Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Saru

Did humans reach Americas 22,000 years ago?

58 posts in this topic

Duh? Of course, since there is no such thing as the "Evolution Theory", it's really Intelligent design, it's blatantly so obvious!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have been hiding evidence of human settlement of the Americans likely the Americas was settled for centuries. It is more than likely a 100.000 to 250,000 year record of settlement exist but is denied for political and racist reasons.

Dude, you are so right, nail on the head!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence of uncontroverted human presence is less than 15,000 years ago. We now have claims of evidence for 22,000, which most authorities doubt but I've seen no outright rejections. This does seem a little unlikely to me too, but if the evidence stands up then it will have to be accomodated -- if it stands up. For the present I think I will wait and see.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding why humans "push on," the fact is that we find them everywhere within a couple of thousand years, so we presume that is what they did. A variety of reasons is not hard to imagine -- especially if it was a mainly boating culture moving down the coast. At first game is unaware of humans as a threat, but after a few years this changes, so move on where the game remains naive. That is just one way to see it. Maybe it was a culture that had "moving on" as part of its ethos. My point is not that any of these suggestions were the reality -- we don't know -- but what we see is not good evidence for the later date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you exactly trying to say?

If you talk about "Americas", I'd say none said it was settled only for centuries. Never heard of Mexican temples or Bolivian Tiahuanaco for example? They're dated thousands of years old.

If you're referring to North America, the same Clovis Culture is dated 13.000 years old.

Which records are denied according to you? I'm very interested, since 100.000-250.000 is a big leap in the past.

Can you explain it more thoroughly?

I am still waiting for an answer for him to explain it more thoroughly because i do not understand where the "racist reasons" come into this.

Why according to you the finds aren't convincing?

There have been many claims of an early human presence in South America, but none has proved conclusive, says Silvia Gonzalez of Liverpool John Moores University in the UK. She studied apparent ancient human footprints in Mexico, which turned out not to be footprints.

"We seem to be going around in circles," she says. "Until someone finds a human skeleton, no one is going to believe this."

Dude, you are so right, nail on the head!

You seem to agree with him, thats fine, so can you explain it to me please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, Manifest destiny would be a political/racial aspect. When the policy makers decided it was ethically "ok" to take the land of the First people's. it was based on the premises that the red man Immigrated into the land. It wasn't theirs, they didn't belong.

Any empirical evidence found now. Undermines the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, they generally don't like that..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, Manifest destiny would be a political/racial aspect. When the policy makers decided it was ethically "ok" to take the land of the First people's. it was based on the premises that the red man Immigrated into the land. It wasn't theirs, they didn't belong.

Any empirical evidence found now. Undermines the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, they generally don't like that..

Who is "they"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read it word for word, "they" would be the policy makers. Now if you looked at it deeper. "They" would be the sons of the founding fathers. And even deeper than that. "They" would be the folks in academia that can't get over everything they were taught was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it as "they" meaning the founding fathers who are now dead and really don't play a role in scientific study and conclusions of today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well most mainstream scientists will say that the Chinese or the Vikings came here much earlier than Columbus, the facts are that the Sumerians came here before anyone other than the natives which is evident with the Fuente Magna Bowl, that features Cuneiform writing. It's not so hard to believe that humans could have come here so long ago given the distances "non-seafaring" cultures have managed to travel over the ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

well most mainstream scientists will say that the Chinese or the Vikings came here much earlier than Columbus, the facts are that the Sumerians came here before anyone other than the natives which is evident with the Fuente Magna Bowl, that features Cuneiform writing. It's not so hard to believe that humans could have come here so long ago given the distances "non-seafaring" cultures have managed to travel over the ages.

The Fuente Magna bowl is often spoken of in the same context as the Pokotia Monolith (or Monument), a stone statue standing 1.3 m (4 ft. 3 in.) tall and closely resembling the otherworldly, stylized, and heavily-eroded sculptures of nearby Tiwanaku (Tiahuanaco). According to alternative archaeologists and ancient astronaut theorists, this statue is covered in Sumerian writing, just like the Fuente Magna bowl.

(...)

Afrocentrism is a false pseudoscience that shares much in common with the ancient astronaut theory. Both propose a single explanation for ancient history (African dominance or space aliens) and both use almost identical evidence to support the notion that the cultural achievements of native peoples elsewhere in the world should be ascribed to the direct intervention or influence of African migrants or space aliens. As seen with Dr. Winters, as well as the Nuwabian movement, some Afrocentrists also cross over into ancient alien theorizing as a way of justifying the special nature of African peoples.

