Discoveries Challenge Beliefs on Humans’ Arrival in the Americas

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Harte



No, I don't have a pet theory that I want to push, and I'm not looking to throw the Clovis model out the window either. What I want is for the model to be added to. If it is looking like humans were in the Americas long before the Clovis time frame then talk about it. You don't have to say how they got there if you don't know, but to just ignore the evidence because it doesn't sync with accepted theories is ridiculous.



P.S.: I don't know what high school you went to, but the Clovis model is what they taught me at mine (I graduated in 2003) and it certainly was taught in my Anthropology class in college a few years ago. That's why I know about it.

Why do you assume that pre clovis is not being "talked about?"

Why do we even know about pre clovis sites? Do you imagine that various upset internet posters are digging these things up?

As for your last two sentences, I dispute the veracity of your statement.

Clovis is not taught in high school in any normal history course. There is no high scvhool anthropology course, excepting the possibility of an AP course.

You realize that high school textbooks are available online for free (ebooks)? Find me one that mentions clovis as the first Americans.

Preclovis sites have been well established since before you graduated high school. There were some disputes about some of them. No college professor has taught Clovis First exclusively for at least two decades.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Don't tell me what I did and didn't learn in high school. I think I'd have a better grasp of it than you would. And yes my history class DID teach it. It was more of a footnote of my World History class when we discussed pre-history at the very beginning of my 10th grade year.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Harte



Don't tell me what I did and didn't learn in high school. I think I'd have a better grasp of it than you would. And yes my history class DID teach it. It was more of a footnote of my World History class when we discussed pre-history at the very beginning of my 10th grade year.

I'm not telling you anything except that I don't believe you.

Are you telling me what to believe?

Harte

originally posted by: WanDash

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: stirling
Mexico....you forgot that find in Mexico that has been vindicated as over 20,000 yrs

Do you have a link?

Here is a link to the thread/story, I think stirling was referring to...
It regards a site at/around Hueyatlaco, which would be in the vicinity/region of Mexico City, Mexico.

Great topic!
Will get back to reading through the posts.

There was still the problem of the U.S. Geological Survey team's date. That date placed the site of Hueyatlaco at 250,000 to 350,000 years ago, as previously mentioned.

Oopss..lol They don't want to talk about all this and how a reputable scientist was run to the ground and kicked of universities and colleges only because made a discovery that would have rewritten history.

www.s8int.com...

a reply to: Harte

Look, I'm not trying to justify my life to you or substantiate my claims. If you don't want to believe me then fine, don't believe me. It's not going to ruin my day or anything.

originally posted by: Telos

There was still the problem of the U.S. Geological Survey team's date. That date placed the site of Hueyatlaco at 250,000 to 350,000 years ago, as previously mentioned.

Oopss..lol They don't want to talk about all this and how a reputable scientist was run to the ground and kicked of universities and colleges only because made a discovery that would have rewritten history.

www.s8int.com...

it makes for a great story except its not really the truth. Steen-Mcintyre wasn't ostracized because of the dates involved at hueyatlaco, she ran into problems because it wasn't her site and she went over the head of Cynthia Irwin-Williams and released unsubstantiated data in order to further her own career with the end result being the entire dig looked foolish.
The actual dates are nowhere near 350 ky BP The site is at least 40k BP however and its still a paradigm altering piece of data with the possibility of yet older dates to come.

a reply to: [post=17827043]WanDash[/post
More about dating hyuateco and Valsequillo, from Van Landingham 2004,

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...
More on diatoms at the site

pleistocenecoalition.com...

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Telos

There was still the problem of the U.S. Geological Survey team's date. That date placed the site of Hueyatlaco at 250,000 to 350,000 years ago, as previously mentioned.

Oopss..lol They don't want to talk about all this and how a reputable scientist was run to the ground and kicked of universities and colleges only because made a discovery that would have rewritten history.

www.s8int.com...

it makes for a great story except its not really the truth. Steen-Mcintyre wasn't ostracized because of the dates involved at hueyatlaco, she ran into problems because it wasn't her site and she went over the head of Cynthia Irwin-Williams and released unsubstantiated data in order to further her own career with the end result being the entire dig looked foolish.
The actual dates are nowhere near 350 ky BP The site is at least 40k BP however and its still a paradigm altering piece of data with the possibility of yet older dates to come.

Just to spice it up I'm offering these two reads which most of you might be familiar with:

archaeological cover-ups a plot to control history

and:

archaeological coverups by david hatcher childress

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: WanDash

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: stirling

Mexico....you forgot that find in Mexico that has been vindicated as over 20,000 yrs

Do you have a link?

Here is a link to the thread/story, I think stirling was referring to...

