Originally posted by hippichick
I've had a theory for years about the "Winged serpent" of central american folk lore.
Quetzalcoatl or the winged serpent of legend was a tall, red-haired, bearded man who came from the sea with some followers and taught the native americans law, agriculture and medicine.

If you take the description of tall men with wings on their heads, a vessel with a serpent carved into its prow and mix it up over hundreds of years of oral story telling, a winged serpent would not be too far from the original. Quetzalcoatl left saying that he would return.

My theory says that vikings explored a lot more of the americas than conventional science admits. It seems logical to me that native americans would only be too glad to voyage with the god Quetzalcoatl and that they would eventually end up back in the Vikings' home land. This discovery of native american skeletons makes me more certain that Quetzalcoatl was a viking.

BTW. The accepted original inhabitants of the americas (asiatic peoples) are actually the second inhabitants of south america. The original inhabitants were a people similar to the second and third migrations of indigenous Australians. The asiatic people killed out most of the original south americans and drove the rest across the water to the islands of tierra del fuego. Unfortunately the very last two (maiden sisters) have now died and so the original south americans have gone into history. The Ainu of northern Japan are also originally from the same region of the sub-continent.

Originally posted by hippichick
I've had a theory for years about the "Winged serpent" of central american folk lore.
Quetzalcoatl or the winged serpent of legend was a tall, red-haired, bearded man who came from the sea with some followers and taught the native americans law, agriculture and medicine.

Originally posted by crgintx
Why is that so many fundamentalist skeptics always so quick to attack anythings that contradicts the established theory of history ?

Originally posted by crgintx
The history that is given to us about ancient civilizations are just theory and not scientific fact.

Originally posted by crgintx
It is very loosely supported by anecdotal evidence that is just as every bit as extremely subjective as Sitchin's, Von Daaniken's or Heyerdahl's theories.

Originally posted by crgintx
Graham Hancock is right, the human race has huge case of amnesia and there's way too much contradictory evidence to support other theories than the one being used to indoctrinate us by mainstream academia. Academia whose just as contradictory with itself as it with its alternatives.