Huellas humanas en epoca de Dinosaurios ??

Fossil Footprints

Several fossilized “human” tracks have been reported through the years. To the right is the “feminine print in dinosaur track” that was found in the Paluxy River area of Glen Rose, Texas. Below to the left is the Delk Print, which shows a human footprint intruded by a tridactyl dinosaur print (click for higher resolution). The Delk Track has been authenticated by spiral CT scan, which can verify that there is greater compression density below the tracks then elsewhere in the rock. Along with the footprints of the Taylor Trail and the Burdick track, these “man-tracks alongside dinosaur-tracks” have been the source of considerable controversy.
Originally the Paluxy ichnofossils (or trace fossils) were considered by creationists to be powerful evidence that men and dinosaurs coexisted. In the 1980s John Morris wrote the popular book Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs (and the Delk FootprintPeople Who Knew Them) and the film “Footprints in Stone” was produced by Stan Taylor. Over time, the exposed prints became quite eroded and evolutionists argued that they were merely elongated dinosaur footprints that had experienced infilling. Most creationists are now inclined to agree that the famous Taylor Trail was made by a dinosaur, though some point to the mixture of human and dinosaur characteristics as evidence that the tracks are a composite, the human track superimposed upon the existing dinosaur footprints. (See Robert Helfinstine and Jerry Roth’s 1994 book Texas Tracks and Artifacts.)
The lack of clarity regarding these original “man-tracks” finds prompted leading creationists to cease using the Paluxy footprints as evidence for men living dinosaurs. But then additional tracks, like the Feminine Print and the Delk Track, came to light, providing much clearer evidence. It is instructive to consider that these Paluxy human footprints are much more distinct than Mary Leakey’s famous Laoetoli Track in Tanzania, which is universally accepted as hominid! The limestone beds of the Paluxy River containing the supposed human and dinosaur footprints are thought by evolutionists to be 120 million years old. Milne and Schafersman admit, “Such an occurrence, if verified, would seriously disrupt conventional interpretations of biological and geological history and would support the doctrines of creationism and catastrophism.” (Milne, and Schafersman, 1983, “Dinosaur Tracks, Erosion Marks and Midnight Chisel Work (But No Human Footprints) in the Cretaceous Limestone of the Paluxy River Bed, Texas,” Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 31, pp. 111-123.)
Zapata trackTo the right is pictured the Zapata track, found in Permian limestone in New Mexico. It is a very shallow track, almost invisible unless wet with strong side lighting. This accounts for the dramatic hour glass shape with dots in front, similar to what you see when you walk with a wet foot on a tile floor. Geologist Don Patton attempted to cut this print out of the rock, but wore out four carborundum blades trying to make one cut! Patton reports to have personally seen a photograph of four, virtually identical tracks in an obvious right left pattern taken about one quarter mile from the Zapata track. The rock and the tracks look virtually identical. Some critics claim the Zapata print is “too perfect.” But the mud push-up on the sides and the fact that the matrix proved extremely hard to cut out (lab tests indicated it was limestone with 30% silica) would make a carving quite unlikely.
In 1987, not far from the Zapata track site, paleontologist Jerry MacDonald discovered a variety of beautifully preserved fossil footprints in Permian strata. The Robledo Mountain site contains thousands of footprints and invertebrate trails that represent dozens of different kinds of animals. Because of the quality of preservation and sheer multitude of different kinds of footprints, this tracksite has been called the most important Early Permian sites ever discovered. Some that have visited the site remark that it contains what appears to be a barefoot human print. “The fossil tracks that MacDonald has collected include a number of what paleontologists like to call ‘problematica.’ On one trackway, for example, a three-toed creature apparently took a few steps, then disappeared–as though it took off and flew. ‘We don’t know of any three-toed animals in the Permian,’ MacDonald pointed out. ‘And there aren’t supposed to be any birds.’ He’s got several tracks where creatures appear to be walking on their hind legs, others that look almost simian. On one pair of siltstone tablets, I notice some unusually large, deep and scary-looking footprints, each with five arched toe marks, like nails. I comment that they look just like bear tracks. ‘Yeah,’ MacDonald says reluctantly, ‘they sure do.’ Mammals evolved long after the Permian period, scientists agree, yet these tracks are clearly Permian.” (“Petrified Footprints: A Puzzling Parade of Permian Beasts,” The Smithsonian, Vol. 23, July 1992, p.70.)
