Author Topic: Anyone know what happened to Ursula Oxfort (Read 2076 times)

Incredulous · « **Reply #15 on:** January 06, 2018, 05:57:24 PM »

Quote from: Maria Regina on January 05, 2018, 11:54:05 PM

For centuries, Jesuits have taught in Russian seminaries and in seminaries around the world paving the way not only for the fall of Russia and the rise of communistic-socialism, but also for the fall of the West through the heresies of Modernism, such as evolution, ecuмenism, and liturgical abuse.

Witness the fraud committed by the Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin who was caught making a fake fossil (Peking Man) to prove the theory of evolution.

During the 1960's and 1970s, especially on college campuses, Jesuits took the lead in the Charismatic Renewal where Catholics prayed with Protestants, where interfaith Eucharistic celebrations were common, and where laymen and women were invited up to the altar to co-consecrate the bread and wine.

I witnessed this first hand, as I was involved in this. However, I did not participate in the blasphemous interfaith Eucharist liturgies. That seemed so wrong on so many levels. Thankfully, Fr. Hesse, Father Paul Kramer, and Father Nicholas Gruner brought me to my senses.

Yes, I think it was actually the Piltdown-man? Here's a link and an excerpt: Wiki link

Exposure

Scientific investigation
From the outset, some scientists expressed scepticism about the Piltdown find (see above). G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together".^[11] In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.^[1]
In November 1953, Time magazine published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery^[12] and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of an orangutan and chimpanzee fossil teeth. Someone had created the appearance of age by staining the bones with an iron solution and chromic acid. Microscopic examination revealed file-marks on the teeth, and it was deduced from this that someone had modified the teeth to a shape more suited to a human diet.
The Piltdown Man hoax succeeded so well because, at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment believed that the large modern brain preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery provided exactly that evidence. It has also been thought that nationalism and cultural prejudice played a role in the less-than-critical acceptance of the fossil as genuine by some British scientists.^[7] It satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British, it has been claimed,^[7] also wanted a first Briton to set against fossil hominids found elsewhere in Europe.
Identity of the forger
The identity of the Piltdown forger remains unknown, but suspects have included Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Arthur Keith, Martin A. C. Hinton, Horace de Vere Coleand Arthur Conan Doyle.^[13]^[14]
Teilhard de Chardin had travelled to regions of Africa where one of the anomalous finds originated, and resided in the Wealden area from the date of the earliest finds. Hinton left a trunk in storage at the Natural History Museum in London that in 1970 was found to contain animal bones and teeth carved and stained in a manner similar to the carving and staining on the Piltdown finds. Phillip Tobias implicated Arthur Keith in helping Dawson by detailing the history of the investigation of the hoax, dismissing other theories, and listing inconsistencies in Keith's statements and actions.^[15] Other investigations suggest the hoax involved accomplices rather than a single forger.^[16]
The focus on Charles Dawson as the main forger is supported by the accuмulation of evidence regarding other archaeological hoaxes he perpetrated in the decade or two prior to the Piltdown discovery. Archaeologist Miles Russell of Bournemouth University analyzed Dawson's antiquarian collection, and determined that at least 38 of his specimens were fakes.^[17]^[18] Among these were the teeth of a reptile/mammal hybrid, Plagiaulax dawsoni, "found" in 1891 (and whose teeth had been filed down in the same way that the teeth of Piltdown Man would be some 20 years later); the so-called "shadow figures" on the walls of Hastings Castle; a unique hafted stone axe; the Bexhill boat (a hybrid seafaring vessel); the Pevensey bricks (allegedly the latest datable "finds" from Roman Britain); the contents of the Lavant Caves (a fraudulent "flint mine"); the Beauport Park"Roman" statuette (a hybrid iron object); the Bulverhythe Hammer (shaped with an iron knife in the same way as the Piltdown elephant bone implement would later be); a fraudulent "Chinese" bronze vase; the Brighton "Toad in the Hole" (a toad entombed within a flint nodule); the English Channel sea serpent; the Uckfield Horseshoe (another hybrid iron object) and the Lewes Prick Spur. Of his antiquarian publications, most demonstrate evidence of plagiarism or at least naive referencing, Russell wrote: "Piltdown was not a 'one-off' hoax, more the culmination of a life's work."^[19] In addition, Harry Morris, an acquaintance of Dawson, had come into possession of one of the flints obtained by Dawson at the Piltdown gravel pit. He suspected that it had been artificially aged—"stained by C. Dawson with intent to defraud". He remained deeply suspicious of Dawson for many years to come, though he never sought to discredit him publicly, possibly because it would have been an argument against the eolith theory, which Morris strongly supported.^[20]
Professor Adrian Lister of the UK's Natural History Museum has said that "some people have suggested" that there may also have been a second 'fraudster' seeking to use outrageous fraud in the hope of anonymously exposing the original frauds. This was a theory first proposed by Miles Russell.^[21] He has explained that the piece nicknamed the 'cricket bat' (a fossilised elephant bone) was such a crudely forged 'early tool' that it may have been planted to cast doubt upon the other finds, the 'Earliest Englishman' in effect being recovered with the earliest evidence for the game of cricket. This seems to have been part of a wider attempt, by disaffected members of the Sussex archaeological community, to expose Dawson's activities, other examples being the obviously fraudulent 'Maresfield Map', the 'Ashburnham Dial' and the 'Piltdown Palaeolith'.^[22]^[23]Nevertheless, the 'cricket bat' was accepted at the time, even though it aroused the suspicions of some and ultimately helped lead to the eventual recognition of the fraud decades later.^[24]
In 2016, the results^[25] of an eight-year review^[26] of the forgery were released, identifying Dawson's modus operandi. Multiple specimens demonstrated the same consistent preparation: application of the stain, packing of crevices with local gravel and fixation of teeth and gravel with dentist's putty. Analysis of shape and trace DNA showed that teeth from both sites belonged to the same orangutan.^[26] The consistent method and common source indicated the work of one person on all the specimens, and Dawson was the only one associated with Piltdown II. The authors did not rule out the possibility that someone else provided the false fossils to Dawson, but ruled out several other suspects, including Teilhard de Chardin and Doyle, based on the skill and knowledge demonstrated by the forgeries, which closely reflected ideas fashionable in biology at the time.
Legacy

