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

The cold hard truth is the historical "experts" are more fanatical and narrow minded than the most religious extremest. They are more hypocritical than the biggest politician and make the taliban look like the example of tolerance.

They will defend their "beliefs" (or scientific theories/facts) to a level that make the persecution of galileo look like a mind discussion.

Some examples of this are as follows.

The expert hawass in egypt says the idea of electric lights or some other alternative light source (example a chemical "glow stick") is "silly" and against all known facts. But it ignores the basic scientific fact (that anyone can see) that there not only are no soot marks anywhere in the pyramids, but that tv shows have shown that the farther down you go there is not enough oxygen to sustain even a simple lighter.

He also denied there is any proof to a "hall of records" at the sphinx. But a american (I think, may be wrong on country of origin) did some ground penatrating radar around it and found unatural and LARGE caverns (?) by the sphinx. This arrogant putz won't allow anyone to dig and claims "he will investigate". That was over 3 years ago.

But the best one is in the moutains of peru. Where (sorry I dont remember the exact name of the site) there are stone blocks that are cut in perfect geomettric designs and most seem to fit together with absolute precision. They also have perfectly straight lines and straight lines carved into them. They claim they were done with primative tools.

Ignoring the fact the rocks are of such a hardness that modern stone cutters/artists with years of experience, modern tools and modern cutting equipment admit they would have a very hard time duplicating this feat. In some cases they claim it may be impossible.

The problem is these "experts" and/or institutions, no matter where they are from, have the power to take the evidence away under the rule of law and though their own prestige "discredit" anyone/anything that condradicts them. In the case of other less powerful/supported fellow researchers utterly distroy them.

The only thing going now (slim as it is) is such open and unrestricted venues here on the internet. Something unavailable decades ago.

Excellent find slayer

It's possible that some early hominids managed to get to America....

...But that doesn't mean they were human. These are hominids going way back, to before our level of reasoning was possible.

It should be viewed as it is. Primitive proto-humans went places, and we kept that trait.

reply to post by TimesUp

check this out:
www.ancientcanalbuilders.com...

reply to post by lonegurkha

"I have always believed that scientists have not given early man the credit which should be his due."

So then why don't people believe them when they say things like, "The Gods taught us these things!"? We're nomads on this planet and our ancestors are space faring nomads.

Hello everyone,

I am the "Ken Stanton" you all are talking about and if there are any ??? I would be glad to accommodate you I have all the evidence I need now after seventeen years of research and eight different site across the vally and one other thing is that my self and "Professor Curtis Runnels" and I have been working together via the internet for almost three years now and my discovery has also been published in the The Journal of Field Archaeology volume 37 - 2 second edition in the Editorial - Paleolithic America.



And I have made a request to Maney Publishing to be aloud to post it on my blog. We will see..?



I thank all of you for your opinions and or support.



Cheers

Ken Stanton

Email [email protected]

archaeologynewfinds.blogspot.com...

reply to post by SLAYER69


There's a number of things that are needed to make it truly convincing -- and one of them is finding these things in context with other material. Without context, it's hard to make a case about the age.

I do know that professors are woefully underfunded and can't run off to every site that looks interesting, dig crew in tow. Bones with cut marks or human remains found at the same location would make a very convincing and dateable case.

As a side note, something that old would be possibly from something other than h. sapiens (yes, I know the oldest h. sapiens are dated to 800,000 years or so -- but if real it's either from a world-class globe trotting hiker *or* a breeding population separated from the main group of h.sapiens -- and a successful group should spawn a number of separate subspecies over that time frame (H. neanderthalis is an example, as is h. heidelbergensis.)

We see that pattern in Europe and Asia, so it'd be logical to see it in America if this was the case.

But it needs more material and yes, as mentioned, needs a geologist and archaeologist to go look at it.

reply to post by Byrd




Good to see ya back.

After reading through this thread I'd just like to make some general and perhaps unrelated points. I'm not arguing specifics here.

First, we're not in an "either/or" situation here. Things like migrations can happen both ways. An example is the "Out of Africa" theory. I see some people reject that. Sorry, but it's a done deal. Unless someone has screwed up the evidence, mitochondrial DNA proves the issue. We are ALL related to Mitochondrial Eve, and African, and the Out of Africa Theory is true.

That does not mean that there were not other migrations into and out of Africa. Indeed, the Sahara Desert has been called a "Great Pump" because over time the Sahara has been more or less hospitable to human life. When it is more hospitable, people move in. When it is less hospitable, people are pumped out into the Middle East. Hominids may have come into and out of Africa many times in the past. The fact that the Out of Africa Theory is true does not mean all the other ideas are false. It's not a fallacy to say they are all true.

The same is true with the Bering Strait migration theory. Once again, DNA studies show that all Native American groups originated in Asia and that this was possible because the Ice Age sucked up enough ocean water to create a land bridge from Asia to Alaska. That does not mean that some Portuguese fishermen could not have followed the coastline of the Atlantic counterclockwise to the East Coast of North America, or that some Japanese Admiral couldn't have scoped out the West Coast, or that some South Sea islanders couldn't have Kon Tiki'd there way across the Pacific. All those things could have happened. Indeed, it would be unusual if they did not. But if they did, they did not survive. Once again, there is no need to counteract or dismiss prevailing theory to make room for your own speculation. There's plenty of room for both.