To the left is the “Meister Print,” found in Utah within a block of shale. It was first publicized in the CRS Quarterly as the footprint containing a trilobite fossil. Bottom left is a fossilized shoe sole found petrified in Triassic rock. This print specimen is so clear that the threads are visible to the naked eye! Also published in this journal is the 1995 study of quasihuman ichnofossils (supposed human tracks) found with tracks of dinosaurs in strata near Tuba City, Arizona. Photomicrographic analysis indicates that the human-like impressions were created by pressure which created relatively smooth surfaces, unlike the rougher surfaces of impressions formed inside concretions and unlike surrounding surfaces. Comparison of the quasihuman ichnofossils with modern tracks in wet mud shows them to be closely comparable, supporting their theory that the fossil imprints were made by human feet. (Auldaney, Rosnau, Back, and Davis, CRS Quarterly, vol. 34, pp. 133-146.)
In 1983 Professor Amanniyazov, Director of Turkmenia’s Institute of Geology, reported what appeared to be human footprints in Mesozoic strata. “This spring, an expedition from the Institute of Geology of the Turkmen SSR Academy of Sciences led by found over 1,500 tracks left by dinosaurs in the mountains in the south-east of the Republic. Impressions resembling in shape a human footprint were discovered next to the tracks of the prehistoric animals.” (Rubstsov, “Tracking Dinosaurs,” Moscow News, No. 24, p. 10, 1983.) Dr. Amanniqazov was shocked beyond belief to find a human footprint mingled with dinosaurs. He discusses one of the footprints and says: “if we speak of the human footprint, it was made by a human or a human-like animal. Incredibly, this footprint is on the same plateau where there are dinosaur tracks. We can say the age of this footprint is not 5 or 10, but at least 150 million years old. It is 26cm long, that is Russian size 43 EEE [9.5 American], and we consider that whoever left the footprint was taller than we are…this would create a revolution in the science of man.” (Amanniyazov, Kurban, Science in the USSR T 986, “Old Friends Dinosaurs,” p. 103-107.) There is also this fascinating quote from the Russian journalist, Alexander Bushev who investigated these trackways: “But the most mysterious fact is that among the footprints of dinosaurs, footprints of bare human feet were found…We know that humans appeared much later than dinosaurs – that there was an extraterrestrial who walked in his swimming suit along the sea side.” (Bushnev, Alexander, Komsomolskya Pravda, January 31, 1995, p. 61ff.)
Berean Human FootprintsPerhaps the most intriguing such fossil footprint report was that made by the head of department at Berea college in Kentucky of a human-like track left in sandstone of the Upper Carboniferous Period. Numerous scientists have investigated these tracks and concluded that they are genuine (even going so far as to count the sand grains under magnification to ensure that it was compressed at the bottom rather than carved). In Scientific American, geologist Albert G. Ingalls writes, “If man, or even his ape ancestors, or even that ape ancestor’s early mammalian ancestor, existed as far back as the Carboniferous Period in any shape, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, for the present at least, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous with his feet.” Ingalls suggested that they were made by some unidentified amphibian. But a human-sized Carboniferous amphibian is just about as problematic for evolutionary timetables as humans in that era!
However, in an attempt to dismiss these tracks, the Scientific American article did not include the real photos in their article, instead showing some pretty obvious fakes (probably Indian carvings) and not the actual prints, which they had access to. (Credit for the picture to the right belongs to creationist researcher Ian Juby.) This is because, as evolutionary atheist Richard Dawkins observed, authenticated evidence of humans in the Carboniferous would “blow the theory of evolution out of the water.” (Dawkins, Free Inquiry, vol. 21, no. 4, 2001.)

