So obviously, the point of including the Piltdown Man hoax in this discussion is to show that even scientists are, or at least have been, capable and possibly even willing to overlook something if it matches their preconceived ideas.(Back to Top) was discovered in 1922 in the Pliocene deposits of Nebraska by Mr.But why shouldn't the Piltdown Man hoax be discussed?

The success of this hoax for almost 40 years is pretty impressive.

However, had the original bones been available for study, this hoax would probably not have continued for as long as it did.

This is a strange conclusion considering the fact that a published picture of Nebraska Man in a popular and "respectable" news magazine did not raise very much objection from the scientific community of the day.

The reply to this argument is often an appeal to a disclaimer that was published below the picture detailing the speculative nature of the picture. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery.

Taking isolated similarities by themselves, the theory of evolution appears to be quite reasonable... However, it seems that too much weight has been placed on similarities without questioning the differences.

To the embarrassment of many a very intelligent man and woman of science, overly confident conclusions and arrogant statements have been made based on such similarities that have, on occasion, turned out to be not only wrong, but painfully wrong.

As we know nothing of the creature's form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius.

But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, I dare say that this disclaimer comment did not disclaim enough!

It was not until 38 years after the bones had been "found" that the hoax was exposed.