It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Evidence of Early Man? The Trilemma...

page: 2
82
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


I too go back and forth on this one myself. This is another reason why I've decided to post this and get others who have an interest in this to view the video and see if I'm alone.

I'm glad to see I'm not.




posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   

JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Bookmarking this to give it a good solid look. Thanks up front Slayer, for dealing with Cremo early on so I don't have to dismiss it right off. I always respect your posts.



Thanks Johnny.

I'm glad to see you out and about. I hope this is a better representation of the find and site.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Star and flag Slayer.
As children, my brothers and I spent many a day arrow head hunting in the fields around our house.
We accumulated a good number of cigar boxes full of them.
Some of the axes we found were very old according to the books my Grandfather had.
Not sure what became of them. I am sure one of my brothers still have them somewhere.

Anyway a simple question.........
In your opinion, why would anyone try to cover up that humans may have been in North America 35k to 500k years ago?
Quad



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Excellent info. Seems like I have seen that vid but I'm going to watch/listen while I fall asleep this evening. Unless I'm remembering the wrong lady McIntyre had her career adversely effected by this find. Never made much sense to me she seemed to just get a bad rap because it didn't fit what was currently held as fact.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Interesting thread, Slayer. I read this one right before I came into yours:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, I am not proposing a heresy in that there was actually migration from the Americas to Europe or Asia, and that the people here in the Americas actually arrived long, long before the last ice age. But it is interesting to consider.


There is evidence, strong evidence, for a cataclysmic event in the far northern Americas. There is also strong evidence of a massive flood occuring around the same time, proposed in the glacial dam theory. I have always wondered what the force of impact does to the plates. Wouldn't you expect that the force would create a downward push, just like if you were to see a frog jump on a lillypad? Obviously, far less pronounced than that...but it gives the idea.

We have found vast amounts of subterranean water, and have heard rumors that the entire west coast is basically a floating island attached tot he continent. Would it then be possible that the glacial water flood could possibly have been exacerbated by this?

Combine back in the aforementioned downard pressure. If it occurs near the edge of a continental mass, could it create a teetering effect? As an example, could a large meteor/comet creating impact pressure on the east coast affect the elevation of the coastline? Could you have an effect of saltwater inclusion?

What I have a hard time doing is finding solid relational aspect between European/Asian cultures and American. However, the aforementioned link, despite being somewhat silly in the way it is written, is an interesting observation.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I have witnessed academics acting unethically to protect their expert status now so many times. Nothing would surprise me.

I liken it to the guy who has spent his entire life to charting the known heavens. Only to have some smart ass invent the telescope.

Bugger.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Quadrivium
Anyway a simple question.........
In your opinion, why would anyone try to cover up that humans may have been in North America 35k to 500k years ago?
Quad


If you want to create enemies try to change something.
If this is true it will rewrite human history. There would be no way around that.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   

SLAYER69

This may prove to be a people/peoples that predate the accepted present bloodlines of the known 'Native/First nation' peoples. Whose to say that these were left by homo sapiens?

I know huh?

spooky, isn't it



That's a great point. I had the same thought while watching the video. A couple things to point out-
We know that H. Erectus was in Europe(Georgian Caucasus)1.8 MYA.
we know that they spread across northern Africa and Asia all the way to Java and Indonesia.
We know that both Neanderthal and H. Erectus we capable of traveling over water though to what distance is unknown. Neanderthal was able to populate Malta and Erectus was able to get to Indonesia.
We know that Neanderthal and Denisovans were well adapted to the cold and that both were in Siberia at some point.
We know that Beringia has historically been dry land more than it HS not and in fact geologically its current underwater condition is almost the exception to the rule and has been the case for well over 2 million years.
we know that there have been multiple migrations of multiple species of animals both into and out of N America for the past 70 million years.
We know that HG groups follow migrating herds and if herds are migrating back and forth between North America and Asia then it's very much in the realm of possibility that humans followed these animals or possibly even settled on Beringia to hunt them as they moved back and forth between continents. When you factor all of these different facets in, it would be naive to rule out the possibility that one or more early humans migrated into N. America from NE Asia and possibly more than once. I'm even feeling brazen enough to say that at first glance some of the more primitive tools located in 'Layer I' are not dissimilar to some of the H Erectus chopping and scraping tools I've seen. I realize that's a rather over confident statement and possibly foolish without being able to do a proper comparison but hey, why not throw it out there while im this deep down the speculation well. As they said in the video, its hard enough to get someone to dig down 10 feet to find artifacts that are 10,000 yrs old so how easy is it to get someone willing dig down 100,200 or 400 ft when 99% of archaeologists and geologists won't even entertain the notion of something that old in the Western Hemisphere.


edit on 10-1-2014 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Your point about humans following migrating herds of different animals is very valid as we know the North American Indians had
an interconnected relationship with the buffalo, for me your point is simple and makes complete sense.

