebraska. This simple tooth, and a little imagination the tooth was connected to a mythological jaw bone, the jawbone was connected to a skull, the skull was connected to a skeleton , and the skeleton was given a face, features, and fur.All of this from a simple tooth. After that, an identical tooth was found by geologist Harold Cook. This time the tooth was attached to an actual skull, and the skull was attached to an actual skull of a WILD PIG.Nebraska man, known by Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, has been unmasked as a myth rather than a man. IRONICALLY, WHILE SCIENTISTS WERE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A MONKEY OUT OF A PIG, THE PIG MADE A MONKEY OUT OF THE SCIENTISTS.And then came Pithecanthropus erectus (Homo erectus or Java Man) the ape-man that walked erect. Java man consists of nothing more than a skullcap, a femur (thigh bone), three teeth, and a great deal of imagination. Even worse, is the fact that the femur was found fifty feet from the skullcap and a full year later.
And then you also have to consider that fact that for thirty years , Dubois(the founder) downplayed his discovery of two human skulls 9the Wadjak skulls), which he found in close proximity to his original finds. This alone should have been sufficient to disqualify Java man as humankind’s ancestor.The famous evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith, drove this point:
If, on his return in 894, (Dubois) had placed before the anthropologists of the time the —ape-like skull from Trinil( the skull of Java man0 side by side with the great —brained skulls of Wadjak, both fossilized, both from the same region of Java, he would have given them a meal beyond the powers of their mental digestion. Since then our digestions have grown stronger.Of course, Keith was speaking to underscore the fact that those in his own profession have become increasingly gullible.Pithecanthropus erectus can best be described as a fraud. The jaw of an ape was stained to make it appear as though it matched a human skull; the Piltdown fossils alog with accompanying bones were not only stained but also reshaped.The file marks on the orangutan teeth of the lower jaw were clearly visible. The molars were misaligned and filed at two different angles. The canine tooth had been filed at two different angles. The canine tooth had een filed down so far that the pulp cavit had been exposed and then plugged.Pildown fossils were clearly doctored, yet, esteemed scientist in the field affirmed their veracity. Sir Arthur Keith and A.S. Woodward, declared that Piiltdown man represents more closely than any human from yet discovered the common ancestor from which both the Neanderthal and modern types have been derived.In 1953 , after the Nature Conservancy had spend a considerable amount of taxpayer money to designate the Piltdown site as anational monument, that Dawson’s Dawn man (piltdown0 was formally declared a fake.
This notorious scientific fraud was used for —forty years- to dupe unsuspecting students into thinking that evolution was a fact.Peking Man: Peking man might be be described as pure fantasy. Lke Nebraska man, Peking man was based originally on a dusty old tooth. It was conveniently discovered in China, just as Canadian physician Davidson Black was about to run out of funds for his —evolutionary explorations in 1927.The Rockefeller Foundation rewarded this discover with a generous grant, permitting Black to continue digging. Two years later, Peking mans’s raincase, and he estimated Peking man to be half a million years old. Unfortunately, Blacks’ fame was fleeting, for at age forty-nine.Fourteen skulls were discovered after his death, along with tools and teeth.
The photographs and plasters casts tht remained had some interesting similarities. Apart from the fact that the lower skeletons were missing.The skulls had all been bashed at the base. As ian Tayloer points out, Teilhard de Chardin of piltdown fame made his former professor, marcellin Boule, angry ‘at having traveled halfway around the world to see a battered monkey skull.He pointed out that all the evidence indicated that true man was in charge of some sort of ‘-industry- and that the skulls found were merely those of monkeys. It now seems likely that the tools foud with peking man were used on him, not by him. As it turns out, while monkey meat is difficult to digest, monkey brains are delicious.To this day, natives of Southeast Asia lop off the heads of monkeys, ash them in at the back, scoop out the brains, and eat them as a delicacy. You could easily declare that - Peking Man(monkey) was the main menu for lunch.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-09-2004 09:59 PM

I believe you might need to take a nap A lot of people project strenth, when in fact they are weak. People try to brush off the facts when it isn't in their favor, but mock evidence when it is presented in front of their face.First of all, I would like to know if the Nebraska man wasn't made up based on a single tooth? Yes? No? You tell me the facts about Nebraska man, considering the facts were not projected properly.I would like to know why then do they still teach this as fact? If it isn't true, they shouldn't teach it. What part isn't true?Yawnnnnnnnnnn.......waiting.

