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.

 

South American site reports presence of man 28,000 years ago

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
A site is being excavated in Creek Willow City, north of Montevide, Uruguay which is bringing up some evidence of man being in South America well before the general consensus presently holds.



The prevailing theory suggests that the human population in America has some 12,000 or 13,000 years. "In the journal Science published a few evidences of a site in Texas with about 15,500 years," says paleontologist. "We are going to raise, if things go as they have to go, that time is going to double, "he says. Fa Farina said that the demands of the academy are greater as it aims to go against the establishment.


There are alternative suggestions of older dates but in general the consensus is that this is the age range for man in the Americas


his hypothesis, which would indicate twice the length of human settlement in America stems from the finding of an animal collected in Biscayne collarbone in 1997. In 2001, Alfonso Arribas Spanish paleontologist found this fossil human brands and with the finding published Fariña.

The confirmation came in 2005, when the material was sent for study with carbon-14 to the laboratory Beta Analytic in Miami, USA. Two years later, the results obtained with the clavicle were published by Fariña and Castilla (one of the students who participated in the excavation of bones).


Cut marks on extinct animals; hopefully the microscopic work has shown the 'V' cut of a tool versus the 'U' cut of a carnivores teeth!




English translation

Tool cut marks on animal bones

Orginal report in Spanish




posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
land animal carnivors would universally have teeth marks that would leave a U shaped gouge in the bone

but don't sharks teeth have chisel shaped V edges that might be mistaken for sharp flint knives cutting into the bone



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Considering the earth is believed to be 5 billion years old, I am not surprised if we have had many advanced civilizations wiped off of this earth and rebuilt again.
We forget alot more than we will ever learn I believe.
Bodies decompose and turn to ash, I don't think we will find much evidence that could be used.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Considering the earth is believed to be 5 billion years old, I am not surprised if we have had many advanced civilizations wiped off of this earth and rebuilt again.
We forget alot more than we will ever learn I believe.
Bodies decompose and turn to ash, I don't think we will find much evidence that could be used.


Unfortunately the geological, archaeological and other sciences have found no such traces of these 'advanced civilizations'.

The recycle of civilizations is a nice idea but has no evidence to support it



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


No evidence... I believe that about %1 or %2 of everything that did exist at one time would eventually (sorry, I can't remember where I read that or I'd be more than happy to provide a source) become a fossil. That leaves well over %90 of everything in the past that would have completely deteriorated. So given that, we will never know half of some of these advanced civilizations that I believe existed at one time.

I believe that the Human race is a lot older than what is commonly believed.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Considering the earth is believed to be 5 billion years old, I am not surprised if we have had many advanced civilizations wiped off of this earth and rebuilt again.
We forget alot more than we will ever learn I believe.
Bodies decompose and turn to ash, I don't think we will find much evidence that could be used.


Unfortunately the geological, archaeological and other sciences have found no such traces of these 'advanced civilizations'.

The recycle of civilizations is a nice idea but has no evidence to support it


Actually there is some evidence to support the idea, modern academics just ignore and dismiss that evidence; the accounts of ancient people, as the ramblings of superstitious imbeciles.

For instance, I remember watching a show called "machines of the gods," I believe it was called, where they went back and looked at the written accounts of ancient greek temples and then, had scientist discuss the accounts. The thing I found funny about the show is you would listen to accounts of ancient temples with advanced clock work mechanisms, statues that used the properties of load stone and iron to repel and attract each other, and even descriptions of electricity and the then you would listen to some modern arrogant egghead say, "yeah sure they had load stones and crude magnets, but they were using them to move statues and they may have had some kind of crude electricity, but they were just using it to electroplate statues and things, but they didn't REALLY UNDERSTAND magnetism and electricity like WE DO.

The point is there is a lot of ancient accounts of at least some people having some rather interesting knowledge and even some interesting stuff, problem is modern academia just laughs at it, calls it myth; which they basically equate to the mad ramblings of an idiot cousin; "Aww isn't that cute the idiot is talking about people flying around in machines....how precious."

On top of that the discovery of ancient advanced civilizations comes down to how long it has been since the civilization failed and the level of technology they had. I mean it won't take all that long in the scale of time for our cars and skyscrapers and etc to break down and disappear, add to that the fact that humans by definition are scavengers and tend to tear apart and recycle old unused stuff, it wouldn't surprise me at all if after a few thousand years after our civilizations collapse there is very little physical evidence left to support it's existence.

