Twin Ancient Cultures On Opposite Sides Of The Pacific

page: 9
87
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


If Fighting is primitive, why live? You are fighting the inevitable death.

Also then, why did the North American pre-colonial civilizations build walls?

You don't build walls if you're peaceful.



what you say is simply your own opinion. And quite simply, an opinion that doesn't have a great deal of founding.


Any evidence for cities in North America usually include the presence of walls. And I don't know about you, but I wouldn't build walls around my city unless I felt threatened.
edit on 13-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


I would build the wall to keep bears out, and other natural predetors, but you gotta remember that Russians with the vikings settled there also, a long time ago before the europeans got there, and most likely they built the walls. before europeans got to north america there were plenty of other cultures that stumbled on this land, and they left their presence and structures there also.

And yeah it's my own oppinion, i never met these ancients or people from thousands of years ago, but at least i got my own oppinion,and it is not a negetive one at that, i know it doesn't change certain facts or theories, but you gotta keep an open mind you know what i mean.

And again, "If Fighting is primitive, why live? You are fighting the inevitable death."? we are all dead already, there is nothing to fight when it comes to that.




posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 



No proof for Russians. Some proof for Vikings. Neither of them were in the Mississippi Valley.

Yes, it's important to be open minded. But it is not wise to romanticize their history.

ALL people have slaughtered their fellow man. ALL people have fought wars and died in them. NO one is innocent of this.

Likewise, all people have painted, drawn, sung, and built. No one is unable to do this.


And you are not dead yet. You breathe. You breathe because your body is fighting death. If you are, then you wouldn't be contributing. As a German friend of mine would say, If you don't feel like doing anything, get out of the way of those that do.

To conclude with it, you can beat death. Both physically and spiritually. If you feel dead, chances are you are spiritually dead, and headed to physical death. Fix that and find a reason to live!
edit on 14-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


Yes, Yes, much like many of the "other" ancient finds here, we see commentaries out the ying yang, on how it's faked, it's a ruse, no someones trying to cash in, and then suddenly we'll find a written text, hidden in a Ancient fortress in Norway or Finland, (The area, not specifically one of these) and suddenly we have another source document which suddenly verifies the validity of the Kensington Rune Stone, and verifies the curious errors that the "SCHOLARS" claimed as indications it's a fake, as the actual Style of Runes from that period in question.

And the sad part is they still won't accept or stand down on their position

Kensington Runestone Decoded

Much is the case, when Barry Fell's name is mentioned, GOD rest his souls.

And even here, on a Website devoted to Ignorance Denied.


Ciao

Shane



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 



No proof for Russians. Some proof for Vikings. Neither of them were in the Mississippi Valley.

Yes, it's important to be open minded. But it is not wise to romanticize their history.

ALL people have slaughtered their fellow man. ALL people have fought wars and died in them. NO one is innocent of this.

Likewise, all people have painted, drawn, sung, and built. No one is unable to do this.


And you are not dead yet. If you are, then you wouldn't be contributing. As a German friend of mine would say, If you don't feel like doing anything, get out of the way of those that do.

To conclude with it, you can beat death. Both physically and spiritually. If you feel dead, chances are you are spiritually dead, and headed to physical death. Fix that! Live!
edit on 14-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


WOW WOW, i never said im dead, but technically were are born and die every second of everyday, what im trying to say is spiritually, there is no such thing as death, only moving forward, if u know what i mean? so there is nothing to fight if death is just an illusion.

Ofcourse no proof of russians, the vikings were their leaders, Russians had no leaders or a name, but Vikings when they discovered them instead of fighting them, they worked together. so if vikings went to north america so did the Russians, you just wont notice, b/c they became one and the same for some period of time.

I have not killed or slaughtered other beings, nor have i ever witnessed anyone do so(so i dont see others as savages willing to kill). I am not trying to romanticize their history, obviously they had problems everyone does, im just trying to build up to a conclusion that everything we were tought about natives being primitive savages is wrong.

and that the ancients were far more advanced then us, globaly, meaning they had no reason to fight one another, unless there was an outside influence to teach them to hurt, and be okay with hurting one another, if that makes sense?
edit on 14-8-2012 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 





and that the ancients were far more advanced then us, globaly, meaning they had no reason to fight one another, unless there was an outside influence to teach them to hurt, and be okay with hurting one another, if that makes sense?


