Kennewick Man descendant of Moriori and possibly Ainu

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Scientists can be very political, and very protective of their scientific disciplines, all to often more like priests than scientists. If you want to pretend that this isn't a part of human nature, that is your choice.

In addition, the people who fund research often do have their own agendas. One of the characteristics that draw people to wealth and power is that they like to have their way, and they often have very little tolerance for those who disagree with them. It is just the way of human nature.




posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I don't think the AAH theory ever had any grip in the scientific arena. However, humans have adapted to aquatic environments quite well, and certainly far better than any other form of ape. Somehow humans made their way out to Hawaii.

But here is an article that makes some good points about human adaptability.

blogs.plos.org...

We certainly can not drink sea water, but by capturing rain water and collection of precipitation, a well disciplined group could probably get by for a long time out on the ocean.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

why don't you back up your assertion?



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Hanslune
 
why don't you back up your assertion?
If I may intrude, you might want to check out the following link as it directly addresses this discussion: Open Letter
or investigate further at the main site: sitchiniswrong.com...



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Hanslune
 

why don't you back up your assertion?


Because you asserted first my friend

Sticky

I've noted that Johnny Cannuck has provide links, if you don't find those satisfactory.....why don't you start another thread to discussion old Sitchin once again?



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

why should I believe anything those people say? How do I know they are even real people? I believe Sitchin's translations are true because they make more sense than thinking the Sumerians were just making up stories and came up with an advanced culture on their own by luck.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


notice where I said "personally". I couldn't care less what you think. You still haven't proven anything to add to your claim. If you said "personally I don't believe one word of Sitchin's translations..." then fine, but you aren't saying that. What else were they talking about?



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Hanslune
 


notice where I said "personally". I couldn't care less what you think.


Then why do you keep talking to me?


You still haven't proven anything to add to your claim.


Because you haven't shown the basis for your belief accept to say you personally think something.....so what?


If you said "personally I don't believe one word of Sitchin's translations..." then fine, but you aren't saying that. What else were they talking about?


No we are talking about facts while you are taking about your personal belief, sans facts and in this case in denial of said facts, that's okay lots of people hold irrational beliefs, have fun however I think you'll find that a case based on 'Ipse dixit' carries little to no weight in the real world



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

why should I believe anything those people say? How do I know they are even real people? I believe Sitchin's translations are true because they make more sense than thinking the Sumerians were just making up stories and came up with an advanced culture on their own by luck.


But Sitchin's claims aren'y backed up by anything in most cases the evidence points away from his amateurish 'made up stuff'.

Question for you - who were the Ubaidians?

Why don't you look up the words on the online Sumerian dictionary....oh wait if it doesn't agree with Sitchin then it doesn't exist? lol

Yeah all evidence points to the 'black haired people' who conquered/joined with the Ubaidian culture and from that union came what we call the Sumerian civilization

edit on 19/11/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

why should I believe anything those people say?
Deny Ignorance, Dude, Deny Ignorance. The rest is up to you.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
I was one of those who studied the artifacts when they were in the possession of Portland State University. The most fascinating aspect for me as a sociologist is how it messed up our notions of "white" and "other" as valid designations for how to classify human remains. The delays in making designations had mostly to do with this, on the bottom line. The conflict still rages, but at least Kennewick Man made us think about it a little harder. Meanwhile, the actual lineage will be decided by agreed-upon DNA traces, as so many other lines have now been resolved. There is no better proof than that which is unavoidable. The history of the world is being wrenched from the clutches of many stubborn disciplines because a fact is a fact is a fact.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

why should I believe anything those people say?
Deny Ignorance, Dude, Deny Ignorance. The rest is up to you.


It's ignorant to not accept this as fact: we did not "evolve" in the blink of an eye and then start building giant stone structures around the world.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy


It's ignorant to not accept this as fact: we did not "evolve" in the blink of an eye and then start building giant stone structures around the world.


We evolved slowly physically but after a while, for some groups, we made significant cultural advances, and in geological terms, 'fast' but I suspect you mean something else. Please explain what your point is - maybe give an example



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by alumnathe
 


It would be I interesting to get to the bottom of all those white gods stories cultures around the world seem to have.

Nice that DNA is slowly taking the politics out of it.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


Well technically 'Caucasoid' and 'Caucasian' are the same thing.Caucasian does not mean white.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viking9019
reply to post by aorAki
 
Well technically 'Caucasoid' and 'Caucasian' are the same thing.Caucasian does not mean white.
Technically, you are indeed right. Thing is, colloquially, "Caucasian" has been used to mean 'white', and the story then becomes skewed to infer that Kennewick Man was a white European. Unfortunately, this misconception has been picked up to promote nasty racial themes which further try to disenfranchise First Nations rights. The whole tale is fraught with enough political shenanigans...note the reasons why the Feds have been so accommodating to the locals in entering it into the NAGPRA dictates and denying research opportunities.

Just tryin' to keep the story straight.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
maybe give an example


the totality of the context is only understood by non-linear reasoning, the ability of which you may not possess.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Slayer- have you been able to dig up any mtDNA or Y-dna results from studies that were done? The only thing I could find, is the below:

www.nps.gov...

...basically saying that no viable dna samples could be extracted from what ever fragments they selected. It would appear that what ever study that was was probably connected to the ones conducted in the early-2000s and not the subsequent studies that continued in the later part of the decade.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by slip2break
 

Yes a good thorough mtDNA study would shed some light,
While trying to find if his DNA was studied my whole view of the subject of how humans have moved around has been altered substantially.
I found an article expounding on a published study, that argues for a native north American migration to eurasia.


This is consistent with mtDNA studies that show that non-Arctic North American Indians possess hg X related to hg X found in Europe and the Middle East, but not found in Siberia. But Siberians share their “green” component with American Indians to the exclusion of West Eurasians. Again, this is consistent with mtDNA studies. So, what in fact we see is not just an Arctic Siberian-Eskimo-Aleut nexus, a Sub-Arctic-Siberian-Na-Dene nexus but also a non-Artic American Indian-West Eurasian nexus. Since the Amerindian component is found all across Eurasia, it’s most parsimonious to interpret these multiple connections between Old World and New World populations as an ancient population expansion from the New World to the Old World.

The source
anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org... s-to-the-old-world/
edit on 22-11-2012 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Hi Hans,
In one of your previous posts, you mentioned " the black haired people" what was that in reference to?
Was that real history/ mythos or stichin?





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join