HUEYATLACO - herramientas de hace 250.000 años

Hueyatlaco es un sitio arqueológico en Valsequillo (Puebla, México) donde fueron descubiertas herramientas hechas por el hombre en un estrato geográfico que algunos arqueologos han fechado hacia 250 mil años A.C.1 2 3 4
Estos hallazgos se hallan en un orden de magnitud mucho más antiguo que la hipótesis Clovis, que ubica la migración humana entre 13 a 16 mil años A. D. Las dataciones fueron confirmadas por un amplio sector de la comunidad científica, y ya hay poca discusión en el ámbito de la literatura científica.5

Hueyatlaco: 250,000 Year Old Settlement In Mexico Found Under Volcanic Ash

Friday, October 5, 2012

Humans were hunting mastodons in Mexico 250,000 years ago.  This archaeological heresy is supported by finding at Hueyatlaco.
Hueyatlaco is an archeological site in Valsequillo, Mexico. Several potential pre-Clovis localities were found in the 1960s around the edge of the Valsequillo Reservoir, Mexico.  One of these localities is the site of Hueyatlaco.  This site was excavated by Cynthia Irwin-Williams in 1962, 1964, and 1966.

One of its early excavators Virginia Steen-McIntyre writes “Hueyátlaco is a dangerous site. To even publicly mention the geological evidence for its great age is to jeopardize one’s professional career. Three of us geologists can testify to that. It’s very existence is blasphemous because it questions a basic dogma of Darwinism, the ruling philosophy (or religion, if you will) of the western scientific world for the past 150 years. That dogma states that, over a long period of time, members of the human family have generally become more and more intelligent. The Hueyátlaco site is thus ‘impossible’ because Mid-Pleistocene humans weren’t smart enough to do all that the evidence implies. Besides, there is no New World anthropoid stock from which they could have evolved.:
File:High res mastodon rendering.jpg

The Hueyatlaco Archeological Site is situated on the Tetela Peninsula, along the north shore of the Valsequillo reservoir in the State of Puebla, Mexico, approximately 100 km southeast of Mexico City and 10 km south of the City of Puebla.
In the 1960s, highly sophisticated stone tools rivaling the best work of Cro-magnon man in Europe were unearthed by Professor Juan Armenta Camacho and Dr. Cynthia Irwin-Williams at Hueyatlaco, near Valsequillo.
 Dr. Cynthia Irwin-Williams
Credit: Smithsonian National Archives http://www.earthmeasure.com/first-american.html
After excavations in the 1960s, the site became notorious due to geochronologists’ analyses that indicated human habitation at Hueyatlaco was dated to ca. 250,000 years before the present.
Professor Juan Armenta Camacho
Professor Juan Armenta Camacho
Beds containing human artifacts at Valsequillo, Mexico, have been dated at approximately 250,000 years before the present by fission-track dating of volcanic material and uranium dating of a camel pelvis. The dilemma posed by such dates is clearly stated in the following quotation from the conclusions of the subject article.
“The evidence outlined here consistently indicates that the Hueyatlaco site is about 250,000 yr old. We who have worked on geological aspects of the Valsequillo area are painfully aware that so great an age poses an archeological dilemma. If the geological dating is correct, sophisticated stone tools were used at Valsequillo long before analogous tools are though to have been developed in Europe and Asia. Thus, our colleague, Cynthia Irwin-Williams, has criticized the dating methods we have used, and she wishes us to emphasize that an age of 250,000 yr is essentially impossible.”
(Steen-McIntyre, Virginia, et al; “Geologic Evidence for Age of Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archeological Site, Valsequillo, Mexico,” Quaternary Research, 16:1, 1981.)

Credit: mcremo.com
These controversial findings are orders of magnitude older than the scientific consensus for habitation of the New World (which generally traces widespread human migration to the New World to 13,000 to 16,000 ybp). The findings at Hueyatlaco have mostly been repudiated by the larger scientific community, and have seen only occasional discussion in the literature
According to  Steen-McIntyre “we have evidence for two primitive human skulls. The Dorenberg skull was collected in the area over 100 years ago (Reichelt,1899 (1900)) . The interior cavities were filled with a diatomite that contains the same Sangamon-age suite of taxa that occurs associated with the artifacts at Hueyátlaco (VanLandingham 2000, 2002b,c, 2003). It was on display in a museum in Leipzig for many years, and was destroyed during the bombings of WW II. We are looking for a photo or drawing of it.
The second skull, the Ostrander skull, is rumored to have been collected illegally at Hueyátlaco sometime in the late 60’s or early 70’s and recently to have been turned over to a Native American tribe for reburial. No attempt was made to date it.”
Ostrander skull to the rignt, allegedly from the Hueyatlaco Site. On the left a modern skull
Credit:  Austin Whittall patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com
Cynthia Irwin-Williams led the team that first excavated the site in 1962 The dig is often associated with Virginia Steen-McIntyre because of her continuing efforts to publicize her findings and opinions. However, the site was actually discovered by Juan Armenta Camacho and Irwin-Williams. Steen-McIntyre joined the team in 1966 as a graduate student, at the request of project geologist Hal Malde. The excavation was associated with the U.S. Geological Survey.
The region, about 75 miles SE of Mexico City, was known for its abundance of animal fossils, and Irwin-Williams described Hueyatlaco as a “kill site” where animals were hunted and butchered.
These tools are believed to be 250,00 years old from the Hueyatlaco site.

