Arizona man finds what he believes will change American prehistoric history....

Slayer, forgive me for using your thread to rant a little, but I guess this story struck a chord with me. I have been very suspicious of North American Archaeologists and academia for a long time, because I believe they are consensus and agenda driven.

I live not too far from Russell Burrows cave. You know, that total and complete "hoax" from back in the 80's? Well, for a place that has absolutely no interest or value to archaeologists, it sure has drawn a lot of attention on the sly, and under the table. Including a visit from an archaeological magazine editor whom I will not name, a defunct archaeologist, and a nameless investor. All who tried to be low key about their excavation attempts many years after the fact.

My point being, I have enough personal experience with this particular "hoax" to believe there was an agenda behind keeping it out of the public eye, and discrediting it.

So when I see something like you've posted here, all I can do is hope it doesn't get swept under the carpet because it doesn't fit what we're supposed to believe.

My thoughts are this.weve been kicking around this rock now for how long?Drilling,mining and searching still the missing link hasnt been found.I believe in evolution to an extent but the answer to this puzzle is simple.

The missing link isnt here.

I believe someone came down here did some genetic work and finally created man.Even if you are a religious person the bible will tell you we were created "in his likeness". We are cloning and genetically modifying everything from plants to mammals.Whos to say someone didnt come down here select something with the best ability to move things around and splice thierselves into them as a means to survive on the alien planet.

I think were either a science project or were put here for a purpose which is someone elses.

Some people think were here to mine this planet for minerals for e.t's.I dont know but it wouldnt suprise me.
It would be plausable to plant a seed let it grow and when the times right come and collect.

All i can say is i cant stand behind anything just going off what i feel from all the streams of information ive had over the years.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by jude11

 

I think there were migration across the land bridge. But, Was it the first time? Was it the only time? Europeans it appears also came across an ice bridge of sorts during the last ice age. Was that their first time across as well?


Also could earlier hominids have done it at a much earlier period?

edit on 23-8-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

There are theories of following game down through an ice corridor that was left open by warmer winds and waters close to the coasts of America/Canada. Then the receding walls of course came later.

Could hominids earlier have used this path? I believe there could have been many migrations as winters and springs came and went. Perhaps 1,000's of years apart.

Peace

mitochondrial DNA tracking suggests that aborginies came here about 40-50000 years ago, by foot.

from india

More the OTHER way around I would suggest, The People of India are the DIRECT DESCENDANTS of the people of Australia.
As the Southern people followed the coastal areas (warmer?) east, they probably mixed, and set up little colonies on their way...naturally, one or several, of the colonies was somewhere in India.

Remember this took Many 1000s of years, not the 3 weeks and 2 days of now. .

Yes, there are isolated tribes of Indians that you would Swear, just came from the arid flats of Central Australia.

Even just 100000 years ago, the Earth looked different than today, different temperature, different forests, different animals, etc etc.

reply to post by okamitengu


Yes, that's right. Spencer Wells did a gene tracing study in which he showed that Aboriginals left DNA in their path from Africa to Australia. The Denisova finger tip DNA study of the nuclear genome from this specimen suggests this group shares a common origin with Neanderthals, they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some present-day modern humans, with up to 6% of the DNA of Melanesians and Australian Aborigines deriving from Denisovans.

Aboriginals are the first out of Africa hominin. They have very archaic features.

reply to post by Klassified


No problem

I'm sure many here share your feelings and frustration.

Originally posted by gort51

mitochondrial DNA tracking suggests that aborginies came here about 40-50000 years ago, by foot.

from india

More the OTHER way around I would suggest, The People of India are the DIRECT DESCENDANTS of the people of Australia.
As the Southern people followed the coastal areas (warmer?) east, they probably mixed, and set up little colonies on their way...naturally, one or several, of the colonies was somewhere in India.

Remember this took Many 1000s of years, not the 3 weeks and 2 days of now.

.

Yes, there are isolated tribes of Indians that you would Swear, just came from the arid flats of Central Australia.