No, that's not the way it works. You're trying to say that humans, on their own, can't possibly think of such things. This is a false idea. Every human being on this planet has the potential to think of how to create world peace, world domination, and world extermination, and every one of them have gone about their lives in such away as to accomplish their personal goals.

Humans are fully capable of being evil in their own right. Just push them hard enough. Be in environmental, external, or internal. They don't need anybody to tell them how to kill. They know how to from Birth.

There's a rather good quote from DS9.



Like it or not, you live in a 1st world country. Your belly is probably full, and your needs probably met for the most part. Even if you are at the bottom of the 99% of income in this country, you still get more money than most people around the world.

The fact is you are viewing a culture through your own lenses from your own time period. You are not viewing them from their own time period, and their own ways. You never had to fight off a bear to get some fish, and then go home to find your wife raped by the local neanderthals. You never had to organize your nearby tribes to fight off these subhumans so that you and your tribes can live in peace.

Nature, in its infinite creativity, fully gave early man all the push it needed to learn how to build spears, kill their fellow humans and near-humans alike, and dominate the planet. No external force was needed to teach them how to fight, kill, take revenge, or hate. Nature provided all this in all its wondrous diversity.


Mankind, at its core, is an input-output machine. And plenty of inputs logically come out with a violent output, including the extermination of entire genus' of early humans.


That is why you see human sacrifice globally. That is why you see cultures develop similar ways of doing business. That is why the first civilizations of this world all went to the grave, and that is why all civilizations today will just as so go into the grave. And that is why it is the responsibility of all humans to fight that path. You say death is an illusion? I say it is the nail on the coffin to the one who gives up the fight. I say the only illusion is man's angelic image among some. And just as any human, should civilization fall, you yourself would, in time, pick up some weapon and kill your fellow man if he threatened you. You would not let him kill you, and that is why death is not an illusion. It is an end. We fabricate tales without proof to try and convince us it is not the end, but it is the end. And that is why it is nature to offset that end as much as possible. You want to fight the fact you know deep inside that it is the end.





Now, I don't see how Russia was ever with the Vikings. They're a very isolated group, the Russians. And they were not a nation until recent history. Most of their history is being the greeting rug for Huns.


You actually have helped in the murder/enslavement of your fellow man. By using the internet, chances are someone out there is getting cancer for providing the coal that keeps your computer going. It's unavoidable. You're the cause, and you can't stop it.

It depends on how you define primitive savage. I consider anyone who doesn't live in a city to be one. You think the US South is far off? I don't. I'm probably being judgmental, and you'll have to forgive me.

See, you are assuming that primitive savage = bad. There are good savages, and bad savages. And even then the line gets blurred.


We see evidence of "good" primitive savages in the beautiful art on cave walls. We see evidence of "bad" savages by the sudden extermination of dozens of species, and other human species, all of the sudden out of no where between 50,000-20,000 years ago. Again, this is generic. Because some of them may have been bad and good in between.
edit on 14-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Whats wrong with you people?

Why derail a discussions which is about similarities between architecture??

The temples in Bali are Hindu temples and the architectural styles of balinese hindu templesd are borrowed from Indian temple architecture - mainly south indian temple architecture styles which does indeed have a stepped pyrmaid styles.

does that ring a bell into your consipracy filled thick heads?
God knows. I dont think so.

the whole debate i have seen is akin to touching your nose by putting your hand around your head when you could have touched it directly.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


well again,some of the holier than thou crowd oozes out of the ats cracks!!!!
what kind of idiot are you?
all i did was make a quick observation of the photos posted before i had to leave for work!!!
(ya,i work. i don't sit in mommies basement and troll all day 'cause i don't have my own topics to post!!!)
It showed a pic of an elephant from bali,then it showed a pic of a mayan statue with a 'trunk'!
i made a parallel,as other members did too,and i think the op was doing the same.
and as for the angor wat reference,what do you mean i'm wrong!???
it was another parallel to 'things that should not be!'
there IS a wall relief of a stegosauras there.
i was there,i seen it with my own eyes!!!
just cause you dont leave the basement,doesn't mean other people don't get out into the real world.
get off the cross idiot and DENY IGNORANCE!!! don't promote it
sillt troll



