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

Re: Bloody Creek Impact SIte

Expand Messages
  • land_lubber
    Hi Steve, Not to take away from your thread re. comets, etc. But in case anyone wants more background on the Bloody Creek impact, here is some info I m
    Message 1 of 16 , Sep 13, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Steve,

      Not to take away from your thread re. comets, etc.

      But in case anyone wants more background on the Bloody Creek impact, here is some info I'm reposting from Dave Dermott

      Terry

      ...

      On 15 January, CBC News provincially and nationally broadcast a short
      clip about the site, the potential it has for explaining the extinction of Ice Age megafauna, clips from a fly-over above the crater site, and showing Ian at work in the field and in the lab. You can watch the clip here.

      (2min 50 sec. filesize 25 MB, WMV format)

      http://www.acadiau.ca/~raeside/CBC_Bloody_Creek_Jan_2011.wmv



      --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" <puppet@...> wrote:
      >
      > Thanks, land_lubber. It looks like they are on that one.
      >
      > FYI, they are always all over the ones that look like meteor or
      > "asteroid" impacts. Those are the ones they've accepted for a long
      > time.
      >
      > It is the other ones - comet impacts, especially - that they are overly cautious about.
    • quarefremeruntgentes7@yahoo.com
      I heard that the Hungarian-American scientist Nicola Tesla claimed that the Tunguska blast was an accidental effect of an experimental weapon he was testing
      Message 2 of 16 , Oct 14, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        I heard that the Hungarian-American scientist Nicola Tesla claimed that the Tunguska blast was an accidental effect of an experimental weapon he was testing -- supposedly, a "death ray".

        If it had been due to a comet, then the comet should have been visible as it neared the Earth's orbit, and astronomers would have had some foreknowledge of its trajectory.

        Regrettably, I can no longer remember the source that attributed the incident to Tesla.

        Jeff Lewin

        Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T


        From: "bigalemc2" <puppet@...>
        Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:50:03 -0000
        To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
        ReplyTo: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain

        Thanks, land_lubber.  It looks like they are on that one.

        FYI, they are always all over the ones that look like meteor or "asteroid" impacts.  Those are the ones they've accepted for a long time.

        It is the other ones - comet impacts, especially - that they are overly cautious about.  if they can't find a stony meteorite in the crater, their first reaction is, "Nope.  Not an impact," no matter what other evidence is present.  Oh, they finally, finally have (mostly) accepted that the Tunguska blast was a comet that exploded in the atmosphere.  But it took them longer than my lifetime to come to that.

        Beyond Tunguska, you can pretty much write them all off, all the possible comet impacts.  The Y-D is probably the next one, and the establishment has attack dogs out there to try to shoot it down.  But this summary shows how poorly the D-Fence is doing: Summary of unusual Mmaterial in early Younger-Dryas age sediments and their potential relevance to the YD Cosmic Impact Hypothesis

        If anyone here believes this is off topic for this forum, please let me know.  I know one researcher, Ed Grondine, who has compiled a book relating the indigenous American accounts of impacts.  Susan knows Ed from Kempton.  He is persona non grata there at this time, but his book, Man and Impact In the Americas, is a terrific source of pre-Columbian accounts. 

        It is widely known that all over the world there are accounts of "something" weird and violent happening in the skies and rains of stars, etc.  This is one area the arkies won't touch with a ten-foot Pole or a 12-foot Indonesian.  They sweep it into their "mumbo-jumbo" silly stories repeated imperfectly over the generations.

        But Ed shows that some serious caca came down from the skies, and most often the tales include dragons or "hairy stars" with tails, breathing fire - in some way that really did impact the people's consciousnesses, not to mention killing a lot of them.  Suggestions by arkies that these were made-up stories have to be balanced against the ubiquity of the accounts and the similarities between them, over vast distances.

        Make no mistake about it - these were eyewitnesses within historical times* - to something far out of the ordinary.  Geologiists toss about ages of impacts usually in the millions of years, mostly in the tens of millions of years.  These are not eons ago - these are within the Holocene.  The Y-D impact happens to be at the very cusp of the Pleistocene and Holocene.  More than a few people believe the Holocene was begun by the Y-D impact.

        I invite any interested parties to visit CosmicTusk.com .

        Steve Garcia

        * Historical at least in other parts of the world.  Since arkies don't credit indigenous accounts anywhere as being worth their spit, they pooh-pooh pretty much all of them, relegating them to much less standing than, say, the indigenous accounts of Jewish writers or Babylonian ones.  The Americas prior to 1492 are still seen as savages who get no respect.



