The Mousterian is an accepted stone tool industry of the later Pleistocene. Warren thought it impossible that one could find tools in Eocene strata. But those free from such prejudices might wonder whether Warren had actually discovered, in the Eocene strata of Essex, a genuine implement.(The Hidden History of the Human Race
In the discussion following Warren’s report to the Geological Society, one of the scientists present pointed out that in some cases the Moir’s tools were found in the middle of Tertiary sedimentary beds and not directly on the hard chalk. This would rule out the particular pressure explanation given by Warren.
At this point, the controversy over Moir’s discoveries was submitted to an international commission of scientists for resolution. The commission, formed at the request of the International Institute of Anthropology, was composed of eight prominent European and American anthropologists, geologists, and archeologists. This group supported Moir’s conclusions. They concluded that the flints from the base of the Red Crag near Ipswich were in undisturbed strata, at least Pliocene in age. Furthermore, the flaking on the flints was undoubtedly of human origin. Members of the commission also carried out four excavations into the detritus bed below the Red Crag and themselves found five typical specimens. These tools would be at least 2.5 million years old. And because the detritus bed contains materials from ancient Eocene land surfaces, the tools might be up to 55 million years old.
Commission member Louis Capitan stated: “There exist at the base of the Crag, in undisturbed strata, worked flints (we have observed them ourselves). These are not made by anything other than a human or hominid which existed in the Tertiary epoch. This fact is found by us prehistorians to be absolutely demonstrated.”
Surprisingly, even after the commission report, Moir’ s opponents, such as Warren, persisted in attempting to show that the flint implements were the product of natural pressure flaking. Warren said that the flints may have been crushed by icebergs against the ocean bottom along the coast. But to our knowledge no one has shown that icebergs can produce the numerous bulbs of percussion and elaborate retouching reported on Moir’s implements. Furthermore, many of the Red Crag specimens are lying in the middle of sediments and not on hard rock surfaces against which an iceberg might have crushed them. In addition, J. M. Coles, an English archeologist, reported that at Foxhall implements occur in layers of sediment that appear to represent land surfaces and not beach deposits. This would also rule out the iceberg action imagined by Warren.
After Wairen put forward his iceberg explanation, the controversy faded. Coles wrote in 1968: “That.. . the scientific world did not see fit to accept either side without considerable uncertainty must account for the quite remarkable inattention that this East Anglian problem has received since the days of active controversy.” This may be in part true, but there is another possible explanation— that elements of the scientific community decided silence was a better way to bury Moir’s discoveries than active and vocal dissent. By the 1950s, scientific opinion was lining up solidly behind an Early Pleistocene African center for human evolution. Therefore, there would have been little point, and perhaps some embarrassment and harm, in continually trying to disprove evidence for a theoretically impossible Pliocene habitation of England. That would have kept both sides of the controversy too much alive. The policy of silence, deliberate or not, did in fact prove highly successful in removing Moir’s evidence from view. There was no need to defeat something that was beneath notice, and little to gain from defending or supporting it either.
By Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson :38-39)
There are some atheists still looking to prop up the Darwinian creation myth who seem to believe that the same tactics will work against intelligent design. It's typically the last tactic. It puts the flight into fight or flight.
I suspect that Darwinian tactics won't work in this day and age. Even if they did, the knowledge will still be there tucked away somewhere for anyone willing to seek and find it.
On another note, a recent comment suggested that I want kids to be taught that dinosaurs and man existed at the same time in schools, apparently based on my focus on the issues of origins and because there are various lines of possible evidence that a few "dragons" did exist at the same time as man. It's not as if species thought to have gone extinct being found to be living would or could not comport with Darwinism anyway. But anyway, I do not care what gets taught in schools and would only argue that children should be taught whatever their parents want them taught, as a matter of principle. I.e., if parents are stupid and ignorant enough to believe in the Darwinian creation myth and want their children to learn it, then by all means it should be taught. It wouldn't be the first time in history that children were taught something utterly stupid that went against reason, facts, logic and evidence as if it were a "fact," or even a "scientific fact." (E.g. the textbook that brought on the Scopes Monkey Trial which contained some eugenics junk science.) Such things happen, it's the parent's responsibility.
[Related posts: Keep in mind that people mentioned in the post below this one are those now controlling access to a lot of the artifacts and evidence, using State funds to do so. I suppose that if this were true it would be one way to give Darwinists the finger on the issue.
Elements of the example above with respect to seeking any explanation other than design remind me of Yellow and Pink.]