The level of technology is important too, I mean for instance I would consider a global seafaring civilization to be pretty advanced and all you really need for that is; large scale ships and a means of navigation; "stars or compass" and if that civilization collapsed there would probably be very little evidence for it, because frankly it is hard for us to find ship wreaks even when we know kind of where they were when they sank. Add to that the fact that an advanced naval civilization would be mainly centered on the coastlines of the continents and we have many, many, many sunken cities and what appear to be sunken cities off the coasts of most of the continents, then I would not dismiss the idea so quick. Add to that their are symbols and ideas that seem to transcend place and culture and seem to be global, I would say the odds of an ancient global civilization really isn't all that far fetched and actually probably pretty probable as well. Just because a small group of europeans in the dark age, were taught; that the world was flat and sea monsters would eat you if you strayed to far from home, by their leaders, the whole world and many ancient civilizations did not hold that belief. Of course I guess you could argue that a global seafaring civilization may not be advanced enough to be considered advanced, but it is in my book.

And finally the fact is looking at the fossil and archaeological record is like looking at few squares torn out of an old photograph it only represents a very small fraction of the history that has passed and the people and animals that have lived, not everything becomes a fossil or an artifact; most just decay or rust. Ask yourself this how many ancient roman swords do we have? And, how many of the swords that were carried into battle along side them either rusted away to nothing or were remelted and recycled down through time.

One of the greatest weaknesses of modern academia is it's arrogance, it is one thing to not believe something because there is no evidence for it, it's another to refuse to look for the evidence, because you simply can not believe it to be true.


edit on 3-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typos

edit on 3-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typo



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by Hanslune
 


No evidence... I believe that about %1 or %2 of everything that did exist at one time would eventually (sorry, I can't remember where I read that or I'd be more than happy to provide a source) become a fossil. That leaves well over %90 of everything in the past that would have completely deteriorated. So given that, we will never know half of some of these advanced civilizations that I believe existed at one time.

I believe that the Human race is a lot older than what is commonly believed.


The rule of thumb in archaeology is that .99999% of stuff will survive, and the same for that stuff that does survive will be of a type of material that will fossilize. The big multiplier is time and number of chances. About 65 billion people since about 200,000 have lived and died. You can see how many we have recovered, bits a pieces of about 2,000 individuals (I believe) of archaic HSS and HSN, earlier than that we have even fewer pieces


That is a common belief on ATS but we have no evidence to support it (humans are older than commonly believed)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Actually there is some evidence to support the idea, modern academics just ignore and dismiss that evidence; the accounts of ancient people, as the ramblings of superstitious imbeciles.


That poor characterization of the ancients is purely yours and not that of the vast majority of scientists. I guess you've never heard of the people who study myths? Johnson etc?


For instance, I remember watching a show called "machines of the gods," I believe it was called, where they went back and looked at the written accounts of ancient greek temples and then, had scientist discuss the accounts. The thing I found funny about the show is you would listen to accounts of ancient temples with advanced clock work mechanisms, statues that used the properties of load stone and iron to repel and attract each other, and even descriptions of electricity and the then you would listen to some modern arrogant egghead say, "yeah sure they had load stones and crude magnets, but they were using them to move statues and they may have had some kind of crude electricity, but they were just using it to electroplate statues and things, but they didn't REALLY UNDERSTAND magnetism and electricity like WE DO.


Yes in Alexandria, in a few limited instances, they used such tricks, they had no idea about magnetism or how electicity works. You seem to be thinking about the Baghdad 'battery' it could have held a charge but there is not evidence that it was used for that. This was also in the classical era and not the ancient



On top of that the discovery of ancient advanced civilizations comes down to how long it has been since the civilization failed and the level of technology they had. I mean it won't take all that long in the scale of time for our cars and skyscrapers and etc to break down and disappear, add to that the fact that humans by definition are scavengers and tend to tear apart and recycle old unused stuff, it wouldn't surprise me at all if after a few thousand years after our civilizations collapse there is very little physical evidence left to support it's existence.


