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: 3
82
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   

drivers1492
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.

The truth is, her career was impacted not by the find, but by her publishing on the find.

It wasn't her site, it wasn't her call, and she was a very minor player on the dig - brought in from the USGS to do some geological work and dating on the site.

I'm sure everyone realizes that, if you ask your boss if you can step on his toes and he says no, then you step on his toes anyway, your career might be jeopardized.

At any rate, Steen-MacIntyre has been publishing and speaking on subjects in her field all along since then, though primarily this one finding. She has found it hard to get a long term research position though - and that is very understandable given her poor bedhavior in this incident.

Harte




posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Sure I can understand that. However if the dates are correct, I'm glad she made the decision. One settled, if true, would be a fascinating find. Since I'm not privy to why she did what she did I can't make a decent call as to if it was a poor one on her part. Apparently it has had very bad ramifications for her.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

evidently archeology is wrong. I loved the one guy's reaction when the older gent with the head injury said there would be new diatoms mixed in with the older ones if the layers were mixed and he kinda blinks and stutters because he knows his idea was wrong and the dating was correct.

personally I believe these artifacts come from the Annunaki who came here to search for gold.

note the primitive tools used by advanced beings

edit on 11-1-2014 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


bfft

I think you and I have touched on this before along with Johnnycanuck. I'm pretty sure there were people/peoples of both European and Asian lines that came to North America. The question for me is were there over the preceding say 500,000 + years or so, multiple waves of migration? If true, then the concept of Guns, Germs and Steel written by Jared Diamond may have taken place. Obviously no Guns and Steel were involved but Germs and a superior point design?

Yes, I think not just a massive natural catastrophic aided in their possible extinction but also possibly superior weaponry design and like the Spanish to follow much later could have also brought disease.

Think about that possibility. If it happened in recorded history whose to say that something similar didn't happen previously in prehistory? If these waves by a tool using hominid took place in prehistory and then were isolated for large periods of time, then the next wave of a similar genetic makeup *Not necessarily* the same [Homo] could have brought with them 'Germs' the previous waves/lines had no resistance to.

How do we know that the presently accepted 18,000 BC or cut off wasn't just the most recent in terms of prehistoric settlement?

As far as North America during the last Ice Age was mostly uninhabitable until fairly recently say the last 14 to 18 thousand years or so with 2 mile high glaciers and all that etc. So it seems reasonable to find much older sites further south in Central and South America. Although I think Peru may hold the Key as well as the Olmec but stay tuned on those.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Quadrivium
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?


The lifetime's work, academic credentials, and professional reputation of nearly all historians rests on the current model of history. New information could smash the current model. It would invalidate their work. Hence why they must protect the system.

It's an understandable human reaction. But it baffles me when people assume academics are somehow immune to this.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Ive seen this doco many times and ive posted it once or twice also.
This is a post by me from this thread Archaeologists to excavate Ice Age site in Florida with early human remains

GezinhoKiko
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


More proof that man has been in America a hell of a lot earlier than 15,000 years give or take.

Theres evidence man has been in South America for at least 80,000 years and possibly 500,000 years.
These dates are not speculation, different dating methods have been used and have produced these dates.
So do we go conservative and lean towards 80,000 years or accept 500,000 years? The answer is simple, it makes no difference.
The fact is man has been in South America for at least 80,000 years.
This myth of 13,000-15,000 just isnt relevent now. As a comparison its like walking around today teaching the Earth is flat even tho we know it isnt, its ignorance beyond comprehension.
One dating method used was the same method that produced an age of around 2million years for Homo Habilis that was dicovered by Louis Leaky in 1964 at the site of Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania.
Date was accepted, science is progressing and we are learning. The world is round.
But the opposite was shown in Mexico. A flat Earth ignorance is displayed.



Heres the full story




posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Harte
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


I appreciate the feedback and honestly a bit surprised.

Read my reply to bfft ^



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Shiloh7

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.

I do not see it as "debating your faith".
I actually see it as two intelligent people discussing the content of the thread, sharing ideas to try and figure out the why

Peace
Quad



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Cathcart

Quadrivium
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?


