Yesterday i posted something on a crazy find about a hominid in Australia. It was sloppy posting, and i need to remember to run names through search engines before i post anything so outrageous. First Gutter Goblin commented back on an old post, saying:
Iâ€™ve been looking into some of this Rex Gilroy stuff, and to be frank, all of his â€œfossilsâ€ look like bits of rock that have a very superficial resemblance to a skull, but look lots more like, well, bits of rock. I have worked with hominiid cranial material for three years now, and am doing PhD research in physical anthropology, so I know in general what a skull looks like, even allowing for fossilisation and post-burial distortion/damage. Rexy is indulging in wishful thinking here, methinks.
Iâ€™m pretty skeptical about the dates Gilroy assigns to his â€œfossils,â€ too. There is no info on what form of dating technique was used (eg, was it potassium-argon dating or some other form?). I know that there are several dating techniques available that range in their effectivness from thousands (carbon dating) to millions (K-Ar dating) of years in their effective range. Anyone know how Rex dated his material?
I also searched on whether there have been any analyses by professionals on the Gilroy material, and came up blank. Considering his reputation as a cryptozoologist and paranormal researcher, I donâ€™t think he has the background to do objective research on this material – he has a theory that he wants to prove, and will probably see evidence that supports his theories in a friggenâ€™ cloud formations, I reckon. This dude reckons humans evolved in Australia, and that there is evidence of some past super-civilisation in that continent, but I canâ€™t find a single published paper by him or anyone else that makes these claims.
Ignore anything said by Rex Gilroy, is my advice.
And then this morning Trikimiki adds:
Rex Gilroy is a nutter. Check out my recent post on his â€˜workâ€™ at http://blogark.com. In the next day or so I will be adding some new comments to my post that come from a few other Australian archaeologists who have seen first hand some of his â€˜findsâ€™. Basically, heâ€™s not a professional and likes to make up things!
Many of his finds are big lumps of calcite that look sort of like a cranium endocast. Heâ€™s also right into yowies (sort of an Australian version of the bigfoot – but smaller), UFOs and all many of things. Iâ€™m not necessarily against unconventional ideas (theyâ€™re often the most interesting!) but you need some sort of physical evidence to support these sort of claims. Peer review is an important and well established part of academic research (scientific and non-scientific) and shouldnâ€™t be ignored. The journalist should be sacked.
Beautiful. Thank you, folks. It warms my heart to get these kind of comments so quickly after a dearth of posting for so long. Please keep me straight and forgive the gullibility. I embrace discipline this rewarding.