        --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "land_lubber" <aa376@...> wrote:
        >
        > Here is an interesting paper discussing a possible impact crater that may have been on glacial ice around 12 kya.
        >
        > http://www.acadiau.ca/~ispooner/pdfs_of_papers/Bloody%20Creek%20Crater.pdf
        >
        > Terry
        >
        > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" puppet@ wrote:
        > >
        > > impact markers have been found in sites from California to Europe, and
        > > all dating to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition at about 12.9 kya.
        > > No impact site has been found yet, and it may be that the impact(s)
        > > happened on the ice sheet.
        >
      • quarefremeruntgentes7@yahoo.com
        If what you imply were correct, then who would claim the Cahokia area? Is this going to end in a lawsuit? Jeff Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T ... From: Rick O
        Message 3 of 16 , Oct 15, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          If what you imply were correct, then who would claim the Cahokia area?

          Is this going to end in a lawsuit?

          Jeff

          Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T


          From: "Rick O" <ozman@...>
          Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:58:11 -0000
          To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
          ReplyTo: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain

          Oh definitely. Great stuff all the way through, Steve.

          One note in particular.

          The Crossroads of America. No, not Terre Haute, Indiana, the city that has used the slogan for a 150 years, because of its placement where the National Road (now US 40) crosses the Wabash River. Rather the confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi. Although that section of the Ohio used be part of the Wabash. Nevermind, it's complicated.

          Near the end of your post, Steve, you said, "no place in America was a crossroads like Cahokia. One must assume that whoever lived in NA at the 12.9 kya would have established a base of operations or settlement there, too."

          They didn't settle exactly at Cahokia. It was closer to Cairo, but the confluence then was itself several miles closer to Cahokia.

          The oldest large-context map of the Mississippi basin that is somewhat geographically accurate is the Delisle map (1716). I has a note at the confluence "Ancien Fort". Yes, I know, "ancien" usage in French can run the gamut from "ancient Egypt" to "former belly dancer" to "last time I ate truffles". In this usage, it can only apply as an English speaker would read it. The French never built a fort or even a trading post exactly there. The note acknowledges someone else did. Another quirk of French language and usage, it had to have been a stone fort or they would have called it a palisad.

          Our own Vince and Shari Burrows may have stumbled upon the most important "new" find in my forty years of chasing this stuff.

          Jefferson County, MO; reported by Vince and Shari Barrows, private property

          The local residents informed us upon inquiry about archaeology in the area that there was a large stone wall of unknown age and two mounds directly across the railroad tracks. We walked over to the site and found that the rock wall was easy to locate. It was about 20 feet tall, and composed of limestone, gravel, and chert, combined in layers. The wall was covered with vines and trees, and was very weathered.

          The weathering and materials used in construction indicated a great age. Upon inspection, the wall was found to extend up the hill and may have been once part of a much larger enclosure. Large oak trees had grown on top of segments of the wall. The tree roots were causing major cracks to develop in the structure of the wall. Severe erosion and weathering was also clear and it is unknown how long the wall extended up the hillside.

          The thick underbrush made it difficult to determine the extents of the walls dimensions. Further investigation and following a well used ATV trail led us to two mounds that were side by side.


          Okay. Why is it important? If it is a stone fortress, it puts the fortress builders on both sides of the Mississippi.

          Then it goes to land title validity of the Louisiana Purchase, even under the terms of the Papal Bulls, the title becomes questionable.