The lifetime's work, academic credentials, and professional reputation of nearly all historians rests on the current model of history. New information could smash the current model. It would invalidate their work. Hence why they must protect the system.

It's an understandable human reaction. But it baffles me when people assume academics are somehow immune to this.


Very well put.
I believe you may have hit the nail on the head.
I would like to believe that if you can prove me wrong I could admit it and change course. I wish more people could do so. There is no telling how much we have been set back by those who refuse to admit they are wrong. Whether they be in religion or science.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   

GezinhoKiko
Heres the full story




That's the same video in the OP.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Just to add a little science to the discussion,


Abstract:
Important artifacts have been found in situ (i.e., not redeposited) within lacustrine deposits in the Valsequillo region. These deposits contain many diatoms which indicate an age corresponding to the Sangamonian Interglacial sensu lato (80,000 to ca. 220,000yr BP). Two of the four samples in this study are associated with the Dorenberg skull or with stratigraphic units which contain bifacial tools. The remaining two samples are from diatomaceous deposits which are also Sangamonian and stratigraphically above the artifact units. These four diatomaceous samples yielded 30 extinct and 143 extant diatom taxa. The ages of the four samples correspond to other diatomaceous samples (some of which are associated with artifacts) from nearby Valsequillo localities. A post-Sangamonian age for these four diatom-bearing samples is discounted by the presence of Navicula bronislaae and N. dorenbergi, both of which have short stratigraphic ranges and are known only from the Sangamonian (or its equivalents), and by 13 diatoms which evidently have known long stratigraphic ranges and extinctions before the end of the Sangamonian. An age no older than Sangamonian for the artifacts and their enclosing diatomaceous deposits is indicated by the presence of two diatoms (Epithemia zebra var. undulata and Navicula creguti) known only from Sangamonian (or = age) or younger and by an extant diatom, Cymbella cistula var. gibbosa (C. gibbosa), which has its first occurrence in the Sangamonian



www.jstor.org...




edit on 11-1-2014 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I think it may be fair to consider other sites as well, such as...

Topper


Topper is an archaeological site located along the Savannah River in Allendale County, South Carolina in the United States. It is noted as the location of controversial artifacts believed by some archaeologists to indicate human habitation of the New World earlier than the Clovis culture, previously believed to be the first people in North America. Artifacts at this site may predate Clovis by 3,000 years or more. The primary excavation has gone down to the 50,000 B.C. level, searching for any other archaeological evidence.

Until increasing challenges in the first decade of the 21st century to the Clovis theory based on this site and others, it was unusual for archaeologists to dig deeper than the layer of the Clovis culture, as they then believed that no human artifacts would be found older than Clovis. Among the objects from the "pre-Clovis" stratum dated to 16,000-20,000 years BP, is a large piece nicknamed the "Topper Chopper", which offers some of the most compelling evidence for human agency, including bifacial flaking of the edge.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
The story is being controlled. The question is: To what ends?

I think science is afraid to admit that all human life didn't evolve from some single missing link. I think there is a definite possibility that each race of humans found on the Earth today evolved separately and interbreeding has reduced some physiologically apparent differences. I think many in the scientific community want to attribute this to mutation.

I want this question to stand separately: How do you think it is, that a perfect human male and a perfect human female evolved? Think about it.

As for re-writing the history books ... there's probably not much point in it. You go back far enough and everything has to be based on some version of sheer speculation. I'm not going to argue with anyone about it. The fact is ... nobody knows, and nobody ever will.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Any time you post mesoamerican stuff, let me know. I rather enjoy punkinworks and truman's contributions in that area, and would be interested in enjoying yours as well.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Don't forget about the barzena carving found just a few miles from hyuateco.