A replica of the Piltdown Man skull.

Early humans
In 1912, the majority of the scientific community believed the Piltdown Man was the “missing link” between apes and humans. However, over time the Piltdown Man lost its validity, as other discoveries such as Taung Child and Peking Man were found. R. W. Ehrich and G. M. Henderson note, “To those who are not completely disillusioned by the work of their predecessors, the disqualification of the Piltdown skull changes little in the broad evolutionary pattern. The validity of the specimen has always been questioned.”^[27] Eventually, during the 1940s and 1950s, more advanced dating technologies, such as the fluorine absorption test, proved scientifically that this skull was actually a fraud.
Influence
The Piltdown Man fraud significantly affected early research on human evolution.^[28] Notably, it led scientists down a blind alley in the belief that the human brain expanded in size before the jaw adapted to new types of food. Discoveries of Australopithecine fossils such as the Taung child found by Raymond Dart during the 1920s in South Africa were ignored due to the support for Piltdown Man as "the missing link," and the reconstruction of human evolution was confused for decades. The examination and debate over Piltdown Man caused a vast expenditure of time and effort on the fossil, with an estimated 250+ papers written on the topic.^[29]
The fossil was introduced as evidence by Clarence Darrow in defense of John Scopes during the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. Darrow died in 1938, fifteen years before Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud.
Creationists often cite the hoax (along with Nebraska Man) as evidence of an alleged dishonesty of paleontologists who study human evolution, despite the fact that scientists themselves had exposed the hoax.^[30]^[31]
In November 2003, the Natural History Museum in London held an exhibition to mark the 50th anniversary of its exposure.^[32]
Early 20th century science[edit]
The Piltdown case is an example of how racial and nationalist factors shaped some science at the time. Piltdown's semi-human features were explained by reference to non-white ethnicities whom some Europeans of that time considered a lower form of human.^[33] The influence of nationalism is clear in the differing interpretations of the find: whilst the majority of British scientists accepted the discovery as "the earliest Englishman,"^[34] European and American scientists were considerably more sceptical, and several suggested at the time that the skull and jaw were from two different creatures and had been accidentally mixed up.^[33] Regarding the sex of the find, it was discussed as a male, although Woodward suggested that the specimen discovered might be female. The only exception to this was in coverage by the Daily Express newspaper, which referred to the discovery as a woman, but only to use it to mock the Suffragette movement of the time, of which the Express was highly critical.^[35]
Timeline[edit]

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #16 on:** January 06, 2018, 09:39:52 PM »

.
I saw this thread several days ago but didn't read it because I had no idea who Ursula Oxfort was.
.
But it's a very interesting thread.
.
I received a letter from Malachi Martin, too, and as I recall the signature on the page above looks authentic.
.
I had asked him about the + he put before his name and his answer was worth remembering.
.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #17 on:** January 06, 2018, 09:53:02 PM »

Quote

Professor Adrian Lister of the UK's Natural History Museum has said that "some people have suggested" that there may also have been a second 'fraudster' seeking to use outrageous fraud in the hope of anonymously exposing the original frauds. This was a theory first proposed by Miles Russell.^[21] He has explained that the piece nicknamed the 'cricket bat' (a fossilised elephant bone) was such a crudely forged 'early tool' that it may have been planted to cast doubt upon the other finds, the 'Earliest Englishman' in effect being recovered with the earliest evidence for the game of cricket. This seems to have been part of a wider attempt, by disaffected members of the Sussex archaeological community, to expose Dawson's activities, other examples being the obviously fraudulent 'Maresfield Map', the 'Ashburnham Dial' and the 'Piltdown Palaeolith'.^[22]^[23]Nevertheless, the 'cricket bat' was accepted at the time, even though it aroused the suspicions of some and ultimately helped lead to the eventual recognition of the fraud decades later.^[24]

.
Leave it to progressive Englishmen paleontologists to attempt to use "the earliest evidence for the game of cricket" as a game piece in their agenda for evolutionism.
.

Author Topic: Anyone know what happened to Ursula Oxfort (Read 2076 times)

Incredulous

Re: Anyone know what happened to Ursula Oxfort

Neil Obstat

Re: Anyone know what happened to Ursula Oxfort

Neil Obstat

Re: Anyone know what happened to Ursula Oxfort