I personally had books, and field trips to museums, demonstrating that this was factual. Honostly, you cannot tell me that you have never heard this, or read any books during your years in school?
How are you supposed to forget that stuff when it is embedded into our brain?All you need to do is go look up your own Evolutionary Library/site, and I guarantee you will find out where these book,magazines,newspapers, tv, follow up on these sort of facts.At least Asqara, who posted below you, confirms what I am saying. I can understand if he does not agree with me, but I see he is willing to be objective about the facts.By the way, one interesting thing that you can check up for yourself also. The one thing that a lot of people might miss about the fossil findings, is the fact that the inner structure of the ears plays a major role in determining what the fossil is. This structure helps keep humans in upright position.Obviously, some monkeys will lift themselves upright on a temporary basis. However, their inner ear structure does not support their ability to walk upright permanently.Everybody checks the arthritic posture of "Lucy' , and found it was just a human being with arthritis, rickets and (calcium deficiency).

If I was a teenager, the skeleton fossils would have impressed me, as they once have in the past. But, please do not try to make me believe something is factual just because you display a complete fossil.A fossil of what? That is the important issue. And considering your previous misleading displayed fossils, I cannot easily be persuaded.
It's all in the interpretation of the fossil, not the claim.You want me to drop my jaw in amazement?
You cannot confirm that 'Klein' is Ape-man. You may disagree with the australopithe fossil in regards to the upright issue, nevertheless, the issue is still the fact that, it shows the difference between our structure and a monkeys.Just because you believed it evolved, does mean it did. There is no 'middle stage' showing evolving into another.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-10-2004 12:36 PM