It regards a site at/around Hueyatlaco, which would be in the vicinity/region of Mexico City, Mexico.



Great topic!

Will get back to reading through the posts.

There was still the problem of the U.S. Geological Survey team's date. That date placed the site of Hueyatlaco at 250,000 to 350,000 years ago, as previously mentioned.

Oopss..lol They don't want to talk about all this and how a reputable scientist was run to the ground and kicked of universities and colleges only because made a discovery that would have rewritten history.



www.s8int.com...

Except none of that happened to Steen MacIntyre.
Lovely story though. Hndy how it fits right into your paranoia.

Steen-MacIntyre made the mistake of publishing someone else's work. I didn't call it theft because she was involved (n a minor role) at the dig, as a geologist (she's not an archaeologist.)

Her boss, Cynthia Irwin-Williamns had the authority to publish the data, and she did.

Odd then, that nothing at all happened to Irwin-Williams, isn't it? That is, why aren't you claiming the legitimate researcher at the site, who published the same information, was "run inrto the ground and kicked out of universities?"

This happened to neither. Steen-MacIntyre paid a price for jumping in front of her boss - the same as anyone else in any line of work would.

You can find all sorts of info on this right here at ATS. It's been beat to death around here.

Harte

originally posted by: Telos
Just to spice it up I'm offering these two reads which most of you might be familiar with:
archaeological cover-ups a plot to control history
and:
archaeological coverups by david hatcher childress

Ultimately, you are free to believe whatever you want, and that's ok by me. But if you are going to be calling it fact, you'd better be able to back it up with cold, hard, proof. Meanwhile...

Don't step in that, Wilbur...

a reply to: Harte

Why are you always crushing dreams with your damned facts Harte?

originally posted by: Harte




Except none of that happened to Steen MacIntyre.
Lovely story though. Hndy how it fits right into your paranoia.

Who do you think you are calling people paranoid and what they say or think as paranoia? Now I understand that you and someone else here who might see themselves as self appointed debunker have the right to your own opinion but enough acting like you carry the torch of truth in this board.

I do not agree with your "crushing' every other idea or theory other that the accepted orthodox view but I don't offend you or attack you. So get off your horse man. You're nobody, just someone with an opinion !!!

a reply to: punkinworks10

Hiya Punkin, it's been a while

Sam Van Landingham's analyses of the diatoms have been fascinating reading. They sound definitive to people who aren't fluent in the terminology or processes of technical archaeology. I'm one of those people.

If you follow the discussions about his papers by his academic peers, they were far from definitive. IIRC there was wide debate about *how* the diatoms from '80,000 to ca. 220,000yr BP' could be present on/near the remains of anatomically modern humans and their lithics. The debate wasn't so much being driven by mainstream archaeologists either, the main detractors were academics who push the envelope themselves.

To summarise, it was hard to rule out other geological/climatic/biological explanations for the much older diatoms to be associated with the apparently modern human remains and artefacts (like lithics and hearths). Such provisional dates aren't dependent on one strand of evidence either. For example, if a Roman sword was found to be in a bed containing diatoms from 4kya, it wouldn't be evidence that Romans were smelting swords 4kya...it'd be evidence that a flood had displaced the sword and/or diatoms.

Hall of Maat hosts these discussions and I can dig out the old links if you're interested.

Even when we were digging for Dr. George Agigino at Blackwater draw; no one really was locked into the 10k dating mark. Early man in the new world is much much older.

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: Harte




Except none of that happened to Steen MacIntyre.
Lovely story though. Hndy how it fits right into your paranoia.

Who do you think you are calling people paranoid and what they say or think as paranoia? Now I understand that you and someone else here who might see themselves as self appointed debunker have the right to your own opinion but enough acting like you carry the torch of truth in this board.

I do not agree with your "crushing' every other idea or theory other that the accepted orthodox view but I don't offend you or attack you. So get off your horse man. You're nobody, just someone with an opinion !!!

Sorry, but that's just not the case.

What I have are facts, not opinions. That is, when I voice an opinion, I state it is an opinion. I don't feel sorry for you just because the facts themselves refute the opinions of others (note, I don't call it your opinion because I recognize that "opinion" from professional liars which you seem to gravitate to.)

What you have are links to other people's lies and mischaracterizations.
Now, I told you that the information you really need has been posted at this forum many times over. I'd suggest you read it. It helps with the ignorance if you just try to learn a few small things.

Harte

The earliest dates confirming the human occupation of Florida dates to approximately 15,500 B.C. and lasted until 9,500 B.C. (Table 1). During this period, Florida was twice the size it is today with sea levels 60 to 100 m (197-328 ft) lower, exposing large areas of the continental shelf. The east coast of Florida was as much as 60 km (37 mi) further east than at present and overall the environment of Florida was considerably drier than it is today.

