I'm with you. But, the Tartarian theory includes the earliest Americans not being homo sapien sapien. Some theories have been twisted from the original, the mudflood theory was originally a synonym.
I'm mixed, I have traits of two different, " races".
So complete speculation as far as the mound builders being genetically more similar to native Americans than some other haplogroups, then. In the same vein, I recall a lot of others saying the Smithsonian and other organizations were involved in collecting and excavating a lot of the mounds. So they would know but are keeping it under lock and key.
Buddy, you’re taking it a little personal. Nothing what I said is untrue: there IS NO genetic evidence as far as the mound builders go. Your links do not include any sort of analyses of genetic material from any of these supposed giants.
I didn't give you links, I gave you names. Both bodies of work are more extensive than my preference to type.
By the late 1870s, however, scholarly research led by Cyrus Thomas (1825–1910) of the Smithsonian Institution and Frederick Ward Putnam (1839–1915) of the Peabody Museum reported conclusive evidence that there was no physical difference between the people buried in the mounds and modern Native Americans. Subsequent DNA research has proven that time and again. Scholars then and today recognized that the ancestors of modern Native Americans were responsible for all of the prehistoric mound constructions in North America.
You do understand that genomic analysis has not been possible until the 1980’s, right…? And you Do understand that nothing you’ve quoted includes any sort of DNA analysis, right…?
So you see how you look quoting a website that has the word “debunk” with respect to a study published in 1895 from the Smithsonian, right?
Once we start uncovering more pre-ice age (melt water pulse 1A) remains, I think it’s a high likelihood there’s some sort of hither unto explored race of peoples. But whatever it is we call “white people” definitely weren’t around enough to influence genetics 1000 years ago in the NA. https://haplogroup.org/people/native-americans/
Neither does “native” really. Lots of geographic-dependent distinctions. The real question that needs to be answered is what kind of time scale are we talking about here?
Nope. Plain Indians of America are descents of Olmecs and tribes before them who migrated all the way from area of modern Peru & Bolivia via Americas over two thousand years ago.
This is evident in the Central American post Olmec lore and oral myths of plain Indians as well as the mitochondrial DNA if said peoples and their modern descendants.
The Hopi are the Anasazi. DC has an excellent Native American Museum of you ever get the chance.
One thing to keep in mind travelling, there are museums that say they're full of, " fakes" because the objects don't go along with the current paradigm.
Back when road trips were the way to travel, I visited a few. I was too young to appreciate it, or get it.
Not carvings of giant humanoids, but giant carvings of humanoids. Some are over six feet long.
I like the stories of the red haired giants. I give it a 50/50 chance either way personally.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/discovering-ancient-cave-art-using-3d-photogrammetry-precontact-native-american-mud-glyphs-from-19th-unnamed-cave-alabama/695DFD2980B69D520A56A320D6549E76
Mound builders, they were the ones prior to the native American Indian.
The Mound Builders were the ancestors of the Native American nations.
I'm with you. But, the Tartarian theory includes the earliest Americans not being homo sapien sapien. Some theories have been twisted from the original, the mudflood theory was originally a synonym.
I'm mixed, I have traits of two different, " races".
Any evidence of that at all, or just speculation?
The oral lore is respected more in native culture. Morningsky is my favorite storyteller.
Edward Nightingale has extensive research on these North America sites.
So complete speculation as far as the mound builders being genetically more similar to native Americans than some other haplogroups, then. In the same vein, I recall a lot of others saying the Smithsonian and other organizations were involved in collecting and excavating a lot of the mounds. So they would know but are keeping it under lock and key.
Not only is my comment not speculation, I cited two amazingly extensive sources that I've spent weeks learning from.
Your ignorant comment moments later speaks poorly of your willingness to learn.
Buddy, you’re taking it a little personal. Nothing what I said is untrue: there IS NO genetic evidence as far as the mound builders go. Your links do not include any sort of analyses of genetic material from any of these supposed giants.
I didn't give you links, I gave you names. Both bodies of work are more extensive than my preference to type.
https://www.thoughtco.com/moundbuilder-myth-history-and-death-171536
What you said was wrong, and rather than trying to learn, you chose to stay wrong.
https://www.edgarcayce.org/the-readings/ancient-mysteries/ancient-dna-research/
You do understand that genomic analysis has not been possible until the 1980’s, right…? And you Do understand that nothing you’ve quoted includes any sort of DNA analysis, right…? So you see how you look quoting a website that has the word “debunk” with respect to a study published in 1895 from the Smithsonian, right?
Caucasians are native Americans. Indians are asians related to the huts, who walked over after we got here.
There's a specific blood type found only in Native Americans. They also have food intolerances that Asians don't have.
These don't agree with your premise. Also their lore speaks different.
Once we start uncovering more pre-ice age (melt water pulse 1A) remains, I think it’s a high likelihood there’s some sort of hither unto explored race of peoples. But whatever it is we call “white people” definitely weren’t around enough to influence genetics 1000 years ago in the NA.
https://haplogroup.org/people/native-americans/
1000 years ago, " white people" didn't mean anything. It doesn't mean anything genetically now.
Neither does “native” really. Lots of geographic-dependent distinctions. The real question that needs to be answered is what kind of time scale are we talking about here?
Nope. Plain Indians of America are descents of Olmecs and tribes before them who migrated all the way from area of modern Peru & Bolivia via Americas over two thousand years ago.
This is evident in the Central American post Olmec lore and oral myths of plain Indians as well as the mitochondrial DNA if said peoples and their modern descendants.
As long as you agree that white people were first in America. I don't care what kind of fantasy you have about their origin.
You need a non woke history lesson. Start with Louis and Clark.
I am good. Thanks.
The Hopi are the Anasazi. DC has an excellent Native American Museum of you ever get the chance.
One thing to keep in mind travelling, there are museums that say they're full of, " fakes" because the objects don't go along with the current paradigm.
Back when road trips were the way to travel, I visited a few. I was too young to appreciate it, or get it.