Even just 100000 years ago, the Earth looked different than today, different temperature, different forests, different animals, etc etc.

you can suggest what you like, but if you dont have a mitochondrial DNA research paper that has been peer reviewed to back up your position, then you are just another outsider with a crazy idea.

you cant argue with DNA.

for crime we say follow the money, for humans we say follow the mother...

reply to post by SLAYER69



Damn Slayer, You are on a roll !!!

Older then Clovis? I believe so. Just my take.

I will never understand how reputations, are worth more then actually researching it, and maybe changing how we view our own history. What are they scared of?



S&F

reply to post by Murgatroid


correct, I'm near rockwall texas....
it's not just a large city, it's where the giants that God ordered to be burried till the last day built a 3 mile by 5 mile structure. complete with fossilized skulls. just like Indianna's famous collection. but it's kept really quiet.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Hi slayer,
That's very interesting ,
I think guy kinda shot himself in the foot by claiming the objects were acheulean tools, maybe if he had refrained from making such a premature determination he might have been better received.

After reading more about the various tool industries, I had an idea, a complex task such as tool making requires a somewhat stable social structure. By that I mean that in order for the skill to move through time , there has to be a somewhat unbroken line of knowledge, a master has to teach an apprentice, so to speak.
And there has to be a familiarity with the local raw materials and how to work them.
In light of some of the new work into the genetics of the native americans, a new theory of how some of the people got here has emerged.
Its kind of a "mad dash for survival" scenario, where a very small band of individuals, perhaps only a couple dozen, made a mad dash through the inland ice free corridor from beringia, after having been "trapped" in .beringia for period of time, south into the continental interior.
One article I read posited that that they traveled from the arctic into the great basin in only a few months.
This would have been an almost inhuman effort, that would have surely taken its toll on this band of people, with the elders and the young paying the price.
So in light of that idea I can see how a primative tool complex could develope, as this band of people basically ran south they lost the people who had the tool making knowledge and had to re-learn the skill and adapt it to the local materials.
Hence the presence of what appear to be ultra primative tools in an out of place context.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Now this is downright exciting. I'd very much like to stop being the Nation the never existed in terms of deep and ancient history with some evidence to show it. We have no great Pyramids, no mysterious tunneling as Europe and South America find. We don't even have the litter of long past civilizations before the Native Americans, as other nations seem to just about trip over if they wander into the wild and start digging.

There had to be history here...had to be. This land existed. Someone had to have been here. I'd love for this to pan out and start giving some clues beyond just the bit that is currently acknowledged!

S/F as always..and I'm starting to actually check your profile occasionally just so I don't miss these deep thinking threads you have such a talent for producing!

reply to post by gort51


Not exactly,
The modern aboriginals and the certain peoples of the Indian subcontinent share common ancestors. One fact that has to be kept in mind is that the earliest people into Australia, Mungo Man, has no descendants in modern Australia, and our nearest common ancestor with mungo man is before the mitachondrial eve, at least 125k years ago

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Actually...

The Americas have the two largest pyramids [By Volume] in the world.
The largest was just discovered fairly recently in Guatemala.



The second largest is in Mexico which was thought for the longest time to simply be a small mountain. The Spanish even built a church on top of it....

Cholula pyramid


Which by the way is still largely unexcavated

in other studies mitochondrial DNA tracking suggests that Indians went there 40-50000 years ago, by boat
from Australia, India got the boomerang from Australia, yet Dingoes came from India, and a white, possibly even Egyptian related race first colonized New Zealand, I'm so lost on that one

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Arizona man finds what he believes are ancient artifacts

PHOENIX -- An amateur archaeologist said he has made a discovery that could change the theory of how America was first settled, but the tough part may be getting someone to listen.

Ken Stanton can hardly control his enthusiasm as he shows off a site in north-central Phoenix that he says contains some ancient artifacts. “You can see them all through here, that's an artifact there,” said Stanton, as he point them out.