          --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" <puppet@...> wrote:
          >
          > This should affect discussion here, actually, as well as the
          > Pre-Columbian group, since it impacts our understanding of the
          > prehistory of North America. Therefore, I am posting there, too.
          >
          > Rant warning!
          >
          > I have rarely posted here, in a long time. But the Cahokia topic by
          > Rick got my hackles up - not at him, but at archeologists.
          >
          > Cahokia is/was in my back yard (grew up in the village of Cahokia,
          > about 6 miles from the mounds). I don't have anything specific to add to
          > Rick's post, but when I got to writing
          >
          > Archeology is one of the few disciplines that is wrong almost all the
          > time. Why it is even called a science I have argued for some time now.
          > 99% of it is in the interpretation of 1% of artifacts. Even Samuel
          > Clemens pointed that out, 130 years ago. And Old Sam thought they got
          > it wrong, too. It should be labeled a branch of history, not science.
          > Sometimes I wonder if it should be listed as a religion, even. So what
          > if they carefully lay out sites and note where everything was found, in
          > what layer and in what juxtaposition? Big deal. Historians have to do
          > that, too - so what that they do it with paper instead of dirt? Why
          > that could possibly matter, I don't know. Almost the entire body of
          > study is interpreatations and interpretations of interpretations. The
          > last one-hour video I saw about Cahokia had exactly ONE artifact
          > presented in the entire show, and that was in the last ten minutes. Up
          > till then it was all conjectural, premise, and pap for the non-masses,
          > as in pap for the academics, something to keep them appearing to be
          > intellectuals and people to be taken seriously.
          >
          > All the science that is connected to archeology is done by others - by
          > labs, on a piece-part basis, pay as you go. Science is quantification
          > of evidence. No one pretends that philologists are scientists.
          > Ceramics is all dated relative to other ceramics. The experts in both
          > fields are like art historians - they recognize swirls and gradual
          > changes from one style to another. It is not rocket science, though
          > there is much intelligence required. I do not argue that they do not
          > warrant respect - just that comparative ceramics is an art subject.
          > And IMHO, so is archeology.
          >
          > Then there is the stifle factor that is ever-present. To be an
          > archeologist is to toe an interpretive line that is tremendously
          > conservative. Not one thing is admitted into the corpus, except over
          > their dead bodies (no puns intended). And even one new piece of
          > evidence that manages to be accepted only inches things forward that
          > one millimeter - and no further - not until the next artifact is found,
          > and is accepted (which is not certain at all). It is a discipline with
          > the brakes on - all the time. It took 68 years to overthrow the Clovis
          > barrier, and the arkies who argue it still - they will be with us a long
          > time yet, even though it has been now 14 years since the Clovis barrier
          > was busted (as it always should have been). It should have been
          > presented as "This is the best idea we have so far," but they made it
          > into Newton's 4th Law of Motion.
          >
          > Until it failed.
          >
          > The other Clovis guesstimate is well on its way to being overthrown, too
          > - the Overkill Hypothesis, in which Clovis man scoured the entirety of
          > NA and killed every last large mammal, including - famously - the
          > mammoths. (The first 20 times I heard that idea, I thought it was a
          > joke, that small bands of hunters with anything less than modern weapons
          > could be imagined to kill so many animals before the animals could
          > "end-run" back into areas already "wiped clean." Even with today's
          > weaponry, I thought the odds were zilch. At what Silly U. did those
          > pea-brains think that one up? Did even ONE of them think it through
          > before publishing?)
          >
          > So, what killed the mammoths, if it wasn't Clovis man?
          >
          > Oh, BTW, they never happened to also mention that Clovis man himself
          > didn't survive that period. So, perhaps it was a murder-suicide pact
          > between Clovis man and mammoths, right? Wrong. Perhaps after their
          > blood lust was up and the mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers and giant
          > sloths were dead, they turned on each other, right? Wrong again.
          > Something killed them both off, and it wasn't cave men running around