I do feel that one of the hidden hands at play here is the especially the Catholic Church and all the desert religious 'houses' and not in a minor way. The further one pushes back the Garden of Eden and Creation, the more shaky the biblical origins of man become and the Church had the ability to get in and at anyone because all the top brass, wherever it is was established, were anxious to be a part of its networking and under its blessings and protective wealth. Its only recently that people have started to question dogma across the board and openly say their are athiest or not CoE on a job application etc.

I believe the crux of this, apart from the dating, is the question one can ask oneself - with my brain would I have stagnated for X thousands of years - and the answer virtually everyone would come up with is No. The environment changed periodically and I would have migrated not only out of necessity but also out of the most human of reasons, my curiosity.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 02:21 AM
link   

SLAYER69

Quadrivium
Anyway a simple question.........
In your opinion, why would anyone try to cover up that humans may have been in North America 35k to 500k years ago?
Quad


If you want to create enemies try to change something.
If this is true it will rewrite human history. There would be no way around that.

I think we both agree that human history should be rewritten. That being said I do not see the problem with it being rewritten. Why would someone try and suppress this information?
They set the timeline for early humans back 500k in Africa, why cover it up in the Americas?
The only reason that honestly comes to mind is evolution. Yet these discoveries don't seem to threaten it.
Quad



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Thanks for a most informative thread which I have found very interesting. To have such a gem, when one is full of cold at 4.30 am is highly recommendable.

I am intrigued by the antics of some people to stop this information getting out to mainstream and for people to investigate it further and discuss it. I don't quite see the original guy who hired gun men to force the field workers to say the spear heads etc were placed at the site and discredit the first lady Archaelogist as having that insiduous power. The effort this has taken seems to come from a much more devious and powerful group/s.

I wonder if we are not looking at a twofold situation:

Firstly the development of our ancestors to circumnavigate the globe. I cannot help remembering something I read about the elder and ancient Polynesians (or at least peoples from the Southern Hemisphere) and their ability to sail wherever they chose over vast distances, simply because they had the skill to know from the lapping of the waves against the canoes's hull whether there was an island or land existing beyond the horizon and other inexplicable nautical abilities which modern man has lost.

Secondly, the thorny one of blood lines. For me this suggests that there is a strong possibility of the reality that there exists an ancient elite group who rule and control the beliefs of the world and have always literally used mankind as their workers and they are not going to allow any change to our view of our origins or the various institutions and beliefs that keep them in power.

We rarely consider Kingship although some think that it was originally an elected position geared to run the land, rivers and seas etc for the benefit of all and was not hereditary and not done for financial reward. If the crops failed etc then the king was either changed or possibly sacrificed. Later it appears this situation was grabbed by the greediest and most powerful families who installed themselves as hereditary Kings etc and the bloodlines came into being.

If one goes back to the biblical and Sumerian ideas of the Annanaki/Nephilim and we hyperthetically accept them as 'Gods' or God's workers and that they were giants, we know that ordinary man eventually overcame the giants etc so it seems most likely that the bloodline theory links not to this group of God-like individuals but to a group from within makind itself. Just food for thought as its a man's hand that removed the artefacts and proof at the Mexican sight.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Shiloh7
 



The further one pushes back the Garden of Eden and Creation, the more shaky the biblical origins of man become 

How so?
I don't want to derail the thread but I am curious as to how you came to this conclusion.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Book marking as well, I (like most people) have an opinion on this. I'll wait till later to post, but great thread though.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Lol thanks for the not a short read message, saved me a couple seconds
leaving my footprint, be back later



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Goes basically back to two things, firstly the idea that the world is only some 6000 odd years old and that the first 'man' was made by a God within the Garden of Eden ( which also can only be some 6000 years old).

Also if one came from the Garden of Eden perhaps one could accept that the oldest examples of man needs to be either in the Levant or nearby at a stretch in Africa, but certainly no Garden of Eden in Mexico. The desert religions don't sit well with mankind breaking out all over the globe, and certainly not any possibility of his origens coming from across the world, it leads to too many questions. Many of the religious fraternity are accepting of religions assertions but given too many facts that question those assertions and there would be trouble within the ranks and a drop in takings. The Roman Emporers ruled through the velvet glove of religion and nothing much has changed since their times.