Nope, incorrect the archaeological imprint of a civilization will last for tens of millions of years, go take a ceramic plate and bury it in your yard. With luck that same plate, crushed but recognizable will be found 10,000,000 years from how and will be recognized for the work of a civilization capable of making ceramics.

Question for you, what is the age of the oldest intact wooden spear found?


snip a lot of material


We can find shipwrecks and no there is no evidence that civilizations 'grew up' on shore lines, there is ample evidence they did so on rivers. If they were on coast lines then they failed to move inland....


And finally the fact is looking at the fossil and archaeological record is like looking at few squares torn out of an old photograph it only represents a very small fraction of the history that has passed and the people and animals that have lived, not everything becomes a fossil or an artifact; most just decay or rust. Ask yourself this how many ancient roman swords do we have? And, how many of the swords that were carried into battle along side them either rusted away to nothing or were remelted and recycled down through time.


Several hundred blades I would suppose


One of the greatest weaknesses of modern academia is it's arrogance, it is one thing to not believe something because there is no evidence for it, it's another to refuse to look for the evidence, because you simply can not believe it to be true.


One of the greatest weaknesses of fringe is its arrogance is not believing that science looks at stuff, they do but they don't find evidence of aliens and advanced humans.

If they don't look at stuff why are their constant changes be made? How where the Hobbit and Denisovan found?



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by Hanslune
 


No evidence... I believe that about %1 or %2 of everything that did exist at one time would eventually (sorry, I can't remember where I read that or I'd be more than happy to provide a source) become a fossil. That leaves well over %90 of everything in the past that would have completely deteriorated. So given that, we will never know half of some of these advanced civilizations that I believe existed at one time.

I believe that the Human race is a lot older than what is commonly believed.


The rule of thumb in archaeology is that .99999% of stuff will survive, and the same for that stuff that does survive will be of a type of material that will fossilize. The big multiplier is time and number of chances. About 65 billion people since about 200,000 have lived and died. You can see how many we have recovered, bits a pieces of about 2,000 individuals (I believe) of archaic HSS and HSN, earlier than that we have even fewer pieces


That is a common belief on ATS but we have no evidence to support it (humans are older than commonly believed)


Oh I guess my post was to long for you to respond to. No worries.

But, there is some evidence, most is just dismissed offhand by academia, because they "already know" how old everything is and "already know" what is possible and what happened.

After, ancient egyptian mummies stuffed with coca leaves; wonder where they got those from. Rossylyn chapel with frescoes containing images of what appear to be maize, built before columbus made his journey; wow wonder how they knew about that. But, oh yeah there was no sea trade or contact between ancient civilizations in the Americas and the rest of the world; why?, because some egghead tells you so.

Then look at the sphinx and the suggestion that it shows evidence of water erosion, yet academia dismisses it, why? because Academia "knows" when it was constructed so it can't possibly be true, because they can't possibly be wrong. Not to mention the fact that if they did admit water erosion then another branch of science would smash their preconceived view of ancient egypt and the sphinx. After all scientists know the last time there was significant rain fall in egypt and it was pretty close to the last peak in the ice age, making man and civilization far older, them they "know" it is.


Edit* Sorry you responded while I was typing this up and posting it. XD Thank you for your response and the disscusion

edit on 3-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: edit



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by prisoneronashipoffools

But, there is some evidence, most is just dismissed offhand by academia, because they "already know" how old everything is and "already know" what is possible and what happened.


Strawman argument, you are assigning a state of mind you cannot possibly know and from the evidence available that the profession you dislike doesn't do that, makes it incorrect


After, ancient egyptian mummies stuffed with coca leaves; wonder where they got those from. Rossylyn chapel with frescoes containing images of what appear to be maize, built before columbus made his journey; wow wonder how they knew about that. But, oh yeah there was no sea trade or contact between ancient civilizations in the Americas and the rest of the world; why?, because some egghead tells you so.


Do a search and you'll find that further investigation found the answer to the Cocaine mummies. Again you seem to just take what you want to believe and then stop all research, or deny that research has taken place. So what was the outcome of the coc aine mummies?

Did you read

Counsell, D. C. 2008 "Intoxicants in Ancient Egypt? Opium, nymphea, coca, and tobacco," pp. 195-215 In David, A. R. ed. Egyptian Mummies and Modern Science Cambridge: Cambridge University Press



Then look at the sphinx and the suggestion that it shows evidence of water erosion, yet academia dismisses it, why?