          > in furs and stone spear points, looking for the latest Ultimate
          > Fighting cage.
          >
          >
          > More solid real scientific evidence is coming in all the time showing
          > that there was a multiple-continent effect from the Younger-Dryas
          > Impact Event. Most of the following is not exactly new news, but a
          > re-hash. But what is new about it is that the volume of new evidence
          > is supporting the Y-D impact theory. This is a good thing for those
          > who think "something was going on in North America a long time ago."
          >
          > Evidently something from outer space hit the Earth and caused a helluva
          > lot of damage - and left evidence that is only in the last decade or so
          > being discovered. Nano-diamonds, Helium3, Iridium, and several other
          > impact markers have been found in sites from California to Europe, and
          > all dating to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition at about 12.9 kya.
          > No impact site has been found yet, and it may be that the impact(s)
          > happened on the ice sheet. Most people involved believe it was a comet
          > (mostly friable materials, loosely agglomerated), not a solid stone or
          > metallic meteor.
          >
          > The impact location presently is thought to be in the area in or north
          > of the Great Lakes. An impact on the ice sheet would have very
          > different features from anything currently admitted as impact sites by
          > geologists (another ultra-conservative discipline). Geologists are
          > subject to that "no new facts today, please" mentality, too. If it
          > doesn't look like Barringer Crater, so far they are resisting that "it
          > came from outer space" is a possible explanation.
          >
          > One wide-spread effect seems to have been a near continent-wide
          > wildfire. This alone could have wiped out the mammoths - even the ones
          > it didn't burn. Burned vegetation doesn't have enough calories to keep
          > a hungry mammoth alive.
          >
          > Some people think that the Carolina Bays, a huge number of shallow,
          > elliptical, hollowed-out landforms along the east coast of the U.S.,
          > were created by the Y-D impact, as secondary impacts (from the "splash"
          > of the first impact). Myself, I am basically sitting on the fence as to
          > whether they were created by anything falling or from some unknown form
          > of geological process. I certanily do not believe the establishment
          > idea - that they were formed by winds. It is patently impossible -
          > especially since many overlap each other, and the overlapped features of
          > the underlying 'bays' would never have survived when the wind formed the
          > overlying bays.
          >
          > The recovery from the ensuing mini-ice age (called the Younger-Dryas
          > stadial) lasted for about 1200 years, with temps averaging about 12ãC
          > lower than previous. This recovery was precisely at the time when
          > humans "discovered" agriculture (circa 10,000 BCE, architecture, and
          > began living in permanent settlements - the beginning of modern man as
          > modern man - one must ask the question: Did all of that really begin
          > then, or did it just get re-established? I think it is a question we
          > need to look into. If man was some portion of his way toward
          > civilization, and then his progress was cut off by an impact event, then
          > at least two questions arise:
          >
          > 1. How far along was man when it happened?
          >
          > 2. How many other times has that happened?
          >
          > How far along man was in North America is certainly a question. Man had
          > certainly arrived in NA - at least a full 4,000-5,000 years previous to
          > that time. For all intents and purposes, America had to be rediscovered
          > all over again. The MtDNA evidence so far implies that man arrived in
          > at least FIVE waves, Clovis being one of the later ones. So,
          > "pre-Columbian" has an entirely new meaning.
          >
          > Cahokia, even if it had existed so early, would not have existed
          > afterward. With its prime location near the confluence of the
          > Mississippi-Missouri confluence (and just south of the Illinois River,
          > too), no place in America was a crossroads like Cahokia. One must assume
          > that whoever lived in NA at the 12.9 kya would have established a base
          > of operations or settlement there, too.
          >
        • Rick O
          Jeff, Second paragraph of chapter 2 of my book: In 1823, the Doctrine of Discovery was written into U.S. law as a way to deny land rights to Native Americans
          Message 4 of 16 , Oct 15, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Jeff,