Abstract:
A carved sacrum from a fossil camelid was found near Tequixquiac in 1870 in Upper Pleistocene deposits of the Valley of Mexico. At that time it was described as one of the first discoveries that proved the co-existence of man with extinct fauna in the New World. The specimen was apparently lost at the end of the 19th century and serious doubts have been expressed about its authenticity. This carved bone was rediscovered in 1956, and recent studies of the specimen tend to demonstrate its authenticity and scientific value. A survey of all known examples of similar finds in North America suggests that the Tequixquiac bone is probably the only example of true art that has yet been found in Paleo-Indian levels in the New World.
www.jstor.org...

edit on 11-1-2014 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2014 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I am continually suprised,and I don't know why,that people, especially scientists seem to think that early man was stupid and incapable of doing things. Man has been as smart as we are now since evolution made us what we are. It's not like man came to be with that big brain but it didn't function until recently.

Just as they assume that man could only have reached the new world over the Bering bridge.Yeah I know there is some evidence for that.However there is also evidence that at the very least Clovis people came here from Europe across the glacier,or along it by boat.This evidence is also being questioned by the mainstream, just as the video here is portraying.I have seen this video before and it really confirmed my belief that there is a movement in the mainstream to supress evidence that doesn't fit the conventional mold.

While I don't always hold with some of these unconventional theories, I do believe that man in the past was just as capable of doing what he wanted as the human of today is. The human restlessness and desire to explore what is beyond the next hill,I believe has always been a part of mankinds spirit.

As far the situation covered in this video is concerned, it seems to me that the diatom evidence is the determining factor. Of course it is being denied. As Mexico is a very Catholic country, I will go out on a limb here and predict that the church is behind the denial of the dates here. After all they supressed Galileo didn't they. Not to mention Copernicus and the list goes on.

Back a couple of years ago I found a link from a science site that had an article about a discovery at a site on the coast of South Africa. It was about the discovery of human remains discovered in a cave that had been reliably dated by independant labs to 3 million years. Now I was really taken back by this discovery as I didn't believe that Homo Sapiens was around back then.A couple of months later I wanted to post that link and discovered that it was broken and there was no evidence it had ever existed. Gone was the article and the pictures of the dig site. Possible cover up....... Truthfully I don't know. Maybe it was found to be fradulent. I haven't been able to find anything about it. Still if true, it would set the scientific world on it's ear.

I am a bit uncomfortable with the extreme dates put forth in the video. However I am comfortable with 80,000 year date. It is certianly possible, as there are supposedly some sites in South America that have remains dated to this era.

So I have to ask .... why couldn't man have been here 80,000 years ago. Is it just because the mainstream says so? If that's the only reason then I would think that it's time for them to open their minds, and at least consider that this could be a valid date. I doubt that this will ever happen. A lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. In other words just because we haven't found concrete evidence doesn't mean that it is not there to find.

I have often wondered where did the Olmec, Toltec, Mayans,Incas,and the Nazca peoples come from? I have never seen research on where these peoples came from. Almost like it is assumed that they were always there. Certainly some of the later civilizations had peoples from the precursor groups as members of their society. But where did the earlier peoples come from? How far back do we have to go to find the precursors of those early civilizations?

I am prepared to be totally flamed for my opinions here, so flame away. Please excuse me if I don't care.
edit on 1/11/2014 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
When one has a discussion of this nature,
lets also not forget about extremely old possible lithics from a coupl of other areas.
Such finds as the possible auchelean tools found in Arizona, as discussed in another excellent thread by slayer.


www.abovetopsecret.com...=



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Thanks for this, Slayer.
Will definitely come back to this later.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


You are very intelligent on this type of topic..... and as a person. I hope you keep them coming. It was a good read.

S&F mate ..



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Cathcart

Quadrivium
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?


The lifetime's work, academic credentials, and professional reputation of nearly all historians rests on the current model of history. New information could smash the current model. It would invalidate their work. Hence why they must protect the system.

It's an understandable human reaction. But it baffles me when people assume academics are somehow immune to this.


What baffles me is how somebody could believe this untruth you posted.

Over the last hundred years or so, the "current" model of history has been smashed at least twenty or thirty times by new finds that were published by academics with credentials.

Harte
edit on 1/11/2014 by Harte because: I said so. Period.



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join