Because others came up with other reasons for that erosion - or do you just automatically reject research you don't like?


because Academia "knows" when it was constructed so it can't possibly be true, because they can't possibly be wrong.


No they have theory on when it was constructed. As soon as evidence shows up that counters it the theory will be recast, happens all the time, sure things get proven wrong all the time - like just here I've shown you are wrong


Not to mention the fact that if they did admit water erosion then another branch of science would smash their preconceived view of ancient egypt and the sphinx. After all scientists know the last time there was significant rain fall in egypt and it was pretty close to the last peak in the ice age, making man and civilization far older, them they "know" it is.


See above you appear to need to read more about the debate on the Sphinx, you are ill informed to its depths and counter-evidence




edit on 3/3/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 





That poor characterization of the ancients is purely yours and not that of the vast majority of scientists. I guess you've never heard of the people who study myths? Johnson etc?


No, it's not my characterization; I am not saying that their are not scientists who study myths that may see their value, what I am saying is that they dismiss most of what is written as impossible tales and exaggerations. In fact if you do read the discussions of myths you will often see scientists outright dismissing the claims or even more often saying that is just the colorful exaggeration of ancient storytellers. That is not my opinion, but is what is often done and said. * Edit Another good example of that is Archimedes' death ray. Many scientists for quite awhile, have dismissed it as a novel idea but impractical and even went so far as saying archimedes couldn't possibly have built one. Of course in recent times one of our modern scientists was able to replicate the effect in principle using techniques that Archimedes had and suddenly science gives his writings on the matter more credence.



Yes in Alexandria, in a few limited instances, they used such tricks, they had no idea about magnetism or how electicity works. You seem to be thinking about the Baghdad 'battery' it could have held a charge but there is not evidence that it was used for that. This was also in the classical era and not the ancient


Though, the show focused primarily on Greece there are many similar accounts and descriptions that cover many civilizations of the ancient world.I know everyone likes to focus on the baghdad battery but no that is not what I was mentioning. What I was referencing was the fact that one of the temples of Zues had large copper spires to catch lighting and transfer it into the temple. One of the funny things is the writings they were quoting actually said the spires were designed to attract rain. Of course the academics had a good laugh at that idea, but then you look at Dubai with their ionizing towers and the evidence that in fact it is increasing rainfall to some degree maybe that ancient account isn't so laughable. Edit* In fact I would suggest it may be the ancients actually understood a great deal more then we give them credit for.



Nope, incorrect the archaeological imprint of a civilization will last for tens of millions of years, go take a ceramic plate and bury it in your yard. With luck that same plate, crushed but recognizable will be found 10,000,000 years from how and will be recognized for the work of a civilization capable of making ceramics.


Yes ceramics may last a long time like stone and clay tablets as well, but how well does metal and paper last. One artifact I have always found interesting is the reported "spear of longinus" and it having been examined the scientist say that in no way is the current spear head that old, but there is a piece of rusted corroded metal inside of it that may indeed be a roman spear head. Question is if people have long believed that spearhead to be special, why couldn't they preserve it better, they still seemed to let it corrode to the point they had to make a new spear head around it just to keep it from rusting away to nothing.




We can find shipwrecks and no there is no evidence that civilizations 'grew up' on shore lines, there is ample evidence they did so on rivers. If they were on coast lines then they failed to move inland....


Umm who said they had to "grow up" on the shoreline, that is your assumption, and to act like there wasn't sea faring civilizations in ancient time is ludicrous, because egypt, rome etc all traded with each using ships. The fact is they could easily have sailed farther then they did and I would say the mummies they have found with coca leaves in thems suggest there was some trade between the americas and egypt at some point even if it wasn't widespread.



Do a search and you'll find that further investigation found the answer to the Cocaine mummies. Again you seem to just take what you want to believe and then stop all research, or deny that research has taken place. So what was the outcome of the coc aine mummies? Did you read Counsell, D. C. 2008 "Intoxicants in Ancient Egypt? Opium, nymphea, coca, and tobacco," pp. 195-215 In David, A. R. ed. Egyptian Mummies and Modern Science Cambridge: Cambridge University Press


No unfortunately I can not seem to read it online, so I will have to go to the library and see if they have a copy, but reading a chapter excerpt from the book, which is all I could find available, it didn't mention anything about it not being coca leaves. If you can point me to specific part of the book that says so I will be glad to look at it.