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by AuranVector
 


ya i thought of this after(couln't remember the name though,and i was on my way to work!)
but these guys were supposed to be long gone before the mayans!
i guess the odds are the same for it to be an elephant!!!

its just odd.
some clown replied to me and tried to insult me by saying it was a macaw!!!
why would the op post a pic of an elephant from bali,and right beside it post a pic of a bird????
that person was a troll anyway,and i dealt with them accordingly.
thanx for the reply,and the animal's name



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


That is exactly what im saying, when a human is born they dont hate anyone or hurt anyone unless they see someone else do it in turn, and i witnessed that first hand with many new born children. Nature is the same way, animals do not feel hate or take revenge, somewhere at some point in time, we must have witnessed such acts, other wise i dont see nature being the one to hate, or even provide such conditions.

Do you ever think about killing people? if no, then what makes you think others are born thinking any different, its the influence after that creates such ideas.

No such thing as "russians" really, it was just some people that came to the land and just lived there, no police, no politics, no churches or religion to speak of, just human beings living, which hard for a lot of people to grasp the idea. When viking came to the land and discovered the "russians" they could not fight them, so they worked hand in hand, and "Russians" are really good at taking other peoples habits and culture practices, so no evidence would be found since there "culture" is mixed.

Now back to OP's original post, we were talking about a global civilization exsisting past 10k years, which has nothing to with the natives, but all i was saying, is that it is highly possible that a very advanced culture or civilization exsisted in the past, and that is why there are architectural similarities, because they all shared their knowledge, if they were primitive and violent, that would not be possible, and this thread would not even be here, since there would be no architecture to speak of.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Another problem I have with this theory deals hyperdiffusion and the out of africa theory.

The two really aren't compatible IMO, at least not in the frame of reference that you mention.

So lets say the O.O.A.T is true and modern man first evolved in Africa and then continued to spread around the globe. It is highly unlikely that the first appearance of man was even remotely sophisticated, compared to the architecture that his descendants created.

IF all of these motiffs were diffused, then shouldnt we be finding extremely ancient(compared to bali/central america) examples of them all over the world. If there was this golden age society, we should be finding a lot more of their work? We cant expect to believe that ALL of this golden age architecture is underwater can we?

I believe a lot of the similiarities could be the result of simply-
how humans think. We all have many similarities, especially when it comes to the lower level/functions of the brain nervous system. IE, our drives, sex drive, the instinct to survive, ect. IMO, the lower a function or drive is, the more common or global it is. So we could think of it as a sliding scale of shared commonality. The higher a drive is, more variability is present, such as taste in artwork and music. I know its hard to believe, but humans have a LOT more in common, in terms of how we think, than we consciously realize.

The 8 circuits of consciousness as proposed by Timothy Leary

1. The oral biosurvival circuit

This circuit is concerned with nourishment, physical safety, comfort and survival, suckling, cuddling etc.
This circuit is imprinted early in infancy. The imprint will normally last for life, unless it is re-imprinted by a powerful experience. Depending on the nature of the imprint, the organism will tend towards one of two basic attitudes:
-A positive imprint sets up a basic attitude of trust.
-A negative imprint sets up a basic attitude of suspicion.

2. The anal emotional–territorial circuit

The emotional-territorial circuit is imprinted in the toddler stage. It is concerned with domination and submission, territoriality etc.
The imprint on this circuit will trigger one of two states:
-Dominant, aggressive behavior.
-Submissive, co-operative behavior.

3. The symbolic or neurosemantic–dexterity circuit
This circuit is imprinted by human symbol systems. It is concerned with language, handling the environment, invention, calculation, prediction, building a mental "map" of the universe, physical dexterity, etc.

This circuit is activated by stimulant drugs such as SNIP and SNIP. This circuit supposedly appeared first when hominids started differentiating from the rest of the primates.

