Foot prints in White Sands new Mexico 21000 to 23000 years old

This is just the latest find that seems to be accepted as being genuine as far as ancestors residing upon the north American continent. I grew up with the consensus that the Bering Land bridge was the route to America which happened only 13 to 16,000 years ago. Since then there have been other theories and finds that say that people came to the Americas much much earlier either by walking or by boat.... they came. youtu.be...

a reply to: 727Sky

by boat

A very long time ago .

Most of what they push in regards to the out of africa theory is pure bunk.

Very fascinating, thanks OP. I've always loved going down the rabbit hole of ancient civilizations. I just bought "America Before: The Key to Earth’s Lost Civilization" by Graham Hancock and can't wait to read it. He has a talk where he gives an overview of it on youtube, I highly encourage people to check it out. I just want to know why scientists are trying to cover up this history. What happened to us before that warrants such a cover up?

a reply to: starshift

Out of Africa is based on hundreds of thousands of years and millions of years, not tens of thousands. There's a big difference.

or simply the dating method is wrong...

I would say the earth cycle changes that create terrain like the land bridge happen faster then they are telling us.

I would postulate further and say that, although other processes alter the surface of the earth and every process and cycle operates at it’s own pace, the change that radically alters the earths face the most happens in quick spurts at long intervals and is due in the next few decades.

Everything I read about the subject claims gradual formation and constant subtle changes, I believe this to be incorrect and so it is possible that the land bridge before the last, or even before that one, could have been used by sapiens to enter the Americas.

Thanks, I rather enjoyed typing that reply 🙂
a reply to: that1lurker

a reply to: 727Sky

You know there are a hell of a lot of footprints that get ignored or even dismissed out of hand simply because they do not fit the standard accepted model (standard only because it is what some BELIEVE, now remember that BELIEVE and it turns out that the whole dating of strata is probably very wrong).

Paluxy track's are not the only example of such but are a very cool one or WERE a very cool one until someone took an iron bar to some of the best examples of human and Dinosaur track's crossing one another.

A buried building and artefacts about two miles down in a coal mine.
I for one believe this story.

Chariot - like - Wheels in Limestone


Now what is the truth, well if you ask me these guy's are giving it as it really is, the truth the REAL truth, they are not really that old at all.


What was not washed away is buried.

No woo woo but pretty good research about a world trade network long long ago. youtu.be...

originally posted by: starshift
Most of what they push in regards to the out of africa theory is pure bunk.

No, it's not. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. "Out of Africa" is supported by genetics. It is not debunked because someone found some old footprints. The scale of years is vastly different. And it also does not debunk the Bering Strait land bridge issue of migration either. The bridge was 'available' for thousands of years at a time, every time there was an ice age, of which there have been several. There were likely several "migrations" using that route. But that was by no means the ONLY route. It has been evident for decades that people from all over the world, including Africa, Europe, and Asia, have known about and migrated to the Americas for many thousands of years.

And that brings us to the elephant in the room: Native Americans aren't. Not only are they not native, they may very well have not been first. To say "First Nations," as Canada does, is much more accurate. But anthropology has been hijacked by leftist politically correct behavior that makes it a career killer to suggest anything but current orthodoxy. Just read "Origin" by Jennifer Raff to see how bad it has gotten. Talk about drinking the kool aid. Anthropology will take a hundred years to recover from this nonsense.

I agree that Graham Hancock's works, panned by anthropology, of course, gives a much more probable account of the history of the Americas.

Amazing vids about this topic and much appreciated for posting them

Until science is funded openly and allowed to produce findings that aren't controlled/manipulated, we aren't truly getting an accurate account of our world's history. Too many examples of funding=findings.

a reply to: 727Sky

I think people were seeded here eons ago by aliens. That would explain the pyramids here in the Americas. Many were wiped out by the comet explosion that ended the last ice age some 10,000 years ago. The Clovis people. But farther south and west they later interbred with newer native americans who did come across the Bering Sea.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
or simply the dating method is wrong...

I've long suspected that our usual dating methods are much hokier than scientists would like to believe. Even stuff like carbon dating.

Still, there is plenty of evidence that the Americas were populated much earlier than we currently believe, and that Native Americans may not have the first inhabitants. Kennewick Man was more closely related to the Ainu people of Japan, before anthropologists "corrected" his identification to be Native American.

And bones have been found in South America that -- if I recall correctly -- were related to Polynesians. (If you think about it, if they could make it all the way to Easter Island, there's no conceivable reason why they couldn't reach the coast of South America.)

originally posted by: that1lurker
I just want to know why scientists are trying to cover up this history.

They are not. They simply have the temerity to ask for proof of outlandish assertions.