            Second paragraph of chapter 2 of my book:
            "In 1823, the Doctrine of Discovery was written into U.S. law as a way to deny land rights to Native Americans in the Supreme Court case, Johnson v. McIntosh. It is ironic that the case did not directly involve any Native Americans since the decision stripped them of all rights to their independence." I got this material verified in a discussion with Robert J. Miller, professor of law at Lewis and Clark College.

            Correct. If a new case were brought challenging the US, English, French, and / or original Spanish claims based on previous occupancy by a Christian nation or that even some small percentage of Native Americans were Christian at the time of Columbus' "discovery", then all bets are off as far as the outcome of that case. However, the most likely outcome in practicality would be like the Supreme Court ruling that the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was unconstitutional (which it did) only to have the executive branch ignore the ruling. Nonetheless, such a trial would put overwhelming evidence of pre-Columbian presence before a court that judges evidence on its merit instead of before a kangaroo scientific review jury bound to their own discipline's dogma.

            --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, quarefremeruntgentes7@... wrote:
            >
            > If what you imply were correct, then who would claim the Cahokia area?
            >
            > Is this going to end in a lawsuit?
            >
            > Jeff
            > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: "Rick O" <ozman@...>
            > Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
            > Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:58:11
            > To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
            > Reply-To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain
            >
            >
            > Oh definitely. Great stuff all the way through, Steve.
            >
            > One note in particular.
            >
            > The Crossroads of America. No, not Terre Haute, Indiana, the city that
            > has used the slogan for a 150 years, because of its placement where the
            > National Road (now US 40) crosses the Wabash River. Rather the
            > confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi. Although that section of the
            > Ohio used be part of the Wabash. Nevermind, it's complicated.
            >
            > Near the end of your post, Steve, you said, "no place in America was
            > a crossroads like Cahokia. One must assume that whoever lived in NA at
            > the 12.9 kya would have established a base of operations or settlement
            > there, too."
            >
            > They didn't settle exactly at Cahokia. It was closer to Cairo, but the
            > confluence then was itself several miles closer to Cahokia.
            >
            > The oldest large-context map of the Mississippi basin that is somewhat
            > geographically accurate is the Delisle map (1716). I has a note at the
            > confluence "Ancien Fort". Yes, I know, "ancien" usage in
            > French can run the gamut from "ancient Egypt" to "former
            > belly dancer" to "last time I ate truffles". In this usage,
            > it can only apply as an English speaker would read it. The French never
            > built a fort or even a trading post exactly there. The note acknowledges
            > someone else did. Another quirk of French language and usage, it had to
            > have been a stone fort or they would have called it a palisad.
            >
            > Our own Vince and Shari Burrows may have stumbled upon the most
            > important "new" find in my forty years of chasing this stuff.
            >
            > Jefferson County, MO; reported by Vince and Shari Barrows, private
            > property
            >
            > The local residents informed us upon inquiry about archaeology in the
            > area that there was a large stone wall of unknown age and two mounds
            > directly across the railroad tracks. We walked over to the site and
            > found that the rock wall was easy to locate. It was about 20 feet tall,
            > and composed of limestone, gravel, and chert, combined in layers. The
            > wall was covered with vines and trees, and was very weathered.
            >
            > The weathering and materials used in construction indicated a great age.
            > Upon inspection, the wall was found to extend up the hill and may have
            > been once part of a much larger enclosure. Large oak trees had grown on
            > top of segments of the wall. The tree roots were causing major cracks to
            > develop in the structure of the wall. Severe erosion and weathering was
            > also clear and it is unknown how long the wall extended up the hillside.
            >
            > The thick underbrush made it difficult to determine the extents of the
            > walls dimensions. Further investigation and following a well used ATV
            > trail led us to two mounds that were side by side.
            >
            >
            > Okay. Why is it important? If it is a stone fortress, it puts the
            > fortress builders on both sides of the Mississippi.
            >
            > Then it goes to land title validity of the Louisiana Purchase, even
            > under the terms of the Papal Bulls, the title becomes questionable.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2"