It's all in the 'interpretation' of the fossils. They can look at the same fossil, and have different interpretations of it.Some see a glass half full, others see it half empty. The reason I always attack the foundation of a theory, is because if the foundation is weak(filled with fraud), everything else is automatically suspicious.What make you believe that the scientists that 'interpret' the discoveries are not being biased? Of course you wouldn't come to that conclusion, because they favor your point of view.And then when that same fossil is interpreted as being something else than what they expect, they jump out of their chairs as if they were infallable.Of course, you are always going to be right in your eyes. Of course, you will always be objective, even after seeing all the claims falling short-doctored misinformation.And then you expect us to believe it just because you find some biased authority that you agree with? The past of Evolution has been stained wiht fraud, and misinformation.These proposed 'missing links' are either very humanlike with a trace of some apelike characteristic, or very apelike with a trace of some human characteristic. Of course you agree with that? What makes you so confident on the evidence? Just because it's 'interpreted' to your liking?There is never nothing in between( where you would expect a "rea" transitional species). A lot of the stuff you accept must be taken by mere faith. Are you a paleontologist? Where you ever there to confirm the findings of what they really are?One example of a change seen by scientists would be in the shape of a jaw. The jaws in some apes are almost rectangular and others are more curved. Since the human jaw is roughly parabolic, those apes possessing a more curved jaw are claimed to be "more human."Similarly, a huma skull that had a slightly squared jaw would be considered 'more apelike." Therefore, please keep in mind that the tiny variations seen by scientists may actually be variations in normal ape and human populations that are incorrectly labeled as missing links.Fossils of Modern Humans in Pliocene Layers? Yes, one of the biggest stumbling blocks to this theory is the discovery by scientists of modern human (Homo Sapiens) fossils in Plicene layers- geologic layers so "early" that none of the proposed "missing links" could have possibly been ancestors.However, since these discoveries fly so strongly in the face of the currently popular evolutionary theory, these discoveries are ignored.
Australopithecus-These fossils known as Australopithecus are very apelike.Scientific treatment of the subject, it provides reasonable evidence that modern humans existed at the same time or earlier than the fossils of "human missing links," which are probably examples of regular humans and regular apes that had some tiny irregularity.Again, no fossil has EVER been discovered that is more than slightly different from either an ape or a modern human.
But the most convincing point against the Ape Man, is simply back to the basics.The most important thing to remember though is this, IF THE -FOUNDATION PROCESS TO THE DEVELOPEMENT IS WRONG- WHO REAALY CARES WHAT IS SHOWN, THE GAPS ARE S T L L M S I N G. If steps are missing, you can never reach the top.Chop the roots down, and no need to prune the branches.How old are these fossils? Millions of years? Another reason it's hard to believe the "infallable' biased scientist is that they have convinced us that univrse is millions of years.Like I said before, just follow the monkey trail, and you are sure to find pre-mediated errors. The errors of Nebraska Man, Piltman. Then you have the errors of Recapulation-"Ontogany Recupulates Phylogony"
(Fake Drawing Charts Of Similar Embry Developement)You guys must be proud to have such forefathersI will open this Topic later.Now, let's see if we can be objective once and for all. I do not need to , I'm always wrong. Anyway, since the farthest galaxies are 13 billion light years away-these galaxies must have existed 13 billion years ago.(I'm sure you like me for saying that- but do not stand up and clap just yetI believe in a youg earth, but it wouldn't bother me if it was older, because- time/space was created at the Big Bang, and since the universe has a beginning- then Billions of years would be inside the sphere of time/space. God would be outside-creator of time, not creator in time.If the universe was formed 13 billion years ago as a result of a big bang ( or some other mechanism), this "youg age" of 10,000 years does not seem reasonable.However, a straighforward reading of the creation account does not allow for the universe and our world to evolve over billions of years. (playing devils advocate-could explained earlier-time being created.)Since the predicted ages from these two sources are in conflict, most people (unfortunately) take one of two positions:
1)Since the Bible disagree with science, it must have erors in it nd can not be trusted.2)The Bible must be flindly trusted and even questioning its accuracy is forbidde. (This could even imply that scientists are somehow evil, or "tools of the devil.")The fact is that neither of these viewpoints is accurate. Then you must ask, "How can you explain having a 10,000 year old Earth if science and the bible agree?The universe has been proven to be 13 billion years old hasn't it? I am glad you ask, didn't you?
Except for parts of the Milky way, most of the stars vissible to the naked eye are closer than 6,000 light years. Therefore , the stars and galaxies that can be seen and measured only with the help of scientific equipment.The First Measurement Technique, the Parallax Method- Stated simply, as the Earth orbits the Sun, our viewpoint of the univrese changed. Astronomers observe the apparent change in position that closer stars make relative to distant "reference stars' while the Earth moves.Less apparent movement implies that the star being measured is closer to the earth (and behaving less like the reference stars). The best measurements are made 6 months apart, since those are the two points at which our viewpoint from the Earth has changed the most (half an orbit).This measurement technique makes the assumption (not specifically stated)that the reference stars do not move or move in a pattern we know perfectly.Let's see how this method works with the star closest to the Earth. Alph Centauri.(Note: the results are rounded to the nearest three significant digits.)The formula looks like this: d=3.262 over p Whered=the distance, measured in light years
3.262 is a constant that takes care of the units