4. The domestic or socio-sexual circuit

This fourth circuit is imprinted by the first orgasm-mating experiences and tribal "morals". It is concerned with sexual pleasure (instead of sexual reproduction), local definitions of "moral" and "immoral", reproduction, nurture of the young, etc. It is basically concerned with cultural values and operating within social networks. This circuit is said to have first appeared with the development of tribes.

This is concerned with neurological-somatic feedbacks, feeling high and blissful, somatic reprogramming, etc. It may be called the rapture circuit.

When this circuit is activated, a non-conceptual feeling of well-being arises. This has a beneficial effect on the health of the physical body. Triggering this effect is the aim of mind-body healing systems such as Christian Science and faith healing.

5. The fifth circuit is consciousness of the body. There is a marked shift from linear visual space to an all-encompassing aesthetic sensory space. Perceptions are judged not so much for their meaning and utility, but for their aesthetic qualities. A hedonistic turn-on occurs, a rapturous amusement, a detachment from the previously compulsive mechanism of the first four circuits.

This circuit is activated by ecstatic experiences via physiological effects of SNIP, Hatha Yoga, tantra and Zen meditation. Robert Anton Wilson writes, "Tantra yoga is concerned with shifting consciousness entirely into this circuit" and that "Prolonged sexual play without orgasm always triggers some Circuit V consciousness"

Leary describes that this circuit first appeared in the upper classes, with the development of leisure-class civilizations around 2000 BC.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


We also have the "multiple discovery" theory to contend with. It has been shown quite a few times that scientific discoveries tend to be made multiple times nearly* simultaneously around the globe.

en.wikipedia.org...

"When the time is ripe for certain things, they appear at different places in the manner of violets coming to light in early spring."

— Farkas Bolyai, to his son Janos, urging him to claim the invention of non-Euclidean geometry without delay.

en.wikipedia.org...

In his book The Selfish Gene (1976), the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins used the term meme to describe a unit of human cultural transmission analogous to the gene, arguing that replication also happens in culture, albeit in a different sense. In his book, Dawkins contended that the meme is a unit of information residing in the brain and is the mutating replicator in human cultural evolution. It is a pattern that can influence its surroundings – that is, it has causal agency – and can propagate. a meme's success may be due to its contribution to the effectiveness of its host.

Memetics is also notable for sidestepping the traditional concern with the truth of ideas and beliefs. Instead, it is interested in their success.

Which makes me think of religion. Which really has nothing to do with the truth of its ideas. However, the idea of religion was a very successful idea in the sense that it created an even stronger group mentality. typically, the more organized and cooperative groups would overtake the less organized/cooperative groups. I believe leaders realized long, long ago how effective religion was in controlling their society.

Evolutionary epistemology en.wikipedia.org...

Evolutionary epistemology refers to two distinct topics - on the one hand, the biological evolution of cognitive mechanisms in animals and humans, and on the other hand, a theory in that knowledge itself evolves by natural selection.
"Evolutionary epistemology" can refer to a branch of epistemology that applies the concepts of biological evolution to the growth of animal and human cognition. It argues that the mind is in part genetically determined and that its structure and function reflect adaptation, a nonteleological process of interaction between the organism and its environment. A cognitive trait tending to increase inclusive fitness in a given population should therefore grow more common over time, and a trait tending to prevent its carriers from passing on their genes should show up less and less frequently. IE religion.


So i guess the point im trying to make is that humans have a lot more in common than we realize. I do not find it hard to believe that cultures across the globe would have very similar religions, architecture, motifs, ect






edit on 8/14/2012 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by FoosM
 


Another problem I have with this theory deals hyperdiffusion and the out of africa theory.

The two really aren't compatible IMO, at least not in the frame of reference that you mention.

So lets say the O.O.A.T is true and modern man first evolved in Africa and then continued to spread around the globe. It is highly unlikely that the first appearance of man was even remotely sophisticated, compared to the architecture that his descendants created.


I dont understand why you think man spread out throughout the world during his first appearance.
By the time man was able to cross over from Africa to Asia and Europe, he had to have a level of sophistication. By the time he crossed the oceans to the America's his level of sophistication was even greater. As he needed ships.

