Ancient city discovered deep in Amazonian rainforest linked to the legendary white-skinned Cloud Peo

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


They aren't burying the facts per se but a lot of that isn't discussed or is forgotten about after a time. MSS have also found the skeletal remains of giants yet very little is written about them; There's a thread on here somewhere that talks about how the Smithsonian has suppressed a lot of our ancient past. We know they existed, yet not much is being said. Why is that? Probably because it doesn't 'fit'.

The example I gave earlier where I mentioned the Maori- The evidence of previous cultures is being suppressed mainly because of land rights issues, kind of like what would've happened with Kennewick man in the Pacific Northwest, had be been proven to not be a descendant of or from that Amerindian tribe... there would be land rights issues

There is a tribe in the Solomon Islands that are notorious for having blond haired children.

I have worked with full blood Central Australian Native peoples, 1000s of miles from the coasts, that have children born with Blonde hair, Light brown hair, Sandy coloured hair and reddish brown hair.
This is normal, also Australian natives do not have "Kinky" hair, as the dark Africans call it.

Our knowledge of Early man is still restricted by the Out of Africa theory....which is just a theory. Im sure there are many skulls identified as Human from Africa, that are probably ancestors of the Apes (not us, the other apes)..Gorillas.

There is NO reason why an ancient ape May have walked on 2 feet, then for whatever genetic or environmental reason, went back or "Evolved" to climbing trees, and sitting on its bottom most of the time.

The theory that just because they "May" have walked on 2 feet, should Not automatically assume they turned into us and are of the Homo genus. Gibbons walk on 2 feet, so do Chimps and Gorillas when they charge etc. Some Lizards walk on 2 feet when running, Kangaroos use only 2 feet. Birds? anyone.

While all life on this Planet is related, too many ridged thoughts still pervade any logical examination.....Thats the way such and such said it was, therefore it is correct.....................Not always.
We will Never really know how or why we got here....but here we be.

I was interested in what the Chachapoyan people look like. Did some searching around and found these images, but cannot verify their authenticity as they came from this message board.








Beautiful people nonetheless.

This article (which, by the way, is from 2008) is a perfect example of sloppy writing. The ONLY witness description of the 'cloud people' comes from Pedro Cieza de Leon who wrote:

'They are the whitest and most handsome of all the people that I have seen, and their wives were so beautiful that because of their gentleness, many of them deserved to be the Incas' wives and to also be taken to the Sun Temple.

Yet the Dailymail transforms that statement into:

The tribe had white skin and blonde hair - features which intrigue historians, as there is no known European ancestry in the region, where most inhabitants are darker skinned

As Harte pointed out pages ago, being the 'whitest' in the Andes does not make you of European descent. That said, any population of peoples, when left isolated from others long enough, will develop their own distinctive genetic traits.

Originally posted by Heliocentric

Originally posted by Leonidas

I thought it was established that Solutreans had made it to South America as well as North America.


That is all you need to explain blue eyes and fair skin cultures in the Americas.

Yes, that is established to a high degree of certainty.


But the Clovis culture ended in an abrubt way, a possible extinction.


I personally suspect countless of arrivals to the Americas from both the East (Europeans, Middle Easterns, Chinese) and the West (Polynesians, Japanese), in such a big melting pot geneticists will have a tough time unravelling who came from where.

edit on 8-7-2013 by Heliocentric because: Plump crow in the quay I slash

 One of the problems in this discussion is the myth that all native Americans are the same. It's clear from early European accounts, native oral histories, and from the archeological record, that the Americas were ethnically very diverse. 

 The journal of cabeza de vaca specifically mentions how some tribes of the gulf coast were taller in stature and lighter skinned, the Yosemite Indians have a tale of a visit by fair people from the south.
Historical references say that certain tribes in the southeast were lighter skinned and taller than their neighbors.
It's my opinion that these fairer skinned people that could be found in small populations all the way down to SA,are the descendants of the Clovis people, who are the descendants of the truely indigenous people of NA.
Contrary to popular belief Clovis culture did not go extinct, they migrated away from their ancestral homelands, the eastern us because of the YDB events.
They show up in California several hundred years later and subsequently in Mexico a thousand years later and in northern SA a few hundred years after that.