Now, I studied anthropology and archaeology formally in the past just like some others here (B.A., 1971). I see no contradictions between what was taught in the late sixties and what we see today. It certainly was simpler; there were fewer choices. And in some sense it was wilder. The Leakeys were pushing their agenda while Carlton S. Coon was embarrassing himself with his, but if you take the newspaper sensationalism out of it, the pieces have fallen together like a jig saw puzzle. There is no missing link and never really has been. The story of hominid evolution is more solid now than it has ever been, particularly with the help of genetics.

To throw out academia so you can put some wild theory of your own in place seems to me to be nonsensical. There is no need to invoke space aliens to explain our presence. There is no need to toss off a hundred years of study just because you read about someone discovering a couple of arrow heads (I'm sorry; the proper term is "projectile points.") they can't explain. If you are going to come up with something new and different, you are going to have to place it in context with what we have painstakingly pieced together over the years. If you can find a flaw, great! Let's set it straight, but pissing into the wind is not very helpful. If you want to find Atlantis, look towards Santorini. Really. It doesn't have to be complicated.

And the thing is, there's plenty of room for radical ideas! Just as an example, there is nothing in the archaeological record, nor in the timeline of human evolution as we know it today, that would prevent the postulation that there was a near-Renaissance level worldwide civilization 14,000 years ago that was destroyed by a catastrophic rise in sea level as the ice melted. There's plenty of room to speculate that the Romans mined copper in Canada. There is ample space to discuss the ancient and advanced civilizations in India.

The point is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you are willing to put things in context with what we think we know, you'll be contributing to a more robust understanding of our past. You will also be much more likely to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by KCSTANTON
Hello everyone,

I am the "Ken Stanton" you all are talking about and if there are any ??? I would be glad to accommodate you I have all the evidence I need now after seventeen years of research and eight different site across the vally and one other thing is that my self and "Professor Curtis Runnels" and I have been working together via the internet for almost three years now and my discovery has also been published in the The Journal of Field Archaeology volume 37 - 2 second edition in the Editorial - Paleolithic America.



And I have made a request to Maney Publishing to be aloud to post it on my blog. We will see..?



I thank all of you for your opinions and or support.



Cheers

Ken Stanton

Email [email protected]

archaeologynewfinds.blogspot.com...

Hello Mr. Stanton,
Welcome to the site, and this forum in particular.
I find your discovery very fascinating and look forward to more info as it becomes available.

reply to post by SLAYER69
While this is a lovely find, the distraction is in referring to them as 'Acheulean Stone Tools', and attaching a date to them on that basis. They may well share some stylistic similarities, but you can only get so much range in constructing a hand axe. It now comes down to dating...and remember the archaeological maxim: One Date is No Date.

Sorry, but 'Acheulean' is pretty much a red herring unless accompanied by some pretty-well incontrovertible evidence.

Nice grab, though Slayer...S&F4U!

Originally posted by SLAYER69
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?

At the time talked about concerning thes finds near Phoenix, there was no land bridge to come across.

You go far enough back and N. America was way closer to Europe than today, though.

Regarding these claims, I really hope it turns out to be true. I've said several times here that I believe at least one, if nort all, of the variations on Homo Erectus was perfectly capable of maritime activities, though likely not transoceanic trade or anything that sophisticated.

I would love for this to be discovered as true.

Harte

This history of the Americas has always been a huge mystery! Anytime someone thinks they've figured it out, somebody else comes along and tells them to hold their horses. Hopefully this gets more attention, and scientists can have a better understanding of how human shaped this continent. It would be interesting to know who settled where/when in relation to other continents around this time period. Might explain more about South American cultures as well, if a connection between Asia/Africa can be found.

There is a good chance that we might cover this thread/article on this weekends Radio Show "ATSLive" during the Turbo topics segment. ATSLive broadcasts every Saturday from 6-9pm (PST)

Be sure to check the ATSLive announcement page on this Saturday.

Originally posted by JohnnyAnonymous
There is a good chance that we might cover this thread/article on this weekends Radio Show "ATSLive" during the Turbo topics segment. ATSLive broadcasts every Saturday from 6-9pm (PST)
Be sure to check the ATSLive announcement page on this Saturday.

Oughtta talk to Hanslune, Byrd and Harte to make sure they're on hand for sanity injections!!

reply to post by Harte


I've always considered the possibility that early homonids could have made the journey to the new world, they made most of the way, into northeast Asia. Nut lack of evidence makes it unlikely to be accepted.
I was highly doubtful if the claims made in the OP article, nut them I found this,

The Case of the missing Calotte

While the discovery, excavation and publication of Lapa Vermelha IV hominid 1 described above is among the triumphs of Brazilien archaeology, the lamentable "case of the missing calotte" is not.

