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.

 

Scientists deliver blow to Clovis myth about how people arrived in America

page: 2
59
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

but if you can build boats and navigate you will move to warmer climes first, then collect vittels for a longer, or indeterminable quest or voyage. why move along the same latitudes if you have the mobility to improve your harsh circumstances?




posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: username74

the fact that seafaring vessels, if only coastal, were being constructed means they were not on solid ice sheet. or had not recently been.
incidently, an old guy i know went walking in the straits in the 50s, and he said they had to carry 2 poles, one on each shoulder, attached to their belts in case they went through the ice, so thats apparently the procedure for crossing sea ice



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: username74Then tell me why don't the Inuit move to warmer climes. Because there is already other people there. I didn't say they could navigate. If you have a boat but do not know how to navigate (as our earlier ancestors) you sail close to the shore, never leaving sight of land or ice sheet for that matter. Also if your tribe is living on the edge of civilisation as they know it, as soon as the tribe gets too large a few people HAVE too explore into new regions. Tribal living is not and never was static.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

well i think those warmer climes are probably full, but i see your point, and the answer is a sense of belonging or culture but there has to be a critical mass of population to create that initially, but i suppose thats debatable.
"If you have a boat but do not know how to navigate (as our earlier ancestors)"
now that would be debatable as far as the movements of sun and stars, localised knowledge, currents, not so much.
"Also if your tribe is living on the edge of civilisation as they know it"
and not to start a fight but thats the whole of the why dont the inuits go to california?
whether you are wandering through an empty earth or whether you have to fight to establish yourselves in a new territory.
i suppose thats why inuits dont move so much its established. its terratorial
and from the other side, why would nomads, born on the move decide one day to stop, dead, forever.
so we could maybe assume this was an ongoing spread, and travelling was our original modus operandi, born on the move, forever following the routes of those who went before and that on coasts, territory suffered under natural bottlenecks and people took the plunge, it implies massive ecological drivers and triggers.

edit on 11-8-2016 by username74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
Controversial finding such as the true age of some Peruvian sites may be finally coming within realistic striking distance. Professor Arthur Poznansky examined the ruins of Tiahuanako (Tiwanaku) in Bolivia (megalithic ruins of Kalasaya and Puma Punku) for forty years

His dates were based on pseudo historic methods and were completely shown to be false when the sites radiocarbon dates were issued...



Carbon-14 Dating puts the first period of Tiahuanaco back to 1,700 BC, the second period to 360 BC, and the third era from 133-374 AD to 1,200 AD



originally posted by: SLAYER69
German cosmologist Edmund Kiss, established that these ancient enigmatic structures of giant stone blocks had been built somewhere around 14-17 thousand years ago.

he suggested that the ruins were built by prehistoric Nordic Thulians more than 17,000 years ago, any updates on that ?

What I don't understand, is how you even slightly think that your usual misidentified fringer crap, fits into a scientific argument...
You posted two sources as if they were some kind of support, clearly holding back relevant information which shows them to be less than useless and even ridiculous
Are you deliberately not telling everyone everything, Just another intellectual fraudster like Hancock ?



BTW, Native North Americans have been saying for years that they paddled in canoes all the way from the previous world, but no one ever listens to them

edit on 11-8-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

She did indeed and her name was Virginia Steel McIntyre she seriously upset people with her date findings regarding the Hueyatlaco site and she was thereafter shunned and discredited, but she remains a woman I admire for her tenacity in sticking to her guns even though it cost her her career



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

steen



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Oldtimer2

The accepted archaeological world isn't very big. So there isn't really a 'main stream' like on most other sciences or media or what ever.
The clovis theory is based off a ton of evidence. Hard, hold in your hands evidence that's what archaeologist dig up. And it's not just archaeologist it's anthropologist, historian and a lot other fields that contribute evidence. It'll be hard to disprove it.

Sorry, "Clovis First" is toast. Archaeologists dug deeper, new sites have emerged, dating techniques have improved. It's toast.
edit on 11-8-2016 by JohnnyCanuck because: Yes!



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Oldtimer2

The accepted archaeological world isn't very big. So there isn't really a 'main stream' like on most other sciences or media or what ever.
The clovis theory is based off a ton of evidence. Hard, hold in your hands evidence that's what archaeologist dig up. And it's not just archaeologist it's anthropologist, historian and a lot other fields that contribute evidence. It'll be hard to disprove it.

Sorry, "Clovis First" is toast. Archaeologists dug deeper, new sites have emerged, dating techniques have improved. It's toast.


Dating techniques such as what has improved?
Pretty much all the dating methods were stream lined back in the 90's and proven to be very accurate.
What about mammoth migration?
Did the mammoth just wander over the ice straight and humans did not?