            > <puppet@> wrote:
            > >
            > > This should affect discussion here, actually, as well as the
            > > Pre-Columbian group, since it impacts our understanding of the
            > > prehistory of North America. Therefore, I am posting there, too.
            > >
            > > Rant warning!
            > >
            > > I have rarely posted here, in a long time. But the Cahokia topic by
            > > Rick got my hackles up - not at him, but at archeologists.
            > >
            > > Cahokia is/was in my back yard (grew up in the village of Cahokia,
            > > about 6 miles from the mounds). I don't have anything specific to add
            > to
            > > Rick's post, but when I got to writing
            > >
            > > Archeology is one of the few disciplines that is wrong almost all the
            > > time. Why it is even called a science I have argued for some time
            > now.
            > > 99% of it is in the interpretation of 1% of artifacts. Even Samuel
            > > Clemens pointed that out, 130 years ago. And Old Sam thought they got
            > > it wrong, too. It should be labeled a branch of history, not
            > science.
            > > Sometimes I wonder if it should be listed as a religion, even. So
            > what
            > > if they carefully lay out sites and note where everything was found,
            > in
            > > what layer and in what juxtaposition? Big deal. Historians have to
            > do
            > > that, too - so what that they do it with paper instead of dirt? Why
            > > that could possibly matter, I don't know. Almost the entire body of
            > > study is interpreatations and interpretations of interpretations. The
            > > last one-hour video I saw about Cahokia had exactly ONE artifact
            > > presented in the entire show, and that was in the last ten minutes.
            > Up
            > > till then it was all conjectural, premise, and pap for the non-masses,
            > > as in pap for the academics, something to keep them appearing to be
            > > intellectuals and people to be taken seriously.
            > >
            > > All the science that is connected to archeology is done by others - by
            > > labs, on a piece-part basis, pay as you go. Science is quantification
            > > of evidence. No one pretends that philologists are scientists.
            > > Ceramics is all dated relative to other ceramics. The experts in both
            > > fields are like art historians - they recognize swirls and gradual
            > > changes from one style to another. It is not rocket science, though
            > > there is much intelligence required. I do not argue that they do not
            > > warrant respect - just that comparative ceramics is an art subject.
            > > And IMHO, so is archeology.
            > >
            > > Then there is the stifle factor that is ever-present. To be an
            > > archeologist is to toe an interpretive line that is tremendously
            > > conservative. Not one thing is admitted into the corpus, except over
            > > their dead bodies (no puns intended). And even one new piece of
            > > evidence that manages to be accepted only inches things forward that
            > > one millimeter - and no further - not until the next artifact is
            > found,
            > > and is accepted (which is not certain at all). It is a discipline
            > with
            > > the brakes on - all the time. It took 68 years to overthrow the
            > Clovis
            > > barrier, and the arkies who argue it still - they will be with us a
            > long
            > > time yet, even though it has been now 14 years since the Clovis
            > barrier
            > > was busted (as it always should have been). It should have been
            > > presented as "This is the best idea we have so far," but they made it
            > > into Newton's 4th Law of Motion.
            > >
            > > Until it failed.
            > >
            > > The other Clovis guesstimate is well on its way to being overthrown,
            > too
            > > - the Overkill Hypothesis, in which Clovis man scoured the entirety of
            > > NA and killed every last large mammal, including - famously - the
            > > mammoths. (The first 20 times I heard that idea, I thought it was a
            > > joke, that small bands of hunters with anything less than modern
            > weapons
            > > could be imagined to kill so many animals before the animals could
            > > "end-run" back into areas already "wiped clean." Even with today's
            > > weaponry, I thought the odds were zilch. At what Silly U. did those
            > > pea-brains think that one up? Did even ONE of them think it through
            > > before publishing?)
            > >
            > > So, what killed the mammoths, if it wasn't Clovis man?
            > >
            > > Oh, BTW, they never happened to also mention that Clovis man himself
            > > didn't survive that period. So, perhaps it was a murder-suicide pact
            > > between Clovis man and mammoths, right? Wrong. Perhaps after their
            > > blood lust was up and the mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers and giant
            > > sloths were dead, they turned on each other, right? Wrong again.
            > > Something killed them both off, and it wasn't cave men running around
