MOM From the Horses Mouth

Tanned, Rested, & Ready for 2000 (jackechs@EROLS.COM)
Mon, 18 Mar 1996 19:37:36 -0500

>>Bill Cote, Carol Cote and John Cheshire;

>>I would like to repost this to the Arch-L archeaology list.


>>Anthony Dauer <>

>Dear Mr. Dauer,

>Sorry to take so long in getting back to you. If it is not too late, you
>may certainly reprint our response.

>Thank you

From: (Thomas Burgin)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: "Misterious Origins of Man" - Producers Respond
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 21:20:23 -0500
Message-ID: <>


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..."
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".

"I think you should apologize publicly for this show. It was appalling.
... Frankly, you are either morons or liars".

"...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....


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:

--- Copyright 1996: Bill Cote, Carol Cote and John Cheshire.... May
reprint with permission.
--- Distributed (not written) by Thomas Burgin... Direct any
inquiries to <>.

thank you for your time and space ... respectfully submitted,

Anthony Dean Dauer
Senior Functional Applications Analyst
PRC, Inc

All views stated are of the author only and do not reflect
PRC, Inc., Litton Industries, or their affiliates.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly (1913-1973), Pogo

Copyright 1996 Anthony Dean Dauer. Permission is granted to repost
or quote from the copyrighted material to members of ANTHRO-L,
ARCH-L, DOROTHYL, FNORD-L, and WRITERS to the listservs listed
or in private mail with the author. However, no permission is
given to modify or otherwise to change the material in question.

All rights to quoted material remain with the orginator.