Originally posted by SuicideBankers
An Anunnaki settlement?

Why would you think a bunch of white people building huts in the jungle are the Anunnaki?

reply to post by punkinworks10

Contrary to popular belief Clovis culture did not go extinct, they migrated away from their ancestral homelands, the eastern us because of the YBD events.

Were these the ancestors of the 'Melongeons' in the Appalachian Mountains?
I am part Melongeon.

reply to post by purplemer


This story reminds me of the tall, white, with red hair mummies found in China.
Nice post! S & F

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by billdadobbie

 

There are a lot of ancient civilizations that have stories of a fair skinned, light haired people that had come before them. The Maori come to mind, however, such information is supressed for whate-ever reasons.

Do you mean the Patupaiarehe, the Urukehu, or the Turehu?
It is pretty well established that these are stories and not based on white-skinned (lighter-skinned) people inhabiting Aotearoa before the Maori.

What is the relevance of this post to the OP? To point out that often one's personal biases can invade reason and wishful-thinking can become 'fact'.
In fact, there is nothing in the archaeological record, and more importantly, in the pollen record, that would indicate a culture prior to the Maori.

It is interesting that words get twisted to promote agendas (not meaning you, kimish, I just wanted to reply to that because I am from New Zealand).

This is normal, also Australian natives do not have "Kinky" hair, as the dark Africans call it.

I have seen civilization and nations go to GREAT lengths to prove they are not descendants everytime, only to reach the same conclusion.

Lets clear this up please read!!
All Africans aren't dark, This is the most diverse continent. There are africans with blue eyes and blonde hair. And all people with lighter skin that appears what we call "white" did not only descend or inhabit europe?
You guys post sound like doctrines from the 1700. Very dated and very irrational.

On another note, I thought Melungeons I though had characteristics similar to africans, which is why we have historical record of people trying to slander abe lincoln because of his heritage which was deliberately buried but not destroyed.
and also people always refer to "red haired" mummys, they never talk about how hair dyed during the process. And as far as skin color goes smdh, were looking at a mummy.

reply to post by AKINOFTHEFIRSSTARS


Well, you can tell the skin color of an individual when they are deceased because you can distinguish race from the skulls. So in knowing that, it's quite possible for the hair of some of these individuals to have been red. Most likely they were brown haired though and through the ages and degradation and so forth the hair now appears reddish in color.

This is a big deal for numerous people for different reasons. The more we learn about the ancient past and its civilizations then the more we can know about ourselves.

I had heard somewhere that the Melungeons were a mix of Amerindians and Europeans. Abes characteristics most likely came from multiple endocrine neoplasia, type 2B, because it ran in his family and he shows many signs of it.

reply to post by kimish


What info I have been able to glean about the Melungeons is that they were tri-racial. Amerindian, African and European have been found in DNA studies. They varied widely in skin, hair and eye color depending on the area of the Appalachians that they were found.

Originally posted by riiver
I actually thought "where does it say white skin" was a legitimate question, that you missed that when reading the article. I wasn't using that to say "OMG there was a whole tribe of caucasian people living in the Amazon when the Spaniards came,".

Good.

You may have no idea how good.

I must've read that claim - facetiousness aside - a thousand times over the last five years on various boards!

Carry on.

Harte

Wow, I'm amazed how quickly the 'R' card gets thrown up when somebody suggests that there may have been caucasoid people living in areas where they previously weren't thought to. Or sometimes even just people who were visibly different genetically from those in the surrounding areas. There are oral histories of such things, yet they're ignored. And this is probably one of the reasons why.

I'm far more fascinated in the possible alternate histories we know little about, as well as the human evolutionary distribution- what if not all human life originated out of Africa? What if we also evolved in elsewhere as well? Then everyone starts mixing together when they migrate, creating the complex tapestry of life we have now. The fact that history may not have been as cut and dry as we've been lead to believe is amazing and should be embraced. Not feared and covered up. Let's learn from our past and grow stronger because of it.