p= the parallax, measured in arc secondsTherefore, if d=4.28 light years, then p= 0.762 arc seconds. Now let's look at the facts.1)The two measurements to determine the parallax would have been made 6 months apart, at opposite ends of the Earth's orbit.2)These measurements assme that the reference stars did not move. (This is difficult to beliee in a universe that astronomers admit is expanding.)3) These measurements assume the star we are measuring did not move4) This is the measurement of the -closest star-, and therfore represents the best accuracy we can get with this method.5) The measured parallax is less than 1 over 3600 of one degree. Now , let's repeat the calculations, for an object that is 10,000 light years from us-the greatest distance we would expect from reading the Bible.If d= 10,000 light years, then p = 0.000326 arc seconds-only 0.0000000906 degrees. Summing up again, we now add the following difficulty (to those encountered in the measurements made to Alpha Centauri)7) The theory of general relativity states that light is bent by gravitational fields (when it passes by other stars).Is it possible that this bending of light (alone0 could reach a level of 90 billionths of one degree? (The size of the measurement.) The conclusion is obvious. The parallax measurement, even for an object only 10,000 light years away ( and therefore still in our Galaxy, the Milky Way), is so tiny that it is very difficult to measure accurately.This implies that the parallax method is not really valid for determining the distance of anything that is farther away than approximately 10,000 light years.The Second Measurement Technique, the Luminosity Method. Asstronomers are aware of the parallax method's shortcoming and have other ways of measuring larger stellar distances.Unfortunately, all of these other techniques measure distances indirectly. For example, we can calculate the distance to a star once we know its luminosity, or energy output. (Luminosity is not the same as the stars apparent brightness, although the two values are connected.)The Ultimate Measurement Technique, Using Cepheld Variable Stars
Cepheld variable stars are stars whose apparent brightness change with time. In 1912 Miss Henrietta Leavitt reported thte perioed-luminosity relation of Cepheid variable stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud 9currently considered to be the third closest galaxy to ours).Stated simply, when the length of the variable stars's perieod 9 the duration between the star's times of times of highest brightness) is plotted on a logarithmic chart against its (estimated) luminosity, the result is a straight line.This implies that if you measure the star's period, you can use the graph to estimate its luminosity. Today , the use of Cepheid variable stars is considered the most reliable method available for measuring large cosmic distances.Although I am in no way criticizing the work that has been done in astronomy, it should be apparent that for distances beyond a few thousand light years that the disances are still estimates.To demonstrate this point, let's examine the parallax measurement required to fix the distance to a Cepheid variable star in the Small Magelanic Cloud.Astronomers currently estimate the Small Magellanic Cloud to be about 210,000 light years from Earth. Therefore, using our parallax formula, we know what ifd=210,000 light years, then p= 0.0000155 arc seconds, or 00000000431 degrees. Based on this , we know that when the scientists first measured the distance to this star, they measured a parallax of 0.0000155 arc seconds. This parallax measurement precisely confirmed the distance and "standardized" the perido/luminosity graph, allowng astronomers to use it with confidence.You may rread about the use of the VLBA, the Very Long Baseline Array string of ten radio telescopes stretching from Mauna kea Hawaii to St. Croix Virgin Islands (about 5,000 miles 0. It is reported that by using the VLBA that accurate distance measurements can be made to NGC4258 ( reported to be 23.5 million light years away).Coordinating these ten radio stations to 'work together as the worlds largest dedicated, full-time astronomical instrument" is impressive. Still, a claim that the VLBA can acurately define the distance to an object over 20 million light years away may be deceptive.The VLBA is primarily a "telescope' designed to produce images of celestial bodies. It is not a "distance measuring device." (Note: these images are patterns of radio waves which are like, but not the same as, visible light images seen through a conventional scope.)The VLBA can very accurately observe a variety of radio phenomena in the frequency 100 MHz to 100 GHz and display them in great detail.( The detail, or resolution, of those images can be as fin as one thousanth of an arc second. ).Still, although such signals give us a good, sharp picture., they do not indicate distance. Stated another way, the VLBA must use techniques like those we discussed earlier to measure distances, and an attempt to refer to it's technology as a way of directly measureing these great distances is deceptive,(once again)Incidently, this is not meant in any way to diminish the value of the efforts of the people associated with the VLBA, or research done by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.It is onnly intended to show that the primary purpose of the VLBA IS NOT DISTANCE MEASUREMTNTWhat happends if ay of the stars moved and/ or the light was bent one ten millionth of a degree when the parallax measurement was being made? Under such conditions- WE COULD BE LED TO BELIEVE THAT A STAR 10,000 LIGHT YEARS AWAY WAS ACTUALLY 210,000 LIGHT YEARS AWAY. ( Rememer, we are still looking distances of only 210,000 light years away, not 13,000,000,000 light years.)For that matter, what happens if your 'reference stars' were not as far away as you thought they were? Well, although science has put great faith in the measurement of the brightness of variable stars, the connection of that brightness to their actual luminosity and their distance is weak (since they are indirect measurement methos).If you followed my comments, you should realize that believing in stellar measurements of more than a few thousand light years requries more faith than believing the Bible.Now, to be fair, the lack of more accurate stellar measurement techniqus does not prove that our universe extence only 10,000 light years, either. I'll be objective, not like most of you.By the way, accordig to the theory of relativity, time changes for anything that moves at high speed (that is, anything that has high velocity). This is especially true when that velocity approaches the speed of light. For example......Let me see, the theory tells us that if some people made a round trip to the Andromeda Galaxy in a space vehicl that traveled at the speed of light, they would 'think' the round trip took them about thirty years.However, here on Earth that crew would not seem to return until 4 million years later. Now, consider that we live in an expanding universe that scientist tell us is the result of an explosion.(I know you guys keep changing it..expansion)If the big bang theory is true, -the Earth and all the other heavenly bodies are moving at "explosive' but unknown velocities. Would you agree that this makes time calculations rather difficult?remember, this "time" is used with the Cepheid Variable Star data to estimate the age of the universe.)As you can see, one problem leads to another, leaving us with more unanswered questions than we had before.....Now we are all confused, not just EvolutionistslolSince time itself varies by huge factors when the observer's frame of reference changes, how can scientsts identify the frame of reference that measures the age of the uiverse? The truthful answer is they can not. So, again, why do we follow a path of made up truths?And you say we are confused, and gullible?This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-11-2004 01:03 AM