            > > in furs and stone spear points, looking for the latest Ultimate
            > > Fighting cage.
            > >
            > >
            > > More solid real scientific evidence is coming in all the time showing
            > > that there was a multiple-continent effect from the Younger-Dryas
            > > Impact Event. Most of the following is not exactly new news, but a
            > > re-hash. But what is new about it is that the volume of new evidence
            > > is supporting the Y-D impact theory. This is a good thing for those
            > > who think "something was going on in North America a long time ago."
            > >
            > > Evidently something from outer space hit the Earth and caused a
            > helluva
            > > lot of damage - and left evidence that is only in the last decade or
            > so
            > > being discovered. Nano-diamonds, Helium3, Iridium, and several other
            > > impact markers have been found in sites from California to Europe,
            > and
            > > all dating to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition at about 12.9 kya.
            > > No impact site has been found yet, and it may be that the impact(s)
            > > happened on the ice sheet. Most people involved believe it was a
            > comet
            > > (mostly friable materials, loosely agglomerated), not a solid stone or
            > > metallic meteor.
            > >
            > > The impact location presently is thought to be in the area in or
            > north
            > > of the Great Lakes. An impact on the ice sheet would have very
            > > different features from anything currently admitted as impact sites
            > by
            > > geologists (another ultra-conservative discipline). Geologists are
            > > subject to that "no new facts today, please" mentality, too. If it
            > > doesn't look like Barringer Crater, so far they are resisting that "it
            > > came from outer space" is a possible explanation.
            > >
            > > One wide-spread effect seems to have been a near continent-wide
            > > wildfire. This alone could have wiped out the mammoths - even the
            > ones
            > > it didn't burn. Burned vegetation doesn't have enough calories to
            > keep
            > > a hungry mammoth alive.
            > >
            > > Some people think that the Carolina Bays, a huge number of shallow,
            > > elliptical, hollowed-out landforms along the east coast of the U.S.,
            > > were created by the Y-D impact, as secondary impacts (from the
            > "splash"
            > > of the first impact). Myself, I am basically sitting on the fence as
            > to
            > > whether they were created by anything falling or from some unknown
            > form
            > > of geological process. I certanily do not believe the establishment
            > > idea - that they were formed by winds. It is patently impossible -
            > > especially since many overlap each other, and the overlapped features
            > of
            > > the underlying 'bays' would never have survived when the wind formed
            > the
            > > overlying bays.
            > >
            > > The recovery from the ensuing mini-ice age (called the Younger-Dryas
            > > stadial) lasted for about 1200 years, with temps averaging about
            > 12ãC
            > > lower than previous. This recovery was precisely at the time when
            > > humans "discovered" agriculture (circa 10,000 BCE, architecture, and
            > > began living in permanent settlements - the beginning of modern man
            > as
            > > modern man - one must ask the question: Did all of that really begin
            > > then, or did it just get re-established? I think it is a question we
            > > need to look into. If man was some portion of his way toward
            > > civilization, and then his progress was cut off by an impact event,
            > then
            > > at least two questions arise:
            > >
            > > 1. How far along was man when it happened?
            > >
            > > 2. How many other times has that happened?
            > >
            > > How far along man was in North America is certainly a question. Man
            > had
            > > certainly arrived in NA - at least a full 4,000-5,000 years previous
            > to
            > > that time. For all intents and purposes, America had to be
            > rediscovered
            > > all over again. The MtDNA evidence so far implies that man arrived in
            > > at least FIVE waves, Clovis being one of the later ones. So,
            > > "pre-Columbian" has an entirely new meaning.
            > >
            > > Cahokia, even if it had existed so early, would not have existed
            > > afterward. With its prime location near the confluence of the
            > > Mississippi-Missouri confluence (and just south of the Illinois River,
            > > too), no place in America was a crossroads like Cahokia. One must
            > assume
            > > that whoever lived in NA at the 12.9 kya would have established a base
            > > of operations or settlement there, too.
            > >
            >
          • joe white
            DNA Testing of remains could be most useful. sitting owl ... From: Rick O To:
            Message 5 of 16 , Oct 15, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              DNA Testing of remains could be most useful.
               
