Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Two important academic papers in March

Expand Messages
  • bigalemc2
    [This was cross-posted at Ancient American Waterways. Also at my blog at Feet2theFire ] At Ancient American Waterways,
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 18 12:17 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      [This was cross-posted at Ancient American Waterways.  Also at my blog at Feet2theFire ]

      At Ancient American Waterways, Susan Belding had commented on the article Radical theory of first Americans places Europeans in Maryland 20,000 years ago

      Susan -

      Is this the first mention of this in this group?  Good get!  "Ancient waterways" has to include the Atlantic, too, doesn't it?  If an ocean isn't a waterway, what is?

      Standford and Bradley have been pushing this pretty much ever since Clovis First was shot down in 1997.  The DNA evidence gives them a boost, too.  But as is normal, arkies can only go one step into the abyss, and even then their ideas are labeled "radical" for half a century.  (Standford and Bradley are at about 15 years and counting...)  It is pathetic when radical means not quite as conservative as an Oxford Don.

      Whether first or not, certainly someone came from that direction, the East.  For us Atlantean advocates it is being misread, but it still is one more thing that 'is consistent' with a Atlantean hypothesis, so it is a good thing.  Our meme is more that both Solutrean and Clovis came from Atlantis.  As I hear all the time at another science bog I haunt, "Correlation does not mean causation."  With the Atlantean infrastructure dead and buried Atlantean refugees did the best they could with what they had at hand.  In Egypt they had a lot of infrastructure to rebuild with, but not so in the far reaches of Europe or anywhere in America.

      When I first heard of the Solutrean points back 20 years ago or more, the connection with Clovis points was said to be impossible because of the time gap between the two.  I thought, "What horseshit.  Don't they realize that their time scheme has every possibility of being changed with new discoveries?"  I predicted back then that the gap between Solutreans and Clovis would be shown to be zero.

      Someone last week wrote me and said how he had found that by taking the diametrically opposite position from what science says is true, he has found that things make more sense and new discoveries seem not to be shockers.  I could have told him that; I took that position 40 years ago.

      Now, for those who haven't been aware of it, this month has also had the announcement of a new paper about lake sediment cores in central Mexico, from Lake Cuitzeo about 3 hours WNW of Mexico City.  The cores support the hypothesis that a comet - maybe more than one - exploded in the atmosphere over North America about 12,900 years ago, at the very beginning of the Holocene, at the onset of what is called the Younger Dryas (YD) stadial.  Stadials were ice age periods, and the YD was the last one.  It lasted 1,200 years and its onset was also when the mammoths and over 30 other North American megafauna went extinct.

      The article here  had a good point:
      Between this and the Solutrean hypothesis, this is apparently the week for controversial hypotheses on North American prehistory. The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis has been around since around 2007, and it might actually be the subject of even fiercer dispute than the Solutrean model, considering its proponents and its detractors can't even agree on whether the supposed evidence to support it even exists.
      It was good to put it in the perspective of that first sentence.

      The last point it make is a correct one.  An cometary air burst would be like the Tunguska blast of 1908, which wiped out about 500 square miles of trees without having an actual crater or meteor fragment, which caused over 80 years of confusion.  (Remember what I said above about 'radical' ideas taking 50 years?)  Only in the last 20 years has it been mostly agreed that it probably was a comet - calculated to be 10 meters across - that exploded over Siberia.  The lack of evidence there - besides trees flattened like during the Mt St Helens eruption of 1980 - shows that all impacts do not look like meteors.  Then consider that a N.A. impact coming would have more than likely hit the ice sheets, which is what the impact hypothesis people think happened.  No matter HOW big, an air burst over a 2-mile-thick ice sheet isn't going to show much in the geological record, if any.  As a result, there is a lot of ridicule being thrown at the impact folks.

      For those of you who don't know him (Susan does), Ed Grondine has a book called "Man and Impact in the Americas," in which he delineates much about past impacts and goes so far as to show what the indigenous accounts told of 'flaming mountains being cast down to Earth" and of multiple Suns with many of them falling to Earth.  If there is one thing daytime impactors would look like it is multiple suns in the sky.  For those who don't know it, two of our main annual meteor showers is actually a slew of comet fragments which are strung out over the entire orbit of the Comet Encke.  This orbital evidence has astronomers taking to mean that Encke (4.2 km) was once a much larger single comet, and that since its break up an estimated 30,000 years ago the fragments have stretched out like the fragmented comet Shoemaker-Levy/9 did before impacting Jupiter in 1994.  The fragments of the porgenitor of Comet Encke are called the Taurids because when they come inward toward the Sun their 'radiant' (where they appear to be coming from) is in the constellation Taurus.  This happens just after the summer solstice, in late June and early July.  (Tunguska arrived on June 30th, so it is understood by many to have been one of the Taurids.)  Since all comets that approach the Sun also head back out, we also run into the Taurids later in the year, too.   This happens around Halloween every year.