If I got off course by suggesting that books are "still" proclaiming Nebraska Man as a fraud, I could agree that I got a little carried away.But, my main point I really wanted to make was that it was a fraud, and along with the ones I already mentioned.You may retaliate by saying that it was never proclaimed as genuine.It doesn't matter, because if I know I am going to get caught with my handsin the cookie jar, I would admit to the fault before, just to save face.It's like a criminal who kills someone, then turns himself in. The problem was that the initial group didn't turn themselves in.
The Ape Fossils have no foundation to fall upon. As I explained earlier because of the bias opinions of scientists who are Evolutionists.

I apologize to everyone, I have a bad habit, and I get carried away into different subjects. I guess I'm not used to staying on subject, although I try.Every message board I ever went to, had an open format. I guess I really expected the same thing. (Men never read instructions....just ask my wife.)I have to go now, my humble pie is waiting.....

Can I ask a question? I really do not understand the reason behind that. I 'research' that information that I see, and then reaffirm their conclusions.What is the difference if you find a site, which comes to a conclusive answer, and looking it up on your own personal library or college?Check the numbers out, calculate the formula, and see if the answer is wrong.Example:
Two plus two =4 in the book. Three plus one =4 in subscribed magazines. Four plus zero=4 in web sites. What is the difference?I thought the important factor is to get information to facts.
If I understand the explanation, whether it was the professors at the University that I attended, or the archives of a library or a website?For example: UC Berkeley contains a lot of information on Evolution, which I use to see which arguments exists. Are you telling me that the information they have is also wrong?Why then, wouldn't you want to receive information by any means which supports a claim? We do that all the time, whether we acknowledge it or not.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-11-2004 03:44 PM

Sounds fair.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-11-2004 07:49 PM

1. Did Darwin believe that with time, the gaps would be filled with the "missing links?"2. Are these the steps of Evolution which are claimed as the origins of man?
Steps: Cell/Fish/Reptile/Bird/Monkey/Man3. Is there any fossil evidence which shows any of the previous species transforming into another species?