...Sea level changes have covered up land that was occupied by Paleoindians and archaeological investigation of these sites has been restricted to those located in the interior uplands.

www.nbbd.com...

of course, in my siggy thread examining the harbors out on the edge of the secondary continemtal shelf, and the world wide travel at aprox 7000 byn, I forgot about all the other sites out on the shelf that would be gone for good by now
it was the "similar to now peoples" that existed at the 1000 ybn ... my boo boo there

i wonder what else, going back to the dates in the OP, might be out there on the continental shelves, or was scraped clean by glaciation, and is by now probably gone for good

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: Harte




Except none of that happened to Steen MacIntyre.
Lovely story though. Hndy how it fits right into your paranoia.

Who do you think you are calling people paranoid and what they say or think as paranoia? Now I understand that you and someone else here who might see themselves as self appointed debunker have the right to your own opinion but enough acting like you carry the torch of truth in this board.

I do not agree with your "crushing' every other idea or theory other that the accepted orthodox view but I don't offend you or attack you. So get off your horse man. You're nobody, just someone with an opinion !!!

Sorry, but that's just not the case.

What I have are facts, not opinions. That is, when I voice an opinion, I state it is an opinion. I don't feel sorry for you just because the facts themselves refute the opinions of others (note, I don't call it your opinion because I recognize that "opinion" from professional liars which you seem to gravitate to.)

What you have are links to other people's lies and mischaracterizations.
Now, I told you that the information you really need has been posted at this forum many times over. I'd suggest you read it. It helps with the ignorance if you just try to learn a few small things.

Harte

I'm not asking for you to feel sorry. And why would you assume that attitude in the first place? What you have are facts and what I brought is a different point of view voiced by people who are from the field. That being said, a different approach and something worth looking at it. You don't like it? You don't want to spoil your viewpoint based on your so called facts? Fine. Don't read the post. You want to make epithets and call names? Fine. Once again, skip it and don't read it. But don't come in this thread/s like you are the eternal father and tell to others what they have to read and what not. You don't know me, have no idea who I am and what I represent. Just a friendly advise, if you don't like what I write, I politely require you to no read my posts. I do the same with yours. It's been years that I ignore everything you say. Until you quoted me and name called me.

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: Harte









Except none of that happened to Steen MacIntyre.

Lovely story though. Hndy how it fits right into your paranoia.

Who do you think you are calling people paranoid and what they say or think as paranoia? Now I understand that you and someone else here who might see themselves as self appointed debunker have the right to your own opinion but enough acting like you carry the torch of truth in this board.



I do not agree with your "crushing' every other idea or theory other that the accepted orthodox view but I don't offend you or attack you. So get off your horse man. You're nobody, just someone with an opinion !!!

Sorry, but that's just not the case.



What I have are facts, not opinions. That is, when I voice an opinion, I state it is an opinion. I don't feel sorry for you just because the facts themselves refute the opinions of others (note, I don't call it your opinion because I recognize that "opinion" from professional liars which you seem to gravitate to.)



What you have are links to other people's lies and mischaracterizations.

Now, I told you that the information you really need has been posted at this forum many times over. I'd suggest you read it. It helps with the ignorance if you just try to learn a few small things.



Harte

I'm not asking for you to feel sorry. And why would you assume that attitude in the first place? What you have are facts and what I brought is a different point of view voiced by people who are from the field. That being said, a different approach and something worth looking at it. You don't like it? You don't want to spoil your viewpoint based on your so called facts? Fine. Don't read the post. You want to make epithets and call names? Fine. Once again, skip it and don't read it. But don't come in this thread/s like you are the eternal father and tell to others what they have to read and what not. You don't know me, have no idea who I am and what I represent. Just a friendly advise, if you don't like what I write, I politely require you to no read my posts. I do the same with yours. It's been years that I ignore everything you say. Until you quoted me and name called me.

My problem is not with my reading your posts.

My problem is with leaving your misinformed, misleading and outright inaccurate posts there for other people to read without them seeing that there is another, real side to ancient history and there are reasons why ignorant views like the one you parroted are utterly wrong.

Harte

Well then since you see yourself as the truth bearer, is pointless to continue arguing on the principals. People with God like complex are always ridiculous in my eyes.

Good luck in spreading the light of truth.

a reply to: Telos

You don't at all see the lurid irony of calling out someone for giving you information simply because it doesn't jive with what you choose to believe? Why not look at all of the available information and see both sides as opposed to plugging your ears and screaming nanny nanny boo boo. If your not here to learn as well as share then what's the point? Cut text is everything and that applies to the sources of your information as well as the data itself.