Credit: Dr. Cynthia Irwin-Williams/H.S. Rice
Excavations were conducted via standard protocols, including securing the sites to prevent trespass or accidental disturbances. During excavation, investigators discovered numerous stone tools. The tools ranged from relatively primitive implements at a smaller associated site, to more sophisticated items such as scrapers and double-edged blades uncovered at the main excavation site. The diversity of tools made from non-local materials suggested that the region had been used by multiple groups over a considerable period.

Credit: Chris Hardaker http://www.earthmeasure.com/first-american.html
In 1967, Jose L. Lorenzo of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia claimed that implements had been planted at the site by local laborers in such a way as to make it difficult or impossible to determine which artifacts were discovered in situ and which were planted. Irwin-Williams counter-argued that Lorenzo’s claims were malicious and without merit. Furthermore, in 1969 Irwin-Williams cited statements of support from three prominent archeologists and anthropologists (Richard MacNeish, Hannah Marie Wormington and Frederick A. Peterson) who had each visited the site independently and attested to the integrity of the excavations and the professionalism of the group’s methodology
Credit: Chris Hardaker http://www.earthmeasure.com/first-american.html
In mid-1969, Szabo, Malde and Irwin-Williams published their first paper about dating the excavation site. The stone tools were discovered in situ in a stratum that also contained animal remains. Radiocarbon dating of the animal remains produced an age of over 35,000 ybp. Uranium dating produced an age of 260,000 ybp, ± 60,000 years.
The site had been buried by the ash of La Malinche. The reservoir, which lies 100 km southeast of Mexico City and south of the city of Puebla is surrounded by four of Mexico’s famous volcanoes: Tláloc, Iztaccíhuatl, Popocatepetl, and La Malinche, which is shown below.
Credit: Wikipedia
The authors admitted that they had no definitive explanation for the anomalous results. However, Malde suggested the tool-bearing strata had possibly been eroded by an ancient streambed, thus combining older and newer strata and complicating dating.

Credit: Chris Hardaker http://www.earthmeasure.com/first-american.html
In 1973, Steen-MacIntyre, Malde and Roald Fryxell returned to Hueyatalco to re-examine the geographic strata and more accurately determine an age for the tool-bearing strata. They were able to rule out Malde’s streambed hypothesis. Moreover, the team undertook an exhaustive analysis of volcanic ash and pumice from the original excavation site and the surrounding region. Using the zircon fission-track dating method, geochemist C.W. Naeser dated samples of ash from Hueyatlaco’s tool-bearing strata to 370,000 ybp +/- 240,000 years.
The confirmation of an anomalously distant age for human habitation at the Hueyatlaco site led to tension between Irwin-Williams and the other team members. Malde and Fryxell announced the findings at a Geological Society of America meeting, admitting that they could not account for the anomalous results. Irwin-Williams responded by describing their announcement as “irresponsible”.  Given the substantial margin of error for the fission-track findings, and the then-new method of uranium dating, Irwin-Williams asserted that Hueyatlaco had not been accurately dated to her satisfaction.

Credit: Chris Hardaker http://www.earthmeasure.com/first-american.html
Excerpt of letter to Marie Wormington from Dr. Cynthia Irwin-Williams [circa 1969]:
“…Meanwhile, I recently got a letter from Hal, with some (completely wild) uranium dates on Valsequillo material. I don’t see how he can take them seriously since they conflict with the archaeology, with his own geologic correlations, and with a couple C14 dates. However, God help us, he wants to publish right away! I am enclosing a copy of Hal’s letter and my reply. Needless to say any restraint you can exercise on him would be greatly appreciated. All we need to do at this point is to put that stuff in print and every reputable prehistorian in the country will be rolling in the aisles.”

On March 30, 1981, Steen-McIntyre wrote to Estella Leopold, the associate editor of Quaternary Research: “The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of ‘Enigmatic Data,’ data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn’t realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period.”
Eventually, Quaternary Research (1981) published an article by Virginia Steen-McIntyre, Roald Fryxell, and Harold E. Malde. It upheld an age of 250,000 years for the Hueyatlaco site. Cynthia Irwin-Williams (1981) objected to these findings in a letter responding to these authors. Her objections were answered point-for-point in a counter letter from Malde and Steen-McIntyre (1981).