Between 1833 and 1880 the Danish naturalist P.W. Lund excavated many human bones in the upper layers of a number of caves in the Lagua Santa area. Most were stained red with ochre. At one (unidentified) cave at deep level he found bones stained black and they looked as if these bones had originally been buried at Sumidouro cave (B2 on the main map of Lagoa Santa above). Among these bones was at least one calotte (or skullcap) that somehow, somttime just disappeared (Beattie O.B., Bryan A.L. 1984. "A Fossilized calotte with Prominent Browridges from Lagoa Santa, Brazil". Current Anthropology,vol. 25, no. 3:345-346). Photographs from Beattie's article are reproduced below.

Source: www.andaman.org...

Homo erectus was an early human form who is known to have lived in northern Africa, the Caucasus, China and Java between 1,8 million and 40,000 years ago. These very early humans were the first of their species known to have spread far outside Africa. It is thought that Homo sapiens developed out of (or branched off from) Homo erectus - in other words, that erectus is our direct ancestors. Could the transformation from erectus to sapiens have included the Americas besides Asia and Europe? It is hard to see how this could be so. Homo erectus besides his known talents would also have had to be an alarmingly early and competent sailor.

The association with Homo erectus has to be purely speculative in the absence of the hard evidence. There is also a less sensational possibility that Beattie also notes: populations with heavy browridges are known elsewhere in the Americas from Holocene contexts. But do these alternatives have skulls as inhumanely thick and with browridges as huge as those shown in the photographs above? Unlikely - for if they had, they would have been the talk of the anthropological community.

Conspiracy theories should be resisted but the fact that precisely this most unusual and potential theory-busting find should have gone missing does, to put it mildly, makes one think unkind thoughts.

MODERATOR NOTE: Please quote only a few paragraphs from each page (as per our rules) to respect the copyrights of the original author.

reply to post by punkinworks10


www.andaman.org...
The source for the previous post
And pics of the lost skullcap

reply to post by punkinworks10

There's more on this skeleton and others found nearby on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...

The 11,500 year date is probably the correct one (and based on material in the cave and around the body rather than "gosh, the skullcap looks like..." There's also "megafaunal bones" from the same layers and areas which again enforces the "end of the last Ice Age" date.

Still -- an interesting face and it might be evidence for European groups also peopling the Americas from a very early time. As of now, genetics point only to Siberian migrations as being the main source for peopling the Western Hemisphere. However, evidence continues to trickle in about exchanges with Europe and these skeletons may eventually support a stronger chain of evidence that includes the "Acheulean-type lithics" in the Americas.

Originally posted by Harte
Regarding these claims, I really hope it turns out to be true. I've said several times here that I believe at least one, if nort all, of the variations on Homo Erectus was perfectly capable of maritime activities, though likely not transoceanic trade or anything that sophisticated.

That's very interesting because...

I've been postulating that not all that we find in the archeological record that is assumed to be created by modern man. [For example] Are all those artifacts and or some stone age standing stones are all of the creation of our direct ancestors VS one of our older cousin species?

If those other lines were capable of some albeit small maritime travel then this opens up a whole new perspective on man's history IMO.

reply to post by Byrd


Question....

In your opinion what is the possibility of those other older lines dying out as many Native Americans had during the period of the conquest?

If they were truly that old then they wouldn't have the immunity to those diseases the Europeans brought with them to the New World.

The image of the South American fair skinned "Cloud people" came to mind. Which the Inca fought great battles with yet never defeated them which they the cloud people later succumbed to diseases brought by later European invaders. Is it possible they were the descendants of those earlier lines?

reply to post by scrounger

To, All
This is a letter form Professor "Curtis Runnels" to me Ken Stanton on Wen, Jun 22, 2012 08 : 29 am
Dear KC,
When I got the artifacts out of the box it was clear that they were worked, although there are also some unworked pieces in there. The quartz artifacts and the quartzite flakes are definitely anthropogenic. The question is their age. There are several that are dead ringers for Palaeolithic pieces, either Lower Stone Age Acheulean or Middle Stone Age (when some industries, like Mousterian of the Acheulean Tradition utilized some of the same techniques and made similar forms). There are several good scrapers and one biface (handaxe) and possibly a cleaver and some cores. If we dropped these onto a LSA site in the Mediterranean world no one would be able to tell them apart. My wife saw them and had the same reaction. But they could be MSA. They sure don't look like later materials to me. In addition to their early forms, they have a patina or surface alteration that is probably the result of age weathering. Unfortunately, LSA and MSA industries in the Old World have a large age range, from 1.6 myr to maybe 30-50 kyr and only a datable geological context will give you more of an indication of their probable age.

They certainly resemble materials illustrated in the reports on Calico Hills in California and reports from the Black Forks area of Wyoming and NW Colorado.

From what I can read this sort of industry appears to be widespread in the western US, with a center of gravity in the Great Basin. I wish I was 20 years old so I could start a new project working in that area!

Best wishes,

Curtis