And while to most people it may look like a pile of rocks, Stanton said this site could change everything we think about how the Americas were settled. “This would be the first Acheulean stone tools, proof of it in the Americas period," Stanton said.

Enjoyed the video ! Glad I clicked. I enjoy how a scholar is somewhat in agreement. Lately it seems new things are coming up. Oh, I guess that is being around ATS

Kind of reminds me of Coast to Coast of course in a more textual kind of way. I guess i'm more interested in a Christofer Dunn kind of thing were things are ancient but advanced in the use of stonework etc. Not sure If I could be super excited but I am sure and don't blame one for getting into this type of subject.

OK this is pretty amazing. I can't speak for the veracity of this guys find but, If true it will turn anthropologists and archeology on it's ear. Acheulean by it's very nature is prehistoric. Wiki puts it as follows...

Acheulean is the name given to an archaeological industry of stone tool manufacture associated with early humans during the Lower Palaeolithic era across Africa and much of West Asia, South Asia, and Europe. Acheulean tools are typically found with Homo erectus remains. It is thought that they first developed out of the more primitive Oldowan technology as long as 1.76 million years ago, by Homo habilis.

There have been many controversial finds going back several decades here in the Americas too numerous to name them all. Now either he has found something worth further research or he just has an over active imagination and is just seeing what he wants in a pile of stones.

Should we let this possible find be dismissed? He does make a rather compelling argument.

As always, Stay tuned

Thoughts?

edit on 23-8-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

Just wanted to thank everybody for their contributions

reply to post by SLAYER69

Ahh yes, there are those very impressive ruins in Central and South America as well as the Yucatan. One of these days I would love to get down there and see some of that. Perhaps when things are more settled.

Now we just need to find a similar thing for North America. I feel jipped I can't find anything from antiquity to explore or see in my own country. I suppose the cave and cliff dwellings of the West come about as close as we have..?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Not very ancient that we know of but still impressive...

In North America we find Mound builders who were possibly contemporaries of the Aztec and maybe even the Maya

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/490c17412f57.jpg[/atsimg]


Cahokia

Cahokia kəhoʊkiːə is the site of an ancient Native American city (650-1400 CE) near Collinsville, Illinois in the American Bottom floodplain, across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, Missouri. The 2,200-acre (8.9 km2) site includes at least 109 man-made earthen mounds. Cahokia Mounds is the largest archaeological site related to the Mississippian culture, which developed advanced societies in eastern North America centuries before the arrival of Europeans.[1]

Cahokia was settled around 650 CE during the Late Woodland period. Mound building did not begin until about 1050 CE, at the beginning of the Mississippian cultural period. The inhabitants left no written records beyond symbols on pottery, shell, copper, wood, and stone.[4]. The city's original name is unknown.

Very interesting to say the least. Although he is not an archaeologist, it does toke someone who knows what they are looking at to be able to find very primitive stone tools, since they usually do not have much tooling on them, and can look like a regular rock. That is why I am not jumping on this right away, as there is much room for error.

However, I will say that I have been convinced for years that modern academia has it wrong when it comes to how long ago people were actually living in the Americas. I think many people underestimate the ability of ancient cultures to explore, even via the oceans on small boats. One decent sized group in small primitive boats could very well have made it to the Americas in the past, and that may have been enough to establish a small breeding population, which could have been expanded further upon more arrivals. Just an idea.

Another idea I have pondered is the crossing of interconnected continents via ice sheets that were present ice ages ago. In my opinion, much, much earlier than 12,000 or so years ago. I personally, having witnessed a sasquatch and know they are real, have been looking for a way that man is connected with them, and how they got here.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000


Now we just need to find a similar thing for North America. I feel jipped I can't find anything from antiquity to explore or see in my own country. I suppose the cave and cliff dwellings of the West come about as close as we have..?

3/4 of North America was under massive amounts of ice all through the last ice age. If there was anything before that it would have first been crushed under the ice then ground along with the ice shelf migration finally been washed away with the melt off.

It's no wonder the farther south you go the older and more advanced you find cultures and civilizations where the weather was much more hospitable,