When looking from a religious perspective anything that rocks the first few books of Genesis and its stories, which are the basic building block of religious teaching for young children, hence their indoctrination into religions etc is subversive. The power of the religious houses is unbelievable even today. In the UK we have Bishops sitting in our `house of Lords' which is an intricate part of our Government and how our society runs.

In the UK there was a tradition of the top families to make the eldest son run the estate, the second went into the army and the third went into the Church and the fourth into politics - and so rulership thrived and much remained unchanged.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Shiloh7
 


Of course u know that Young Earthers just came into being the last century or so? No where in the bible does it say how old the earth actually is.
If it were the case that man was in Mexico 500k years ago it would not shake my faith in the least.
On the other hand it may set the evolution of man back farther than many care to admit. The farther you push back man's evolution into modern man the less amount of time there is for it to have been a slow and gradual process.
Think about it....... most scientists/archeologist gladly accepted proof that man was in Africa 500k years ago......why shun the same evidence from the Mexico? Bcause it messes with their evolutionary model.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Quadrivium
reply to post by Shiloh7
 


Of course u know that Young Earthers just came into being the last century or so? No where in the bible does it say how old the earth actually is.
If it were the case that man was in Mexico 500k years ago it would not shake my faith in the least.
On the other hand it may set the evolution of man back farther than many care to admit. The farther you push back man's evolution into modern man the less amount of time there is for it to have been a slow and gradual process.
Think about it....... most scientists/archeologist gladly accepted proof that man was in Africa 500k years ago......why shun the same evidence from the Mexico? Bcause it messes with their evolutionary model.


I had not meant for us to be debating your faith, which is nothing to do with me or this thread - or my faith either. As I understood it Young Earthers - old Earthers are people who believe in the bible literally and consist of both Christians and Jews etc. Both these groups, especially the latter who do have tremendous sway within funding and certain institutions etc - are not averse to letting their religious views influence their actions I suspect.

With our evolution although I did use to accept the view that it took hundreds of thousands of years for us to move from round stones to shaped flint tools etc etc. I have changed my mind about how quickly man can adapt and learn simply by looking at the incredible changes that have taken place over the last 300 odd years. Since the industrial revolution in the West, we have gone from basically an illiterate society with no basic sanitation, food supply or education to a society so technically advanced its quite an amaxing feat what we have achieved within 300 years.

What did bother me most was how determined in the video the scientist was not to change his opinion, despite the evidence - and as another scientist commented, that is not science. We tend to trust scientists good judgement especially within archaeology and I would like to get the the truth, warts and all rather than mouthing acceptance of outdated ideas. When one hears historian professors from Oxford saying we need to rewrite history, but its unlikely to happen, its hardly inspiring and just leaves those who benefit from the current status quo being maintained sitting there smugly.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 06:25 AM
link   

peter vlar
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


This particular site is one I've gone back and forth on since the early 90's when I first read about it. Or maybe it was the documentary that NBC aired with Charlton Heston narrating. The name escapes me but it was one of the first times I had been exposed to alternative concepts in science.


Probably "The Mysterious Origins of Man," (link) referred to as MOM on Talk Origins (link), which thoroughly debunks practically everything Heston was paid to read on that crockumentary.

Heston also narrated "The Mystery of the Sphinx."

www.youtube.com...

It was no better.

Harte



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 06:28 AM
link   

peter vlar

six67seven
I was just asking as I've seen a few old interviews he did and was looking into getting his Hidden History of the Human Race for some time. Maybe I haven't pulled the trigger on that for good reason.


Personally, I'd say go for it and pick up one of his books.

Buy it used to keep the money out of Cremo's pockets and the pockets of the Hare Krishna, who published it.

Harte



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 06:32 AM
link   

SLAYER69
reply to post by queenofsheba
 


I hear ya but hold onto your butts.

This may prove to be a people/peoples that predate the accepted present bloodlines of the known 'Native/First nation' peoples. Whose to say that these were left by homo sapiens?

I know huh?

spooky, isn't it


If the dates are right, they wouldn't have been HSS at least, and possibly could gave been one oif the variations on Erectus, a very exciting idea IMO.

I said the other day in another thread that I wish this site would be settled - ideally (for me) we'd find out that the 250,000 YBP date is right, but it's probably not.

Harte




top topics



 
82
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join