Credit: Chris Hardaker http://www.earthmeasure.com/first-american.html
The case of Virginia Steen-McIntyre opens a rare window into the actual social processes of data suppression in paleoanthropology, processes that involve a great deal of hurt and conflict. In general, however, this goes on behind the scenes, and the public sees only the end result—the carefully edited journals and books that have passed the censors.
The Sangamonian Stage, also known as the Sangamon interglacial, is the name used by Quaternary geologists to designate the last interglacial period in North America from 125,000—75,000 years ago, a period of 0.05 million years. The Sangamonian Stage precedes the Wisconsinan (Wisconsin) Stage and follows the Illinoian Stage in North America


Reconocimiento de la excavación

Cynthia Irwin-Williams condujo un equipo de arqueologos que excavaron por vez primera en 1962.6 La excavación es a menudo asociada con Virginia Steen-McIntyre debido a sus continuos esfuerzos para publicar sus hallazgos y conclusiones. Sin embargo, el sitio fue descubierto por Juan Armenta Camacho e Irwin-Williams. Steen-McIntyre se unió al equipo en 1966 en calidad de estudiante graduado, en respuesta al geólogo Hal Malde. La excavación se llevó a cabo en asociación con la U.S. Geological Survey.
La región, a 75 millas al sureste de la Ciudad de México, era conocida por su abundancia en fósiles animales, e Irwin-Williams describió a Hueyatlaco como un "coto de caza" donde los animales eran cazados y descuartizados.7
Las excavaciones se realizaron mediante estándares tradicionales, que incluian el aseguramiento de la zona para prevenir una invasión ilegal o accidental.8 Durante las excavaciones, los investigadores descubrieron numerosas herramientas de piedra. Las herramientas encontradas abarcaban de relativos implementos primitivos, a sofisticados artefactos como raederas y raspadores. La diversidad de herramientas hechas de materiales ajenos al lugar sugería que la región había sido ocupada por múltiples grupos en un lapso considerable de tiempo.

Controversia inicial

En 1967, José Luis Lorenzo del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia arguyó que los implementos habían sido plantados en el lugar por trabajadores locales de tal forma que era imposible determinar cuáles artefactos fueron descubiertos in situ y cuales fueron plantados.8 Irwin-Williams replicó que las aseveraciones maliciosas de Lorenzo no tenían fundamento. Por lo tanto, en 1969 Irwin-Williams,6 citó declaraciones en apoyo de tres prominentes arqueologos y antropólogos (Richard MacNeish, Hannah Marie Wormington and Frederick A. Peterson) quienes cada quien visitaron el sitio y dieron crédito a la integridad de las excavaciones y el profesionalismo de la metodología del grupo.8

Publicación de los primeros datos

A mediados de 1969, Szabo, Malde y Irwin-Williams1 publicaron sus primeros resultados sobre datación del sitio de la excavación. Las herramientas de piedra fueron descubiertas in situ en un estrato que solo contenía restos animales. Los resultados del examen de radiocarbono de los restos de animales arrojaron una edad de 35 mil años AP. La datación por uranio arrojó una edad de 260 mil años AP (+/-60 mil).
Los autores admitieron que no tenían una conclusión definitiva para el anómalo resultado. Sin embargo, Malde sugirió que el estrato con herramientas había sido posiblemente erosionado por un antiguo arroyo, revolviendo así estratos antiguos con recientes y complicando la datación.

Intentos para resolver la anomalía

En 1973, Steen-MacIntyre, Malde y Roald Fryxell regresaron a Hueyatlaco para reexaminar el estrato geográfico y determinar más exactamente la edad del estrato de herramientas. Fueron capaces de excluir la hipótesis del arroyo de Mealde.8 Más aún, el equipo llevó a cabo un análisis axhaustivo de las cenizas y piedras volcánicas del sitio de la excavación original y de la región a su alrededor. Usando el método de zirconio para fechar, el geoquímico C.W. Naeser fechó muestras de ceniza del estrato de herramientas de Hueyatlaco hasta una antigüedad de 370,000 años, con un margen de error de 200,000 años.8
La confirmación de una anómala edad tan distante de población humana en Hueyatlaco condujo a un conflicto entre Irwin-Williams y los otros miembros del equipo. Malde and Fryxell anunciaron sus hallazgos en una reunión de la Sociedad Americana de Geología, admitiendo que no podían expicar los resultados anómalos. Irwing-Williams respondió calificando sus hallazgos como una "irresponsabilidad". Dado el margen sustancial de error para los hallazgos por zircónia, y el entonces novedoso método de datación por uránio, Irwin-Williams aseveró que Hueyatlaco no había sido fechado con exactitúd para su satisfacción.8