The Europeans did not leave Europe to the America's till their technology could support that endeavor, and once they did, they set up towns and societies similar to Europe.

I dont see why that is hard to understand.

Once man left out of Africa, did he not want to return? Did he not blaze trails? Establish travel routes?
Or did he leave and immediately get cut off?



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I dont understand why you think man spread out throughout the world during his first appearance.

- because early man was a nomadic hunter gatherer moving from place to place exploiting resources. Not to mention that SOME of the offspring would have gone their own ways to start their own group thus spreading modern mans DNA. The level of sophistication of these early humans was not enough to sustain extremely large groups in one area. that required agriculture. so when a group got to big, they had to split. Its the same thing we see with animals that run in packs. The younger males eventually have to go off and start their own "packs". Thats why you dont see packs of 100 lions, but rather 5-10. Because the lions level of sophistication does not allow for them to sustainably provide enough food for a pack of 100 lions in one area.
Im not saying that modern man spread around the globe in only 1 generation, but the process of spreading out would have began in a relatively quick amount of time.


By the time man was able to cross over from Africa to Asia and Europe, he had to have a level of sophistication.

-not necessarily true. There were no water barriers between africa, asia, and europe. The first generation of humans would have been technologically capable of travelling to these locations (if not for time constraints). There was no special technology needed, only the knowledge of surviving and feeding ones self.

By the time he crossed the oceans to the America's his level of sophistication was even greater. As he needed ships.

-Not true either. Many scientist believe that early man came to the Americas by crossing the Bering straight on foot.


The Europeans did not leave Europe to the America's till their technology could support that endeavor, and once they did, they set up towns and societies similar to Europe.

I dont see why that is hard to understand. Its not, and Im not sure why you assume it is? So lets continue this line of thinking. Americans got their style from europeans. That was their cultural ancestor. Okay so where is the cultural ancestor for the bali and mayans? Where is this golden age civilization?? How come we cannot find anything from them? Are we to believe that every last trace of them has been wiped out, even though they were extremely advanced, and the architecture of their descendants is still surviving?

Once man left out of Africa, did he not want to return? Did he not blaze trails? Establish travel routes?
Or did he leave and immediately get cut off?

-I really dont see what you're getting at with these last lines?

I dont even think you read a quarter of what i wrote. And even if you did, I dont think you'd actually read it and thought about it to any extent.
You spent less than 10 minutes reading my post and typing up your own. less than 10 minutes attempting to understand multiple theories that im 99% sure are all new to you....

If your going to debate with me me, at least take the time to read and understand what i write. Otherwise its a mute point.





edit on 8/14/2012 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)
edit on 8/14/2012 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)
edit on 8/14/2012 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

Originally posted by Gorman91


Ofcourse no proof of russians, the vikings were their leaders, Russians had no leaders or a name, but Vikings when they discovered them instead of fighting them, they worked together. so if vikings went to north america so did the Russians, you just wont notice, b/c they became one and the same for some period of time.

and that the ancients were far more advanced then us, globaly, meaning they had no reason to fight one another, unless there was an outside influence to teach them to hurt, and be okay with hurting one another, if that makes sense?
edit on 14-8-2012 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)


The modern name for Russians come from the Finnish, it was considered Land of the Rus. Actually one can consider them to be post-Scythian. The Vikings were in the Middle Ages so if we are looking at that time, the Russians (Rus) did indeed exist at that time and had their own leaders. You can find sources of the Rus in the Annals of St. Bertin in the 830s.

History of the Russians The first ruler of the united Rus was Rurik of Novgorod, then Oleg of Kiev.

They were concurrent with each other, but definitely the Rus had their own leadership apart from the Vikings. The did exist in some places at the same time. They sometimes were referred as each other, but had different languages much as the Norwegians and Swedes do today. But the Rus had leadership of themselves and they were descended from Slavs.
edit on 8/14/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


Von, as much as you probably have a lot of good information, it is impossible for some of us to read it because the red is just too much for the background. Could you perhaps use a different color that does not carry so much visual weight because I would like to read what you posted. I am sure it is interesting but it is difficult to see.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Thanks

To me, it seems like the entire color palette offered on ATS clashes with the grey background.

