This gives plenty of time for sites found throughout the Americas to have been created and populated and to have developed.

For example Tiahuanaco etc.

Thanks for posting this information.
It's very fascinating that it took over 30 years to verify this finding.

Good to see this verified as it's my belief that man was here much earlier than even 14,000 years ago, perhaps as far back the last interglacial period.
It looks like the bone healed around the point meaning the animal lived for years after being speared, no doubt a common occurrence with such primitive weapons as tactics as they employed. Still, the atl-atl was a huge step up from hand-thrown shafts and probably gave early man the critical edge in survival.

very cool - the more we learn the more bizzare the possibilities. Since the Earth is in constant recycle mode (tectonic plates) so much evidence of our real history has been subducted and melted back into the earth. Thanks for the post !

So around 800 years before clovis people even showed up, someone was hunting down mastodons. Maybe they'll give more credit to the pre-clovis points they're finding.

Originally posted by NorthStreet1
very cool - the more we learn the more bizzare the possibilities. Since the Earth is in constant recycle mode (tectonic plates) so much evidence of our real history has been subducted and melted back into the earth. Thanks for the post !

Subduction is very very slow and there are still parts of the earth that are billions of years old and have not gone thru that process. Mankinds present here is put a tiny sliver of time compared to geologic time.

S+F

Great post OP.

Our history is a lot longer and more mysterious than most people know.

And its awesome!

Mad man of the North

S & F

Another good find

Yes this same subject is being talked about elsewhere too. Interestly the debate is more about how that bone tipped spear got into the animal - ie the method of hunting used and how it ended up where it was and why the attack didn't kill the animal (the spear point lodged in a rib)

if you ask me...human ancient history as taught is wrong plain and simple...it has been and will be wrong for a long time...there are so many unknowns and mystery's unexplained by supposed fact that I begin to think that a good portion of it is fiction and entirely devoid of fact...

when men tell stories...they tend to fabricate or make up many parts of it...just think of the bible...do you really think those are the words of god? or the words of men speaking for god? the same goes for much of supposed ancient history...

there is much we don't know that we are taught as fact...history one of the big ones...just think about it...

there is so much we think we know...that we truly don't know...

Originally posted by here4awhile
if you ask me...human ancient history as taught is wrong plain and simple...it has been and will be wrong for a long time...there are so many unknowns and mystery's unexplained by supposed fact that I begin to think that a good portion of it is fiction and entirely devoid of fact...

when men tell stories...they tend to fabricate or make up many parts of it...just think of the bible...do you really think those are the words of god? or the words of men speaking for god? the same goes for much of supposed ancient history...

there is much we don't know that we are taught as fact...history one of the big ones...just think about it...

there is so much we think we know...that we truly don't know...

Well history as 'taught' is different in every country and often by college or school and even by the individual instructor and the writer of books and blogs.

Our knowledge of history is only an approximation of what actually occurs - we do well on the big items but poorly on the details. Archaeology provides (analogy) a 2-D black and white picture of of a 3-D colour reality. It can get some things, many major things but not all the details, we speculate and theorise over the rest!

Examples: we know Indonesians got to Madascagar, but we don't know exactly when and we certainly don't know why they did so. We know the Mayan cities slowly fell apart but not the specific reasons, We know we domesticate crops but not exactly when, how and why, etc

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This gives plenty of time for sites found throughout the Americas to have been created and populated and to have developed.

For example Tiahuanaco etc.

Thanks for posting this information.
It's very fascinating that it took over 30 years to verify this finding.

Not really, it confirms what I have said all along. Scientists will supress evidence that conflicts with what they believe because it renders their work useless. No one wants to be useless, better to sell a lie than to admit they are wrong.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This gives plenty of time for sites found throughout the Americas to have been created and populated and to have developed.

For example Tiahuanaco etc.

Thanks for posting this information.
It's very fascinating that it took over 30 years to verify this finding.

Not really, it confirms what I have said all along. Scientists will supress evidence that conflicts with what they believe because it renders their work useless. No one wants to be useless, better to sell a lie than to admit they are wrong.

I see.

So this material was published by non-scientists, then.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

I see.

So this material was published by non-scientists, then.

Harte

Hey Harte you going out for the Olympic sarcasm team this year? lol, but I do agree with your opinion

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Harte

I see.

So this material was published by non-scientists, then.

Harte

Hey Harte you going out for the Olympic sarcasm team this year? lol, but I do agree with your opinion

I'd love to, but I can't.

You see, I've gone professional.

Harte