And as I'm sure you already know, I followed someone else's error in poor choice of wording.
You accepted without bothering to check a standard creationist lie. That lie is all over the interwebs, and lives on because creationists assume it is true and uncritically pass it on without checking.
That lie is not alone. You should realize that creationist and fundamentalist websites are full of these deliberate lies. You do no credit to your arguments by blindly accepting them and passing them on. The rest of your post reflects this uncritical acceptance as well.
But does this error in wording mean that no scientists were ever deceived by Piltdown man?
A few were. Piltdown was a hoax, but it fooled primarily the British paleoanthropologists because it reinforced what they were looking for. The South African and other researchers didn't buy Piltdown because it didn't fit with what they were finding. Miller doubted the find by 1915, and Edmonds questioned it in 1925. By about 1932 Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang, and they were later proved correct. Most researchers were ignoring Piltdown by this time because it didn't fit.
And if that is true how exactly does that also undermine the fact that the public was deceived by Piltdown man along also with Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, Homo Habilis, Australopithecus, Ramapithecu, and Neanderthalensis?
You are mixing about five different things here, something like the classic Gish gallop.
Piltdown was a hoax that fooled some paleoanthropologists for 40 years, others for just a few, and some not at all. The public has nothing to do with any of this.
The rest of these--your case is nothing more than creationist nonsense. You are trying to disprove all of evolution because initial examinations of some specific finds are not what the profession eventually determined. That's where the research and study and peer review comes in, don't you know.
Some folks are great at finding fossils, while others are great at figuring out what they are. Those who find them have the rights to publish their interpretations first, then it's a free-for-all as everyone else weighs in. Louis Leakey is a classic example: a number of his initial interpretations were later revised. After a few years or decades there is a consensus reached as to where that particular fossil fits. All the while newspapers and magazines are grabbing headlines on anything they can.
Big deal--that's the way things work in science. But I guess this isn't good enough for creationists--they want instant, inerrant, answers.
But if you examine your own world, you'll find that there are some 40,000 different denominations, sects, and offshoots of Christianity, all believing they are the only ones with the TRVTH.
In science when there are disagreements, we use the evidence to settle them. It may take a while but that's the nature of things. With Christianity, if there are disagreements you just start a new sect or denomination, adding to that 40,000 number. Empirical evidence has nothing to do with belief, scripture, revelation, and interpretation. Given the state of your house, it looks rather silly of you to be picking on science until you can do better yourselves. At least we can correct our errors.
If you took a closer look at some of the paleoanthropological data, rather than rejecting it all automatically as fraudulent, you might be surprised at how consistent it is, and how it actually does contribute to a coherent understanding of our past. And the more recent genetic data fits right in as well. You can pick on a few examples, such as Piltdown, but that was corrected over 60 years ago!
Your argument really boils down to: some paleoanthropologists made some mistakes in the past, and although they have been corrected you're not going to believe a word of what they say no matter what because you're uninformed belief says otherwise.
Does that about sum it up?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
™ Version 4.2
