Thor Heyerdahl proved that a simple boat could just follow the currents across the oceans. A few bugmen might have wandered across the Bering Straight, but the cultures who built pyramids and mounds were masters of the sea.
The notion of “Clovis First”, that 14,000 years ago one group crossed the Bering Land-Bridge then populated all of the americas, is just laughable. What’s sick is that for all intents and purposes it’s still the default world view.
Can't believe that I remembered this, but the dude Ramon Riley, an Apache, says that if there was a migration, it was the other way around. And there's linguistic evidence of it too. But I read about that a long time ago.
I couldn't read the article, but I have wondered how old something like Bohemian Grove really is. At least the owl rock formation. Might've been there a LONG time.
Just to throw Bible literalism in here, Noah left the ark in 2337 BC, and the Ice Age events all fit into the next 700 years of geology. Walking across 12 miles of ice is no different from Ice Road Truckers in the same place. You have communities around the world in a couple generations, each with copies of the same Noachian records of things that came before. Ice Age events didn't make everything a constant winter, as we've found plenty of mammoths in Siberia with tropical plants in their stomachs and meat that can still be eaten (I believe Solzhenitsyn mentions this last one) due to very sudden climate change consistent with global catastrophe. Scholarly summary.
No need for missing culture. Atlantis was submerged by the flood and we have all the record we need of its culture in the Bible. Afterward, many Hamites went east, including the Sinites who gave their name to China, while some remained like Mizraim who gave his name to Misr (what the Egyptians call Egypt); so both Pacific and American are accounted for among them. The extinction of megafauna is also explained in the link.
All the claims of old age are based on retrospective study and theory building on theories of others, not on clear evidence nor on history. If anyone would like me to review one or two such claims I can take time for it. In the San Diego case that sounds like a prima facie convincing case of human-mastodon interaction other than its anomalous date, the kicker is in the dating method: "James B. Paces [USGS] determined how much uranium in the bones had broken down into another element, thorium. That test revealed, to their surprise, that the bones were 130,000 years old." Well, of course it's a surprise because all their other evidence (e.g. stones and bones as tools) suggested more recent dating. Genesis 10 linguistic evidence would put these people in the late 3rd mill BC. Further, U234-Th230 is less reliable for bones, and there is no validity to assuming things like no initial thorium, as Pope Peter told us in 2 Peter 3:4-7. But if you run the tests the way Big Science approves you get controversial results and money and the Ochs paper will publish your name.
Incidentally, wokism at that paper is revealed in the last editorially added clause of this sentence, which is unnecessary except to defend against misuse of a particular word that any good scientist would let stand on its own: "Dr. Deméré and his colleagues say only that their findings 'confirm the presence of an unidentified species of Homo,' a reference to the human genus."
The whole ice bridge/Pangea stuff is retarded. You have always been able to travel the planet by foot in it’s current form. You can walk from Africa all the way to Russia and cross into Alaska and back south again.
Thor Heyerdahl proved that a simple boat could just follow the currents across the oceans. A few bugmen might have wandered across the Bering Straight, but the cultures who built pyramids and mounds were masters of the sea.
There’s evidence man was on the Americas as early as 130,000 years ago:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/science/prehistoric-humans-north-america-california-nature-study.html
The notion of “Clovis First”, that 14,000 years ago one group crossed the Bering Land-Bridge then populated all of the americas, is just laughable. What’s sick is that for all intents and purposes it’s still the default world view.
Can't believe that I remembered this, but the dude Ramon Riley, an Apache, says that if there was a migration, it was the other way around. And there's linguistic evidence of it too. But I read about that a long time ago.
I couldn't read the article, but I have wondered how old something like Bohemian Grove really is. At least the owl rock formation. Might've been there a LONG time.
You mean...the one I linked? Lol
I get associating Florida with cavemen, sall good
Even if a society did cross there.
How did they migrate down to south America to become to most advanced society in the west?
Why were the incas and Aztecs so advanced but the north American tribes so not.
They would be the old more established if they all came from the north.
Must go mountains and worship human sacrifices
Just to throw Bible literalism in here, Noah left the ark in 2337 BC, and the Ice Age events all fit into the next 700 years of geology. Walking across 12 miles of ice is no different from Ice Road Truckers in the same place. You have communities around the world in a couple generations, each with copies of the same Noachian records of things that came before. Ice Age events didn't make everything a constant winter, as we've found plenty of mammoths in Siberia with tropical plants in their stomachs and meat that can still be eaten (I believe Solzhenitsyn mentions this last one) due to very sudden climate change consistent with global catastrophe. Scholarly summary.
No need for missing culture. Atlantis was submerged by the flood and we have all the record we need of its culture in the Bible. Afterward, many Hamites went east, including the Sinites who gave their name to China, while some remained like Mizraim who gave his name to Misr (what the Egyptians call Egypt); so both Pacific and American are accounted for among them. The extinction of megafauna is also explained in the link.
All the claims of old age are based on retrospective study and theory building on theories of others, not on clear evidence nor on history. If anyone would like me to review one or two such claims I can take time for it. In the San Diego case that sounds like a prima facie convincing case of human-mastodon interaction other than its anomalous date, the kicker is in the dating method: "James B. Paces [USGS] determined how much uranium in the bones had broken down into another element, thorium. That test revealed, to their surprise, that the bones were 130,000 years old." Well, of course it's a surprise because all their other evidence (e.g. stones and bones as tools) suggested more recent dating. Genesis 10 linguistic evidence would put these people in the late 3rd mill BC. Further, U234-Th230 is less reliable for bones, and there is no validity to assuming things like no initial thorium, as Pope Peter told us in 2 Peter 3:4-7. But if you run the tests the way Big Science approves you get controversial results and money and the Ochs paper will publish your name.
Incidentally, wokism at that paper is revealed in the last editorially added clause of this sentence, which is unnecessary except to defend against misuse of a particular word that any good scientist would let stand on its own: "Dr. Deméré and his colleagues say only that their findings 'confirm the presence of an unidentified species of Homo,' a reference to the human genus."
u/Zap_Powerz, u/Graphenium
The whole ice bridge/Pangea stuff is retarded. You have always been able to travel the planet by foot in it’s current form. You can walk from Africa all the way to Russia and cross into Alaska and back south again.