So, the alleged Sumerian writing on the Pokotia Monolith is little more than the wish-fulfillment projection of an Afrocentrist who saw what he wanted to see in ambiguous markings because of a pre-determined theory that itself rested on no firm evidence.

Naturally this is good enough proof for alien enthusiast websites and David Childress, who wrote an article about the monolith last year. As the old saying goes, consider the source.

http://www.jasoncola...a-monolith.html

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Of course America had been discovered before Columbus, but it had always been hushed up"...Oscar Wilde.

Oscar wilde was a genius....
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oscar wilde was a genius....

Or he just said what was known by everyone in his time: that the Native Americans discovered it first.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, given the implications, it requires further analysis, but this time things could be slightly different from other researches and findigs.

Consider that Eric Boeda is one of the most authoritative European researchers and anthropologists of our times, so, if HE writes something like this, the least we can do is listen to him and think deeply before replying.

I'd agree that further analysis is needed. I only meant to comment on the appearance of the supposed tools. That they are extraordinarily crude and appear to be possible by way of gravel faulting. That the specific type of stone came from Kms away is an interesting bit of evidence, but still not final proof. There is any number of ways for stones to have been moved around. I'm not very familiar with the region so don't know what kind of animals and plants live there, or what the watercourses look like, but in other parts of the world, animals and water could move stones that distance easily.

I meant no disrespect to Mr Boeda, but was commenting on the physical appearance of the stones alone. Perhaps he has much better examples and they simply have not been published? I don't know. But, from what I've read these "tools" are still suspect by a large percentage of the archeological society.

To me sometimes we forget that we're not experts (at least, I can't consider me one), but (at the very best) well educated people with a well developed thinking method.

It's always a good thing to think with our own minds and don't follow blindly what others say, but we have to consider that if someone who did this job for more than 30 years, who's spent three years on site and, like I wrote, is one of the most influential anthropoligists alive, well, maybe he knows what he's talking about and more than we do.

I certainly am not a skilled archeologist, so I'm not an expert. I do however have 40+ years of outdoor experience looking at stones and streams and woodlands and whatnot, and I have seen many, many stones that are simple fractures that look like these "tools".

I agree it depends on the context of where the stones were found to show that they are human in their placement, use or manufacture. For example, if there are flakes at the site, or if the stones were all layed out along a wall, or if they were found with bones/animal remains nearby, that would be great contextual evidence.

And who knows, maybe you've just missed a great finding in Oregon, because of your untrained eye (obviously no offense intended, it's really hard to recognize stone tools)!

That's why I'm very interested in the finding, because Boeda has a very well trained eye (much more than many of his collegues)!

No offense taken...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decade more, decade less.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oscar wilde was a genius....

I think his implication is that it's too bad is wasn't hushed up again the last time it was discovered. (Or maybe I'm explaining something that's patently obvious. If so I apologize).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there are no human remains found that are dated 20,000 years ago, the oldest bones found so far are about 14,000 years ago.

http://news.national...-skeletons.html

Since there have been no human remains found that old, the tools MUST be from Bigfoot or possibly Aliens!!!!!

Teasing!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Qoute-Since there have been no human remains found that old, the tools MUST be from Bigfoot or possibly Aliens!!!!!

Other archaeologists dispute the conclusion of the so called tools, suggesting that the artifacts are natural and not human-made.Seems to me you`ve got to have a few human bones lying around to go with those tools:):):)

Edited by docyabut2
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Human bones would do the trick; absent that, association of the "tools" with a tool-making site or with a butchering site. In both cases persuading the unpersuaded would be difficult as such "associations" are also difficult to be sure of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there are no human remains found that are dated 20,000 years ago, the oldest bones found so far are about 14,000 years ago.

http://news.national...-skeletons.html

cool. .. from the ^ article : "The shape of the skulls has led us to believe that Eva and the others have more of an affinity with people from South Asia than North Asia," González explained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cool. .. from the ^ article : "The shape of the skulls has led us to believe that Eva and the others have more of an affinity with people from South Asia than North Asia," González explained.

I read something odd in that article:

The polar ice caps melted dramatically 8,000 to 9,000 years ago, causing sea levels to rise hundreds of feet and submerging the burial grounds of the skeletons. Stalactites and stalagmites then grew around the remains, preventing them from being washed out to sea.

Can stalactites and stalagmites grow underwater?? That's a new one for me....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even see the second page! But ,right, the stalactites and stalagmites were there Before the water rose.

on a side note : from what i can gather, Except for a huge ice shelf on the coast of 'Alaska' the Pacific coast of the americas remained Ice Free during the last Glacial Maximum???

during that time... 22,000 years ago???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.