The Clovis theory may not have been the only means how humans got over to North America, but a large number of humans DID use the ice bridges to cross over. People are just picking and choosing.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
S&F, nice find, interested to hear more on it as it develops.

Guess it would explain the pre Clovis findings;
One source



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Should've had you on my list as well....

Love your posts!

-Chris



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Christosterone
Slayer:
You, Harte, Hanslune, Buster(brilliant, albeit polar opposite of me) and Phage are why I love this site...

Your posts are always articulate, informative and the speculative nature of your assertions are always grounded in evidence-based hypotheses...

I have no point in this post other than to express my appreciation for your consistent, excellent contributions to the fabric of ATS...

-Christosterone

High praise, but I'd like to point out that Slayer should (and probably does) know better than to use Posnansky's date for Tiahuanaco.
I'll mark that gaffe up to just a quick grab for an early date.
There are sites in the Americas that are almost as old as Posnansky's guess, though.

Let us all please note that the Clovis Culture isn't known for building temples and forts out of megaliths.

Harte
edit on 8/11/2016 by Harte because: of the wonderful things he does!



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Thanks!! That's exactly who I was thinking of. With her name, I found this video I remembered her from on YouTube.



The guy talking about a knowledge filter from 6:46 to 7:21 should be of interest to folks reading this thread.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Oldtimer2

The accepted archaeological world isn't very big. So there isn't really a 'main stream' like on most other sciences or media or what ever.
The clovis theory is based off a ton of evidence. Hard, hold in your hands evidence that's what archaeologist dig up. And it's not just archaeologist it's anthropologist, historian and a lot other fields that contribute evidence. It'll be hard to disprove it.

Sorry, "Clovis First" is toast. Archaeologists dug deeper, new sites have emerged, dating techniques have improved. It's toast.


Dating techniques such as what has improved?
Pretty much all the dating methods were stream lined back in the 90's and proven to be very accurate.

The Clovis First Hypothesis predates the invention of C14 dating by decades.


originally posted by: strongfpWhat about mammoth migration?
Did the mammoth just wander over the ice straight and humans did not?

Mammoths started migrating here almost 2 million years ago. Possibly H. Erectus could have come with them (not very likely) but there weren't any modern humans alive that long ago.


originally posted by: strongfpThe Clovis theory may not have been the only means how humans got over to North America, but a large number of humans DID use the ice bridges to cross over.

Could be. But they weren't the first. That's the point.

Personally, I think the first Americans came by boat, most likely along the coast.

Harte



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Thanks for posting Slayer, I was meaning to but got busy.
What I find funny , is that the botanists and paleontologists have been saying for a couple of decades that the "ice free corridor" was not habitable early enough to account for the early site in the new world, for a couple of decades now.
The community is just starting to pull its head out of the proverbial "cover sands".
There were multiple large forays into the new world, some people came early by boat and some came overland.
In its current iteration the kelp highway theory has some holes in it, namely how does a fishing, shell fish gathering maritime society, get to a place all the way across a continent, before they arrived in said continent.
Word has it that Goodyear will be publishing dates from Topper, in the next month or two, that are in the 35-50+kya range.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
The guy talking about a knowledge filter from 6:46 to 7:21 should be of interest to folks reading this thread.


That guy is a Hindu creationist, he would like you to believe that there is a knowledge filter preventing non Hindu creationists from seeing that man has been around for 100s of millions of years, based pretty much on a selective reading of Hindu texts, see he doesn't have any credible evidence, just waffle to explain why he doesn't have any evidence.

Meanwhile the scientific world marches on...



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

2 million years ago? What?
not even close, the oldest ancestors of the mammoth were roughly that old, but they didn't migrate until relatively recently to the america's. If they migrated here 2 million years ago.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: 727Sky
South America and maybe central America would be the place to look for older ruins in this part of the world.

Didn't some female archaeologist find such evidence ... and subsequently had her reputation smeared and her career destroyed?


She found a reading that was wildly off-date and later found to be incorrect in repeated tests (she was a grad student at the time.) She's still working as a geologist, last I looked. en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 11-8-2016 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

They were Proto Europeans , and they Crossed the Northern Atlantic from Portugal around 20,000 Years ago following the Seal Migration on the Ice Sheet and landed in North America , Native American DNA Confirms this . So I have Heard .
edit on 11-8-2016 by Zanti Misfit because: spelling



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I've maintained the firsts came from the west, Australia etc and hit Easter Island and then Chile.

Made their way north.

Maybe even 50 or 60k yrs ago.

Whoa! Did I just say that?

No problem that people came over from europe, the N&S American continents are pretty damn big.








 
59
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join