Several hundred blades I would suppose


Oh a couple of hundred, nice not even enough to outfit one legion. haha



One of the greatest weaknesses of fringe is its arrogance is not believing that science looks at stuff, they do but they don't find evidence of aliens and advanced humans. If they don't look at stuff why are their constant changes be made? How where the Hobbit and Denisovan found?


They do look at new stuff, as long as it doesn't rock the already established boat. The hobbit is a nice example, look how many scientists argued that it was just a couple of mutant deformed humans and couldn't really be a new species of human.

Anyway thanks for you comments time and discussion.
edit on 3-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typos

edit on 3-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: correcting quote error

edit on 3-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: addition

edit on 3-3-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: addition



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Because we have built cities at places that would seem fitting to inhabit.
Gobekli tepi was buried... Whats to say advanced civilisations havent been buried under all our main cities. Not like we escavate them on a large scale...

Maybe the answers lie on the ocean floor, its ridiculous how little time weve spent actually going over our planet, there are so many undiscovered things... Thats a fact
edit on 3-3-2012 by SageBeno because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I think archaeologist have a really hard time, since they pretty much are fighting the Earth itself.

Let's face it, the Earth spends a lot of time covering things up:

Weather and biology (plant life), can weather things down, break up things, and bury them.
Volcanoes erupt, destroying evidence or will bury it.
Earthquakes destroy things and can swallow them up.

I remember watching "When People Are Gone" and was shocked at how fast things literally are destroyed quite easily by mother nature. Why I was shocked, I don't know since on the land behind me, a trailer was put down and was worked on until the person doing it ran out of money and the land was foreclosed on. Part of the roof was missing. In a 5 year period, it went from a trailer to a pile of rubble from rain, wind and plants getting their grip on it. The only thing I could recognize was the metal frame that it sat on, and that was rusting away quite well.

I'm not saying that I believe we had sophisticated advanced civilizations that would rival ours today in the past, but I am saying that evidence of ANY kind of civilization far enough back can be wiped away quite effectively by good ol' Mother Nature, given enough time and activity.

Archaeologist have to find these things, and put them together, trying to figure out what was there, who was there, and even why they were there. As they look, it does seem like the envelope for human kind gets pushed further and further back. However this is a slow process, and I'm pretty sure that if something is found that goes against what has already been established, a LOT of evidence needs to be presented in order to change things.

Archaeology is also hampered by other more Human things: Funding and Governments.

I imagine that Joe Archaeologist does not just grab a shovel, and fly off to somewhere in the world on a whim, and starts to dig.
Dig sites have to be funded (people have to eat, need equipment, shelter and transportation. The more remote the site, the more these things cost). That funding does not magically appear. They have to convince people to spend money on them, knowing that most of the money will never be returned most likely.

Permission: you can't just go dig anywhere you want. People and Governments don't take too kindly to someone just going and digging where they want without permission. Imagine if you will the reaction if a group of international archaeologist and students descend upon Arlington National Cemetery and begin digging up graves......without any permission from the US government, or surviving family members of those buried.

And many times a country's government is not going to give permission.

Last, there is the "career factor" to consider. Most main stream scientist have to be careful with what they say and what they publish. If they find something that goes against what most in their field believe, they need to have overwhelming evidence that will convince their peers in that field.
If they don't, and publish anyway, many end up kissing their careers goodbye. Funding will dry up, and permission to dig in places may never come forth.

I respect people's opinions and ideas, some are very facinating to think of. But just keep in mind that most scientist can't just declare something, and it's true.

In many ways, the peers in their field are just like people here on ATS:

Pics, or it didn't happen!




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
It seems scientists have a good grasp of human migration around the world using DNA. I wonder if this theory supports that one.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
It seems scientists have a good grasp of human migration around the world using DNA. I wonder if this theory supports that one.

I would say that we have a generalized idea about early human movements.
I just love this mtdna distribution map, I think JohnnyCanuk posted,

edit on 4-3-2012 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join