Kennewick Man descendant of Moriori and possibly Ainu

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


He was probably part of one of the earlier groups to either pass over Beringia or along the coast. His ancestors were the ancestors of the present day Ainu and the later groups that became the Polynesians.

Good to see his genetics are getting narrowed down


I think that the statement about being "related to groups in New Zealand" is very misleading. It's more accurate to say that both groups are related to the Ainu and Siberian populations. So, the original "parents" are Asia/Siberia types and the "child" populations are New Zealand and Ainu and Kennewick.

They aren't the same child group who has been to three different places but rather three different children groups (and by "children" I don't mean actual children, but large groups that split away from the parent groups for a thousand years and more.)




posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Howdy bottleslingguy


Originally posted by bottleslingguy

12-15 thousand years ago would be right around the time of the "flood" in Genesis. Personally I think Sitchin's descriptions/translations of the Sumerian tablets are more than likely the most accurate to reality.


No evidence for such a biblical deluge and Sitchin couldn't actually read Sumerian, he made up the translations or badly (and deliberately) misinterpreted translations previously made of them



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




Interesting read man

Cheers



Agree with johnnycanuck about history/archaeology being hidden



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Howdy Slayer

Could you explain further please I'm not quite getting your point? Those two cultures come up 7,000+ years after Kman - now if he'd had a Sebuktegin Ghuznivide in his 'pocket' I'd be impressed



Meaning

I just find it interesting that these two cultures separated in time and distance both from each other and K-man show different racial features in their stone carvings and masks etc. It just seems to me and it's just my opinion based on my amateur observation of what I've seen in museums, books and online that they depict the various human regional/racial features a little bit too accurately for not having had some sort of contact either contemporaneous to themselves or in their past.

It could simply be one hell of an interesting enigma

edit on 18-11-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Oh I understand now thanks for the explanation. The easier explanation is that what you see in the Olmecs and elsewhere is artistic license and display of what they saw. To the Olmecs I can speak too, this usually refers to four of 17 known Olmec heads which have flat noses and lips that look 'African'. If you go to Chiapas or Tabasco you'll see people who look like that today and some like the other 13 heads which are kinda ignored - because they don't look particularly African



As for PP to me they look more like caricatures than anything else


One other note on the wall it was reconstructed in the 1960s, even just using this photo it appears it was slapped together using bits and pieces from various other constructiona, whether the heads were in that location or displayed as we now see is problematic
edit on 18/11/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 




For more visuals and one theory of mine on those colossal stone heads
Olmec Giant Stone Heads Mystery Solved?



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I was actually referring to many of the ceramic/pottery found in the area which often seem to show races which are not considered endogenous to the continent. I have another thread in the works about the Olmec of Central America in the works which goes into this controversial possibility of a prehistoric connection. Stay tuned






posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Yep they could represent the stars of their ball game considering how madly modern audiences react to sport !



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
One other note on the wall it was reconstructed in the 1960s, even just using this photo it appears it was slapped together using bits and pieces from various other constructiona, whether the heads were in that location or displayed as we now see is problematic



Completely agree and which was one of my main sticking points and thrust of This thread



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


They look Asian as were the Olmecs. The Olmecs may have been from a later 'wave' but based on what we know now they would be expected to look Asian and in time problem developed the flatten face common in that region due to a small genetic pool



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Flattened faces..

Yet, many Aztec and Mayan art show themselves with sloping foreheads and large Noses on narrow faces.

Another line from a different wave?



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


no evidence for what you just said



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Great thread Slayer.

Thought I would throw this into the mix.

There are physical characteristics that humans at some point spent a lot of time in the water. It is well known in the tropics that if you put out a raft and leave it anchored, fish will gather under it to get away from the sun. Now if you had villages living on rafts, possibly growing plants on the rafts, they could become very independent from land, and long journeys out into the ocean wouldn't be a big deal.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

More likely, Smithsonian Institution anthropologist Douglas Owsley said, he came from the coast, not the inland valley where his remains were found


I always thought that early man always settle near water sources more specifially fresh water sources, the coastal regions mostly has a high salinty content.

Right?



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
i could care less who came first, its who left standing that matters ^^


but really, i dont care about what type of culture it was, cant we just be happy we found something cool and to know we had ancestors?

some animals eat the partner or others in family/race, you can imagine history lessons are short in those cultures ^9



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Hanslune
 


no evidence for what you just said


Okay prove Sitchin could read Sumerian and that there was a Biblical world wide deluge - but you might want to do that in a new thread please



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Great thread Slayer.

Thought I would throw this into the mix.

There are physical characteristics that humans at some point spent a lot of time in the water. It is well known in the tropics that if you put out a raft and leave it anchored, fish will gather under it to get away from the sun. Now if you had villages living on rafts, possibly growing plants on the rafts, they could become very independent from land, and long journeys out into the ocean wouldn't be a big deal.


The AAH theory died away some time ago

You can look at Langdon JH (1997). "Umbrella hypotheses and parsimony in human evolution: a critique of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis". for a complete look at the theory and why it failed to be accepted

People do and have lived successfully on or near the sea but they always stay near to fresh water. The Polynesians solved that problem with coconuts/gourds and bamboo and Europeans, Chinese, Indian and other early sailers with amphora and later wooden barrels. However these folks were moving from fresh water source A to new fresh water source. Not sure what sailors in the Americas might have used



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Remembering the Mayan's I worked with I recall a mixture of faces but I'm not sure how many might have had mestizo blood.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



There is a possibility that even though a lot of those pottery work were made in the Olmec era and in "Olmec cities" they represent other people than the Olmec. Course be a depiction of visitors that form commerce from Other continents. We document everything these days and sure have embassies representing different countries all over the world. I work at an embassy my self and have had the privilege to see a few different parts of the world and I tell you that this the images you just showed looks more like someone's depictions of the different people at a UN meeting than a group ancient mexicans ballplayers. (I've been to Mexico btw, seen both the olmec and the Mayan side of Mexico that was inhabited by Indians living in the jungle up until the late seventies.)

Ps. Who are whe to believe everything the archeologist tells us anyways? The people paying for the excavations have their own agendas and there is a reason they only let a select few of people (chosen by them) to investigate a certain place.

To believe everything they tells us like believing all the crap the us government feeds us about their reasons to fight wars just because its what they say and write.

We may never know the real truth about many ancient civilizations which is probably out there but accessed only by people with a certain level of "clearance".



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eniii
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



There is a possibility that even though a lot of those pottery work were made in the Olmec era and in "Olmec cities" they represent other people than the Olmec. Course be a depiction of visitors that form commerce from Other continents. We document everything these days and sure have embassies representing different countries all over the world. I work at an embassy my self and have had the privilege to see a few different parts of the world and I tell you that this the images you just showed looks more like someone's depictions of the different people at a UN meeting than a group ancient mexicans ballplayers. (I've been to Mexico btw, seen both the olmec and the Mayan side of Mexico that was inhabited by Indians living in the jungle up until the late seventies.)

Ps. Who are whe to believe everything the archeologist tells us anyways? The people paying for the excavations have their own agendas and there is a reason they only let a select few of people (chosen by them) to investigate a certain place.

To believe everything they tells us like believing all the crap the us government feeds us about their reasons to fight wars just because its what they say and write.

We may never know the real truth about many ancient civilizations which is probably out there but accessed only by people with a certain level of "clearance".


Wow Eniii

You actually believe all archaeologists think and act the same? So tell us what great things this vast conspiracy is hiding from you? While you are at it howz about you tell us just how grants and archaeological permits or sites are divided up for say Mexico, the UAE and Portugal for example, lol

wink





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join