      This is all pertinent to groups that study pre-Columbian American history because our history either began with Clovis Man or was severely affected at the time of Clovis Man.  The original Firestone et al 2007   hypothesis pointed out that not only the mammoths and other megafauna went extinct at the 12,900 year point, but so did Clovis Man himself.  So what we seem to have is an abbreviated or punctuated - I prefer to call it 'interrupted" - history of man in the Americas (if not the world).  Ed Grondine's work shows evidence that men here witnessed impacts several times within the Holocene; i.e., since 12,900 years ago, and that the impacts devastated their peoples.  The impacts essentially blew them back to the stone age - even though they were just barely out of the stone age themselves!

      So with the history of the Americas being re-written - even in academia - before our very eyes, and on two fronts - these are pretty exciting times for pre-Columbian and Ancient Waterways participants.  Our hollering and screaming that so much is being overlooked may not be noticed, but it does mean that what we have been saying needs to be looked at again, and with a different perspective.  For others it means that impacts may be happening much more than the astronomers have always told us, such as that we will not experience a big impact more than once every 100,000 years.  Alternate researchers and their audience have always thought that was a ridiculous number and based on faulty assumptions.  Even if we are proven in the end to have been right we will not be given any credit for it - but at that time we will TAKE credit for it, anyway!  Why? Because you cannot come up with any correct understandings if your premises and assumptions are wrong.  And their assumptions about our history are simply wrong.  There is far too much evidence out there pointing straight in  the eye, yet the academics continue to sweep it under the carpet as either fraudulent or "you all are too stupid to know what it is you are looking at." 

      On the contrary, it is not OUR paradigms which keep on having to be updated.

      New evidence coming in seems to always move the balance of evidence closer to our end of the scale.  We should all be proud that our own logic and assembling of evidence keeps being more and more likely to be correct.

      And in this month of March 2012, we have it our way on two fronts.  The academics will push back, of course.  They always do.  There are still those who haven't given up Clovis First, though it is now 15 years since it was shot down in a blaze of glory.  No matter what was found, from the 1930s to 1997, it was always, "You people are full of shit.  Clovis Man came over Beringia 13,000 years ago when the ice-free corridor first opened up, and that is that.  now go home and SRFU."  We had to put up with that and put up with that and put up with that.  Hubris.  As in rubbing our noses in it.  And in the end, the mofos were WRONG.  And then to add schadenfreud to injury, the DNA evidence agreed - and pointed out that, NO, all incursions into the Americas did NOT come over Beringia - we are NOT all from NE Asiatic stock.  It was THEY who had to retrench.  It was THEY who had to eat crow - though we never got invited to the feathered feast so WE could rub it in.

      Though we did not always have the Internet with which to share thoughts and support each other, we never gave up.  We would all look at the same evidence they did.  But we would not reject inconvenient parts of the evidence and cherry pick the rest.  WE looked at ALL the evidence.  And cine we did, we came up with better interpretations of the evidence than they did.  They claim that only THEY are trained and only THEY know how to properly think and assemble evidence into a whole.  In reality, it is WE who know best how to assemble evidence and assess it - because what they left out was important.  We chose to not leave out anomalous evidence.  We may not individually be as smart as them (I don't accept that, but it might be true even in the face of my disagreement), but collectively we are smarter, because we KNOW to our roots that you cannot pretend some evidence doesn't exist, just because you don't want it to exist.  And if anyone posits hypotheses that fly in the face of the evidence it is a fools errand.

      When I once read an assertion that 85% Carbon14 test results were tossed out by the scientists who received such results from labs I was horrified.  I thought it must be untrue, so I went and looked into it as much as I could in the  time before the Internet.  I found some things to support it, but never did figure it out altogether, one way or the other.  What I DID find is that archeologists and geologists start out with preconceived notions of the dates, and that when individual lab results don't fit that date range, it is up to the researcher to include - or not to include - each individual contrary result.  The lab is never informed which decision was made, so the researcher is free to exclude whatever he wants to exclude.  And he can word his paper such that no one ever knows he had X number of lab results that didn't fit his conclusions about dates.  Was that number 85%?  I don't know.  When they actually speak of excluding data (e.g., see Callendar 1938 and Slocum 1955   pointing out the cherry-picking by Callendar) they point at trivial reasons or assert that the "sample was contaminated."  They do not need to prove such contamination; their word is taken for it.

      If any appreciable percentage of evidence - C14 or otherwise, or 'fraudulent' tablets from American caves or mounds - is excluded, a false and illusory history is all that can be built from what remains.  An illusory history is not a history, however, so we cannot know - we cannot accept - any history built by the very 'disciplines' whose beginning motives were either to prove the truth of the Bible or the superiority of Anglo-Saxon religious males.  Especially when the early paradigms of such disciplines are still with us in large measure, we cannot 'accept their word for it' on history.

      Such developments as these two March papers are truly important.  That the authors of the paper about the lake sediment cores in Mexico were Mexican - the University of Michoacan! - is an amazing and very good sign that the Anglo-Saxon hegemony in science may be showing signs of being finally overcome.  Latin American archeologists have been railing for some time about the hubris of the Norteamericano arkies.  One can hope things are beginning to change.  And perhaps a real history of humans - at least in the Americas - can be written some day.

      Steve Garcia

      (Note: this comment is spell-checked, as opposed to the AAW one...)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.