Posteriormente, el equipo de excavación discutió, sobre como proceder sobre los hallazgos de Hayatlaco. Malde y Steen-McIntyre deliberaban sobre si los hallazgos de hace 200 mil eran validos, mientras Irwin-Williams discutía a favor de una fecha más reciente, aunque todavía controversial, de 20 mil de antigüedad. Webb y Clarck,8 sugieren que el promover una fecha de 20 mil años es "particularmente perpleja" debido a que no tenía el soporte de ningúna evidencia.
Los retrasos obligaron a Steen-McIntyre a escribir para su doctorado un ensayo ya no para Hueyatlaco, sino sobre la datación de ceniza volcánica en estratos geográficos. A pesar de conducir las excavaciones originales, Irwin-Williams nunca publicó un reporte final sobre el sitio.

Publicaciones de 1981

En 1981, el periódico Quaternary Research publicó un documento por Steen-McIntyre, Fyxell y Malde que defendía una distante edad anómala de habitación humana en Hueyatlaco.2 El documento reportaba los resultados de cuatro pruebas independientes y sofisticadas: la prueba de uranio-torium, la de trazas de fisión, y la de tefra hidratación y de intemperización de minerales, para determinar la fecha de los artefactos. Estas pruebas validaron una fecha de 250 mil años AP para los artefactos de Hueyatlaco. Como apuntaron:
La evidencia mostrada consistentemente indica que el sitio de Hueyatlaco tiene una antigüedad de 250 000 años. Aquellos quienes hemos trabajado en los aspectos geológicos de Valsequillo, muy a nuestro pesar, sabemos que una edad tan grande impone un diléma arqueológico [...] En nuestra opinión los resultados reportados aquí amplian una ventana de tiempo en la cual serias investigaciones de la edad del Hombre en el Nuevo Mundo deberían ser discutidas. Continuaremos analizando criticamente toda la información, incluida la nuestra.


En una carta a Quaternary Research, Irwin-Williams objetó varios puntos en el artículo de Steen-McIntyre et al.; Malde y Steen-McIntyre respondieron rebatiendo cada punto.
Steen-McIntyre apunta que algunos miembros del equipo original fueron acosados, y señalados de incompetentes, o vieron sus carreras obstaculizadas debido al haber estado involucrados en una investigación anómala.8
En 1996, Steen-McIntyre apareció en un especial de televisión El Misterioso origen del Hombre. Narrado por Charlton Heston, el programa detallaba una variedad de teorías que contradecían o desafiaban el consenso científico acerca del génesis de la humanidad y su desarrollo. Frank Steiger,9 dio una refutación del programa, incluyendo las declaraciones de Steen-McIntyre, sobre una mesa de discusión. Sin embargo, la refutación de Steiger afirma que Steen-McIntyre descubrió una punta de lanza en Nuevo México en lugar de múltiples artefactos en México. No está claro si el error fue de Steiger, o una falsa afirmación en el especial de televisión. Más aún, la refutación de Steiger no hace mención de los documentos revisados por pares que parecen apoyar la anómala antigüedad del estrato de herramientas en Hueyatlaco. Repitiendo, es incierto si el programa fracasó al detallar los hallazgos de Steen-McIntyre o si la refutación de Steiger estuvo incompleta.

Una investigación bioestatigráfica del especialista Sam VanLandingham ha publicado dos análisis revisados por pares que confirman los hallazgos de hace 250 mil años del estrato que contiene herramientas. Su análisis de 2004 encontró que las muestras de Hueyatlaco podrían ser datadas al periodo interglacial Sangamoniano hace aprox. 80 mil a 220 mil años, por la presencia de múltiples especies de diatomea, una de las cuales apareció por primera vez durante este periodo y otras que se extinguieron al final del mismo,3 el documento del año 2006 de VanLandingham,4 reconfirma sus hallazgos de 2004.

Hay que reconocer que las implicaciones del hallazgo suponen un duro revés para algunas teorías ya aceptadas por el estamento científico, como el poblamiento de américa e incluso la teoría de la evolución, que indicaría retroceder en más de 200 mil años el poblamiento de américa y también aceptar que el homo sapiens o alguna especie del género homo ya estaba fabricando herramientas en américa, cuando en este continente no existía ninguna especie del género homo, mucho menos un sapiens que aún no había evolucionado en ningún rincón del planeta según la evolución, hace 250 mil años. Por tales motivos este descubrimiento goza de la más estricta omisión e ignorancia por parte de los científicos académicos.