Alright, my problem with the steps is that my research has showed me that 'some' people claimed that the missling link from the species of bird to reptile was the Pseudosaurs (Archaeopteryx).I have a Creationist personal video of scientests (Evolutionists)who made such a claim. I will see if they mention their names.These scientists claimed that this fossil was considered part bird, and part reptile. Do you know anything about that?I'm being very careful not to assume everybody is in the same boat anymore. So I will ask questions, not presuming anything, to the best of my ability. I'm going to try to be objective so do bear with me.I understand about not having the 'evidence' "missing link". But this is the basis of why I do not feel it necessary to go beyond this point.To me, if this is incomplete, how can the above be correct.
This is my personal opinion. I also understand that you do not follow the vertical path now, and if I am correct?My problem is that I believe that Darwin supposely intended a vertical path.I believe he did, but I ask simply so I wont seem self centeredThis message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-12-2004 01:08 AM

I guess it's very technical in here.
Am I really off base here with the linkage? I thought since the line of the Apes needed to be proven, the steps to it was along the same subject.In regards to the issue of being wrong:Somebody already asked me to admit to my mistake, Nebraska Man was not in book texts. I believe I have already done that. I then restated the fact that I also wanted to point out the fact that it was a fraud.Everybody acknowledged it , and then stated it was already a known fact-and never denied. I even mentioned that I had to eat some humble pie.
Am I wrong?I believe someone just wanted to hear it again. Must have been a perfect person.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-12-2004 06:57 PM

Now, let me see if I can get myself out of this mess once and for all. Accorcing to what I see, it was a mistake, not a fraud. Agreed.
But it is a mistakelol.....alright sorry for that, bad habit.Now, before I get myself in boiling water again. Let me see if the following examples are what you wish to discuss.1.Homo Erectus2.Boxgrove3.Homo HabilisIs this more along your lines?3.This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-13-2004 12:40 AMThis message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-13-2004 03:18 PM

Would it be fair for me to say that Evolutionists could also be misinformed by the 'experts'?Everybody has their experts, which always seem to come to a differnt conclusion. That's one of the reasons for all the confusion, do you agree?If it's alright with you, let's start with the Homo Heidelbergensis. What is your opinion on this fossil?

Well, I think Percy pretty much hit the nail on the head. Except he kind of got sidetracked a little bit at the end. He must have been distracted by some attractive lady, and made a mistake.Well, in my opinion, the Boxgrove excavation that discovered the-Homo Heidelbergenis-specimen,seems to have come from the Pleisotone era.This obviously consists from the different sources of information, which randomly surface.According to the Dr. Marc Roberts in 1986
(Director, Boxgrove excavations) the discoveries consisted of two teeth, and a chin bone at the time.The estimated age of the fossil was approximately half a million years old.(I differ on the age, but that will be discussed on a new topic.)Dr. Marc Roberts stated the following: "the specimen is not stooped, he's big, strong, and a physical individual. Somewhat hairy. Stooped? No."In regards to the -Neandertal- Dr. Chris Stringer said the following: "They were found to be truly human. Double large brows, and larger brains than average. etc."He also described the fossil as "virtually no chin, big nose(seems to have been pulled out), the body would have been short and wide. Very thick set and muscular. Heavy round worn teeth, and NO SIGNS OF ARMS SCRAPING FLOOR."Dr. Chris Stringer(Natural History Museum-London)
stated the following. "Homo Erectus is true human. The skeleton was much more human in proportions. The brain size is true human."Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer(Paleonthropologist-University Munich)
stated the following:" Homo Erectus belongs to the basic type of humans. You could place it with other like, and truly human."Do you object to any of this?In regards to Homo Habilis. I would like to know just one thing about it. Is Homo Habilis a mixture of many various fossils made into one?
If so, there would not be any line from Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus, correct?To my understanding, Homo Erectus is truly human.Wrong? Control use of fire, locomotive-running, etc. Just like us? I'm asking, What do you think?By the way, the Boxgrove fossil also had signs of -control fire abilities, and other animal fossils buried with it.
What do you think?