It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Mysterious Mammoth Carcass Could Change Human History

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Medicator
a reply to: Leonidas Its not the "history", its the fact that museums dump boatloads of antiquities into the ocean if it causes friction in the timeline.



So to repeat my question: What history sources do you trust?




posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Frocharocha


A rounded hole through the interior jugal. Deep incisions along the ribs. Dents in the left scapula. A broken mandible.

Thats not proof positive. Injuries can be caused by fighting. A round hole could be a tusk, a broken jaw from head butting.

No stone points, cutting tools or charcoal blackened bones nearby?

As far as dating why didn't they date the 'frozen carcass' instead of the nearby soil?

Just observing…



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Frocharocha

When how and why they were built and by whom.



I presume you're an archaeologist - so why now present your evidence to substantiate your claim?



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Frocharocha


A rounded hole through the interior jugal. Deep incisions along the ribs. Dents in the left scapula. A broken mandible.

Thats not proof positive. Injuries can be caused by fighting. A round hole could be a tusk, a broken jaw from head butting.



Actually your comment is quite inaccurate. Forensic anthropology can determined very precisely how injuries were inflicted, if they were of human origin or caused by pachyderms fighting or even natural causes. I think the accuracy of the cause of death shouldn't be put into question.

Just my two cents.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Telos


I think the accuracy of the cause of death shouldn't be put into question.

Oh…



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
There's also the Colorado find from a couple years ago in that lake that's being made into a reservoir (or something- can't google atm).. they date the possibly butchered carcass at around 50,000 bp and found some cache rocks, too... suggesting a far longer presence in NA than thought,as well.

Not surprising, but cool actual evidence is mounting.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Medicator
a reply to: Leonidas Its not the "history", its the fact that museums dump boatloads of antiquities into the ocean if it causes friction in the timeline.


If you're going to make a ridiculous claim like that, you better have some evidence to back it up. Let's see it.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Oh right.
Mainstream archeaology.
I believe nothing of what they say our history is, none of it.

Oh, except for these mainstream archaeologists.

What nonsense.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to:

So... was Siberia a frozen tundra back in 42,000 BCE... or was there a period of warmth of say 100-500 years which allowed the nomadic hunter tribes to journey further North than other historical evidence shows.... ?

Only to return back to their familiar frontiers as the weather again changed back to being inhospitable for casual living with only rare food sources like a wandering, lost Mammoth

there are always anomalies to the 'norm'... out-of-place artifacts like this unique animal kill seems to be



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Frocharocha

It doesn't change human history, it shows that our ancestors adapted to Arctic life 10,000 years earlier than thought. But I still don't think they crossed to the Americas much earlier than we know, because the divergence time between Native Americans DNA and Siberian's DNA is 23,000 thousand years ago (maximum): science.sciencemag.org.../6250/aab3884



originally posted by: intrptr
As far as dating why didn't they date the 'frozen carcass' instead of the nearby soil?

Just observing…


They did. Radiocarbon dating of one of its leg bones confirmed its antiquity. It's in the study.
edit on 10-2-2016 by Agartha because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Frocharocha

Amazing find and yet another reason why it is time our history was rewritten accurately and not the fob off we have today.

I can't understand why the reluctance to let the fossil record tell us the truth about what we did in the past. Why the big secret?



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Oh right.

Mainstream archeaology.

I believe nothing of what they say our history is, none of it.


Then I guess it's a really good thing that this site has nothing to do with Archaeology, mainstream or any other stream. Instead, it would fall on paleontology to investigate this site. If you're going to disavow an entire scientific discipline, would it not benefit you to actually know some of the basics of what that discipline as well as what isactually studied?! It's certainly your prerogative to completely ignore an entire field of research but it looks a little silly when people mock something and haven't bothered to learn a damned thing about what they choose to mock.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Frocharocha

I believe it

I just don't know what it would mean to me

50000 years ago or + or - 15000

All I know is Egyptians/Mayans - Greek/Roman - Jesus - Medievil era - Colonization - WWI - WWII - Kardashians


It's all I can comprehend .. Anything before is whatever you say I believe



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 01:52 AM
link   
The thread title is incorrect.

Only The Doctor can change human history. However, new evidence can change our understanding of human history.


edit on 2/11/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   
The red haired Giants were the original inhabitants of the Americas I wonder if they did it?.






posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: EndOfDays77
The red haired Giants were the original inhabitants of the Americas I wonder if they did it?.

What red haired giants would those be? Sources, please.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Medicator
a reply to: Leonidas Its not the "history", its the fact that museums dump boatloads of antiquities into the ocean if it causes friction in the timeline.



Ah no they don't but by all means show us where museums dump antiquities into the ocean or did you make this up like I suspect.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: onequestion
Oh right.

Mainstream archeaology.

I believe nothing of what they say our history is, none of it.


Then I guess it's a really good thing that this site has nothing to do with Archaeology, mainstream or any other stream. Instead, it would fall on paleontology to investigate this site. If you're going to disavow an entire scientific discipline, would it not benefit you to actually know some of the basics of what that discipline as well as what isactually studied?! It's certainly your prerogative to completely ignore an entire field of research but it looks a little silly when people mock something and haven't bothered to learn a damned thing about what they choose to mock.


If it doesn't agree with their beliefs its made up. Luckily science doesn't involve beliefs.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Medicator
a reply to: Leonidas Its not the "history", its the fact that museums dump boatloads of antiquities into the ocean if it causes friction in the timeline.



Ah no they don't but by all means show us where museums dump antiquities into the ocean or did you make this up like I suspect.


Yeah seriously. If museums are dumping ancient finds in the ocean just cuz they don't like the picture it paints, I need to know where to start scuba diving. People can only follow the evidence. Sometimes it's limited and doesn't give the whole picture until more is found. I like the idea of a possible ancient advanced civilization, there's just not really anything beyond subjective evidence and wishful thinking based on art. I just don't see what folks could possibly gain by hiding evidence of past civilizations.
edit on 2 11 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Frocharocha

I already posted this information about a month ago


old topic

Worth spreading nonetheless.




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join