That said-- I agree that there may not be enough evidence to support that these people were 'white', just one quote from one man. Which could be interpreted in different ways. If it is true, let's track down the evidence to support it. The fact that DNA tests showed that there was little, if any difference genetically from the others that lived around them, shows that maybe they were genetic 'sports'- and thus proliferated these unusual genetic mutations among themselves.

However; they clearly possessed some amazing architectural skills, and a different culture. That alone is interesting.

Is it just me or are there some striking similarities between the Chachapoya and the Rapa Nui?!?

I know these are only a few examples (see link below) and that are are many more differences between the two cultures, but when I read this thread and looked at the pictures that were posted I just kept thinking "WOW! This reminds me of the Rapa Nui people!"

Great post OP!

BTW: I am new here... Hi All! :roll

Originally posted by billdadobbie
if you look at the style of house it is exactly like the old french type of home white people were about long ago .

even as far as china they are the pyramid builders over there we have been pushed out of everywhere in pre -history but you do not here about it s& f for bringing this up

.

Like the type of roof people would build where they get lots of rain or snow????

Makes sense in the mountains to be honest. The high, steep sloped roofs prevent snow from caving it in...

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

They aren't burying the facts per se but a lot of that isn't discussed or is forgotten about after a time. MSS have also found the skeletal remains of giants yet very little is written about them; There's a thread on here somewhere that talks about how the Smithsonian has suppressed a lot of our ancient past. We know they existed, yet not much is being said. Why is that? Probably because it doesn't 'fit'.

Just because the American public has no interest and forgets does not mean science does. It doesn't. Please share and enlighten me as to what the Smithsonian is supressing.

The example I gave earlier where I mentioned the Maori- The evidence of previous cultures is being suppressed mainly because of land rights issues, kind of like what would've happened with Kennewick man in the Pacific Northwest, had be been proven to not be a descendant of or from that Amerindian tribe... there would be land rights issues

edit on 8-7-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)

Please show me evidence of these land rights issues, I never heard about them in regards to Kennewick man.

Now none of that has to do with the topic at hand, and the fact these people were not white, and never described as being white except by terrible modern day "journalists".

reply to post by FatherStacks


I was unaware cameras like that existed 500 years ago. Amazing quality for being so old.

I agree that early Europeans sometimes describe a population as being relatively white in comparison to other folks around them and sometimes favorably akin to themselves like they did the Japanese,but as we all know some Japanese can be very "white-skinned" without them being of European descent even with an occasional green or grayish eye color thrown in.

Into The Relm Of Speculation.
I am intrigued by possibilities of multiple contacts in the ancient Americas,so far genetics haven't flushed this out although we have circumstantial evidence,btw the possibilities of contacts coming from the other direction ie New world to the old world have never been really been explored.
Temple of the worriors Chichen-Itza.

The writing on the bottom is difficult to see but it goes like this..
Sacrifice of the Light skinned light haired seafarers,The artist or priest who decorated this important Mayan temple long before the arrival of Christopher Columbus were well acquainted with the fact that there exited with individuals or a people with race traits different from there own. the problem is who were they?(From Morris Charlot. Morris 1931)

Ancient Pre-Columbian Bearded Incense Burner with Semitic facial features found in Guatemala Read more:
www.the-book-of-mormon.com...

reply to post by Spider879


Technical note Spider the 'Book of Mormon' is a book of religious stuff written in the 1830's. It doesn't contain any science whatsoever. The writer did create a wondrously creative history for the new world - interesting, but totally with any basis in fact, not really a good 'primary source'.

What is your source for the mural? I believe you'll find its a book that is not necessarily a good source either. If it's the 1931 Morris book then at that time Mayan couldn't be read so how was it translated. I MHO the tan guys are those not in warrior black. Take a close look at the first mural.

Mayan warriors often painted their bodies black, the guys in black being the 'good' guys

To the Mayans, these colors represented the directions of the winds and who were followers of the rain god. So the meaning changed but not the use of the colors. Less permanent decorations, such as body paint, were donned for special occasions to mark the status of the wearer. Mayan warriors painted their faces and bodies with black and red colors, and priests painted themselves blue.