Quick Tip: if you are having trouble reading or seeing something on a webpage do this (Requires a mouse with a scroll wheel or a touch pad (laptop version of a mouse) with scroll bars.

hold down "control" while sliding you're mouses scroll wheel up and down. It will make a webpage bigger and easier to read.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   


I feel sorry for the Mayan woman back in the day....LOL



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by FoosM
 


Another problem I have with this theory deals hyperdiffusion and the out of africa theory.

The two really aren't compatible IMO, at least not in the frame of reference that you mention.

So lets say the O.O.A.T is true and modern man first evolved in Africa and then continued to spread around the globe. It is highly unlikely that the first appearance of man was even remotely sophisticated, compared to the architecture that his descendants created.


The O.O.A.T. has some things that makes no sense to me. We all know that O.O.A.T. relies on evolution as the basis. If a species adapts to their surroundings then why are Eskimos and Inuit dark skinned and dark eyed? The same applies to Papua New Guinea, they do not have the same environment as what is found in Africa and yet they are similar.

I think scientist are stretching to say nicely they consider modern Africans as stone age primitives when they point out their ways of life as a comparison. We know also that many South American tribes still live what we consider primitive. But Inuits do as well, because we assume primitive means to live without modern conveniences and technology.

Let's consider a moment these ancient civilizations and their descendents today, even though the Incas and Mayans built tremendous buildings, their descendents since have lost all that knowledge and seem to have taken a step backwards. Evolution is supposed to be advancement, so why did that advancement occur in a Golden Age but then regress?

To me it indicates there was a Golden Age that was apart from evolution as Darwin describes. After all, Darwin based his theory on animals found on Madagascar but he did not have access to see those ancient cities. Did mankind originate in a single place? Yes, I believe so, because we see a similarity in oral traditions and architecture all over the world. But this, in my opinion, is not indicating evolution. We would have to see among the primitive Africans today some oral legend that would be a basis of origination. There is none whatsoever.

200 years ago the prevailing theory, even before Darwin, was that Africans were monkeys. This was promulgated by every slaveholder in America. When Darwin comes along and says it, suddenly everyone agrees with him because he was "scientific". He was merely supporting the claims of slavers that Africans were from monkeys. Then science goes a step further by saying all people came from Africans, who came from monkeys, therefore we are all monkeys. But the argument was designed to diminish Africans as real humans, it always has been.

The great civilizations of Africa have been Egyptian, Nubian and Mansa Musa of Mali. Sure, there are some other civilizations but nothing like these in comparison. Why the regression for Africans? Why the regression of South Americans? Why are they nothing like their ancestors?

Something happened in the brains of these people and it seems to have happened within 1,000 years of each other. Evolution does not support it because they were already separated from each other at that time. The O.O.A.T. is a stretch. My brother had an ancestry DNA test done and nothing indicates we have ancestry in Africa, and the test was done for patrilineal and matrilineal. Both sides trace ancestry back over 10,000 years but nothing in the test indicates we are from Africa. Our DNA traced back to what is today Turkey.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
This is a great thread, thank you for posting. I completely believe that these 2 cultures are related and this is because of a personal experience:
When I was younger I worked at a restaurant, and became friends with 2 people,an Indonesian girl and a Mexican guy. The guy was a native from southern Mexico, and in addition to Spanish he spoke his native language, which he called Zapote. We used to teach the Indonesian girl words in Spanish and she would teach us words in Indonesian. It turned out that many of the words in Indonesian were the same as words in the guys' native language. It was amazing and almost eerie to hear the both of them speak to each other. Also we noticed similarities in physical features and cultural practices between our Indonesian and native Mexican friends. This experience has convinced me that the 2 cultures have roots that are intertwined. Again thank you for posting.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I apologize if me not seeing it your way doesn't sit well with you.

Google Earth? And just how clear of a shot are you gonna get from that? Surely nothing remotely close to being there in person.

Next thing you know you're gonna suggest that Google has street view right up next to these ancient sites? LMAO! Good luck with that my friend. It's not personal, it's just that you're wrong.
~$heopleNation
edit on 14-8-2012 by SheopleNation because: TypO





top topics
 
87
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join