NBC & Origins of Man-Producers Response

From
Date
I received this over the SAS listserve today.
Ed

James Burton writes:

> I'm reposting this to SASnet about the recent programming on NBC
> about the 'origins of man'...all the evidence that we as scientists must
> agressively suppress to keep our careers from being invalidated.  I did not
> see the program, but I would very much like to know who the advertising
> sponsors of the programming are!  It was apparently presented as a
> documentary about how the scientific community keeps the real truth from
> coming to light.
> There was some protest from various scientific corners, but they are
> obviously just trying to preserve their careers and, due to that bias,
> discredited!
> 
> Here is the reply of the program's producers- reposted from ANTHRO-L:
>                                                                       ....jb
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Press Release:
> Producers Repond to Criticism Arising From
> NBC's Airing of "The Mysterious Origins of Man"
> 
> March 4, 1996
> 
> 
> On February 25, 1996 NBC aired The Mysterious Origins of Man.  In their
> search for answers about man's origins, scientists gather evidence based on
> what they observe.  But sometimes evidence turns up that completely
> contradicts their accepted theories.  Here is some of the evidence reviewed
> in this program.
> 
> --- Documented cases of human bones and artifacts demonstrate that man could be
> millions of years older than the theory of evolution accepts.
> 
> --- Astronomical alignments found in the ancient city of Tiahuanaco, in
> Bolivia, suggests that technological man could be thousands of years older
> than history tells us.
> 
> --- Geological dating methods suggest that modern man was in the New World
> 250,000 years ago.
> 
> --- Accurate details in ancient maps suggest the continent of Antarctica was
> known and mapped before the time of Alexander the Great.
> 
> --- Human footprints found side-by-side with dinosaur tracks, suggest that man
> lived at the time of the dinosaurs.
> 
> Much of this evidence has already been judged false by the scientific
> community, but many of these judgements may have been based on personal and
> professional biases, rather than on the evidence itself.
> 
> In this show we attempted to re-examine potentially valuable evidence that
> has been unjustly disqualified.  Evidently, we struck a nerve.
> 
> Many viewers praised the production "for raising the question in public,
> even if the scientific community does not believe it..."
> (R.M., ...alaska.edu)
> But the scientific community itself had a completely different reaction.
> 
> "Most of the ideas presented...were so ludicrous as to not even warrant a
> rebuttal by any honest investigator".
> (L.W., ...mt.wilson.observatory)
> 
> "I think you should apologize publicly for this show.  It was appalling.
> .. Frankly, you are either morons or liars".
> (D.L., ...colorado.edu)
> 
> "...the non-scientific public watching this drivel may be inclined to
> actually believe it and to vote for politicians who also believe it."
> (J.K., New Mexico State University)
> 
> "It's all a bunch of hooey, and my recommendation is to stay away."
> (B.D., Yale University)
> 
> "I recommend people write NBC and protest the presentation of this show as
> a documentary.  ...Thanks largely to the efforts of people like yourself,
> the American public is generally not capable of evaluating the "arguments"
> and "evidence" you  present.
> (A.D., University of Texas at Austin)
> 
> "You should be banned from the airwaves".
> (J. J., ALCI)
> 
> And so on....
> 
> 
> PRODUCERS' RESPONSE TO THE CRITICS
> 
> As we expected, the response to our show has been heated.  We've been
> accused of pseudo-science and setting back the course of education in
> America.  But our goal was simply to present the public with evidence which
> suggests an alternative view to some of our most accepted theories.  After
> all, the theory of evolution is still a theory, not a fact, and therefore
> alternative views should be welcomed, not banned.
> 
> Probably the most common criticism is that the show gave no opposing view
> from the academic community.  The producers' position is that the accepted
> view has been so frequently presented to the public that only a brief
> summary by the host was necessary.  It was more valuable to focus on the
> documented anomalous evidence.
> 
> For example, if man evolved from the apes around 5 million years ago, then
> how does the scientific community explain tools of modern man found in rock
> strata dating to 55 million years old?   (J.D Whitney, California State
> Geologist, Table Mt. Mine) Those artifacts currently reside in a museum in
> Berkeley, California.  When we applied for permission to film them, we were
> denied by the museum.
> 
> Another criticism is that the information in our show is presented by
> experts who do not hold degrees in their fields of expertise and therefore
> their opinions are not endorsed by the scientific community.   But Dr.
> Virginia Steen McIntyre holds a PhD in Geology and was a fellow with the
> USGS when she did her field work in Mexico.  Her conclusions about the age
> of the spearpoints she dated (250,000 years BP) were backed by two other
> USGS members, yet because of their implications, the findings were ignored
> and her career was ruined.
> 
> In the case of the Paluxy River man tracks, to our knowledge, no accredited
> archaeologist has ever proven the prints to be fake.  Furthermore, many
> scientists have referred us to an article written by Kuban and Hastings who
> seem to be the experts on this site.  They categorically deny that there is
> any validity to the prints and that the case has been solved.
> 
> It is interesting to note that the scientific community refers to this
> report as if it is definitive proof, when in fact neither gentleman is an
> accredited archaeologist, anthropologist or paleontologist.  If this is to
> be a fair discussion let's all play by the same rules.
> 
> Many of our critics are using very strong language, calling us morons,
> liars, and subversive creationists. These are emotional responses, not
> logical arguments. To set the record straight, we are not creationists or
> affiliated with any group whatsoever. We are being attacked on a personal
> level, because we are questioning issues that have been deemed too
> fundamental to be questioned.
> 
> We are fully aware that the information presented is highly controversial.
> This was re-iterated by Charlton Heston in the show, "We've seen a broad
> range of evidence, some of it highly speculative.  But there are enough
> well documented cases to call for a closer look at the conventional
> explanation of man's origins. "
> 
> We never take the stance that we know the answers or in any way suggest
> that we will provide them.  We are merely offering an alternative
> hypothesis.  In this way, we feel that the American public is fully capable
> of making up its own mind.
> 
> 
> Bill Cote, Carol Cote and John Cheshire
> Producers of The Mysterious Origins of Man
> 
> To follow the controversy on our World Wide Web site:
> http://www.bcvideo.com/bcvideo
> 
> ________________________________________________
> --- Copyright 1996: Bill Cote, Carol Cote and John Cheshire.... May
> reprint with permission.
> --- Distributed (not written) by Thomas Burgin... Direct any
> inquiries to <bcvideo@interport.net>.
> 
> 


-- 
..............................................................................
"Every great scientific truth goes through three stages. - First, people
say it conflicts with the Bible. - Next they say it had been discovered
before. - Lastly, they say they always believed it. "
					Jean Louis Agassi (1807-73)
..............................................................................

Eduard Reinhardt
Carleton University
Dept of Earth Sciences
Tory Bldg
Ottawa, Ontario
K1S 5B6 CANADA

email: ereinhar@ccs.carleton.ca
Fax: (613) 788-4490
Phone: (613) 788-2600 ext 1851