              sitting owl
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Rick O
              Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 8:35 AM
              Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain

               

              Jeff,

              Second paragraph of chapter 2 of my book:
              "In 1823, the Doctrine of Discovery was written into U.S. law as a way to deny land rights to Native Americans in the Supreme Court case, Johnson v. McIntosh. It is ironic that the case did not directly involve any Native Americans since the decision stripped them of all rights to their independence." I got this material verified in a discussion with Robert J. Miller, professor of law at Lewis and Clark College.

              Correct. If a new case were brought challenging the US, English, French, and / or original Spanish claims based on previous occupancy by a Christian nation or that even some small percentage of Native Americans were Christian at the time of Columbus' "discovery", then all bets are off as far as the outcome of that case. However, the most likely outcome in practicality would be like the Supreme Court ruling that the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was unconstitutional (which it did) only to have the executive branch ignore the ruling. Nonetheless, such a trial would put overwhelming evidence of pre-Columbian presence before a court that judges evidence on its merit instead of before a kangaroo scientific review jury bound to their own discipline's dogma.

              --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, quarefremeruntgentes7@... wrote:
              >
              > If what you imply were correct, then who would claim the Cahokia area?
              >
              > Is this going to end in a lawsuit?
              >
              > Jeff
              > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: "Rick O" <ozman@...>
              > Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
              > Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:58:11
              > To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
              > Reply-To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain
              >
              >
              > Oh definitely. Great stuff all the way through, Steve.
              >
              > One note in particular.
              >
              > The Crossroads of America. No, not Terre Haute, Indiana, the city that
              > has used the slogan for a 150 years, because of its placement where the
              > National Road (now US 40) crosses the Wabash River. Rather the
              > confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi. Although that section of the
              > Ohio used be part of the Wabash. Nevermind, it's complicated.
              >
              > Near the end of your post, Steve, you said, "no place in America was
              > a crossroads like Cahokia. One must assume that whoever lived in NA at
              > the 12.9 kya would have established a base of operations or settlement
              > there, too."
              >
              > They didn't settle exactly at Cahokia. It was closer to Cairo, but the
              > confluence then was itself several miles closer to Cahokia.
              >
              > The oldest large-context map of the Mississippi basin that is somewhat
              > geographically accurate is the Delisle map (1716). I has a note at the
              > confluence "Ancien Fort". Yes, I know, "ancien" usage in
              > French can run the gamut from "ancient Egypt" to "former
              > belly dancer" to "last time I ate truffles". In this usage,
              > it can only apply as an English speaker would read it. The French never
              > built a fort or even a trading post exactly there. The note acknowledges
              > someone else did. Another quirk of French language and usage, it had to
              > have been a stone fort or they would have called it a palisad.
              >
              > Our own Vince and Shari Burrows may have stumbled upon the most
              > important "new" find in my forty years of chasing this stuff.
              >
              > Jefferson County, MO; reported by Vince and Shari Barrows, private
              > property
              >
              > The local residents informed us upon inquiry about archaeology in the
              > area that there was a large stone wall of unknown age and two mounds
              > directly across the railroad tracks. We walked over to the site and
              > found that the rock wall was easy to locate. It was about 20 feet tall,
              > and composed of limestone, gravel, and chert, combined in layers. The
              > wall was covered with vines and trees, and was very weathered.
              >
              > The weathering and materials used in construction indicated a great age.
              > Upon inspection, the wall was found to extend up the hill and may have
              > been once part of a much larger enclosure. Large oak trees had grown on
              > top of segments of the wall. The tree roots were causing major cracks to
              > develop in the structure of the wall. Severe erosion and weathering was
              > also clear and it is unknown how long the wall extended up the hillside.
              >
              > The thick underbrush made it difficult to determine the extents of the
              > walls dimensions. Further investigation and following a well used ATV
              > trail led us to two mounds that were side by side.
              >
              >
              > Okay. Why is it important? If it is a stone fortress, it puts the
              > fortress builders on both sides of the Mississippi.
              >
              > Then it goes to land title validity of the Louisiana Purchase, even
              > under the terms of the Papal Bulls, the title becomes questionable.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2"
              > <puppet@> wrote:
              > >
              > > This should affect discussion here, actually, as well as the
              > > Pre-Columbian group, since it impacts our understanding of the
              > > prehistory of North America. Therefore, I am posting there, too.
              > >
              > > Rant warning!
              > >
              > > I have rarely posted here, in a long time. But the Cahokia topic by
              > > Rick got my hackles up - not at him, but at archeologists.
              > >
              > > Cahokia is/was in my back yard (grew up in the village of Cahokia,
              > > about 6 miles from the mounds). I don't have anything specific to add
              > to
              > > Rick's post, but when I got to writing
              > >
              > > Archeology is one of the few disciplines that is wrong almost all the
              > > time. Why it is even called a science I have argued for some time
              > now.
              > > 99% of it is in the interpretation of 1% of artifacts. Even Samuel
              > > Clemens pointed that out, 130 years ago. And Old Sam thought they got
              > > it wrong, too. It should be labeled a branch of history, not
              > science.
              > > Sometimes I wonder if it should be listed as a religion, even. So
              > what
              > > if they carefully lay out sites and note where everything was found,
              > in
              > > what layer and in what juxtaposition? Big deal. Historians have to
              > do
              > > that, too - so what that they do it with paper instead of dirt? Why
              > > that could possibly matter, I don't know. Almost the entire body of
              > > study is interpreatations and interpretations of interpretations. The
              > > last one-hour video I saw about Cahokia had exactly ONE artifact
              > > presented in the entire show, and that was in the last ten minutes.
              > Up
              > > till then it was all conjectural, premise, and pap for the non-masses,
              > > as in pap for the academics, something to keep them appearing to be
              > > intellectuals and people to be taken seriously.
              > >
              > > All the science that is connected to archeology is done by others - by
              > > labs, on a piece-part basis, pay as you go. Science is quantification
              > > of evidence. No one pretends that philologists are scientists.
              > > Ceramics is all dated relative to other ceramics. The experts in both
              > > fields are like art historians - they recognize swirls and gradual
              > > changes from one style to another. It is not rocket science, though
              > > there is much intelligence required. I do not argue that they do not
              > > warrant respect - just that comparative ceramics is an art subject.
              > > And IMHO, so is archeology.
              > >
              > > Then there is the stifle factor that is ever-present. To be an
              > > archeologist is to toe an interpretive line that is tremendously
              > > conservative. Not one thing is admitted into the corpus, except over
              > > their dead bodies (no puns intended). And even one new piece of
              > > evidence that manages to be accepted only inches things forward that
              > > one millimeter - and no further - not until the next artifact is
              > found,
              > > and is accepted (which is not certain at all). It is a discipline
              > with
              > > the brakes on - all the time. It took 68 years to overthrow the
              > Clovis
              > > barrier, and the arkies who argue it still - they will be with us a
              > long
              > > time yet, even though it has been now 14 years since the Clovis
              > barrier
              > > was busted (as it always should have been). It should have been
              > > presented as "This is the best idea we have so far," but they made it
              > > into Newton's 4th Law of Motion.
              > >
              > > Until it failed.
              > >
              > > The other Clovis guesstimate is well on its way to being overthrown,
              > too
              > > - the Overkill Hypothesis, in which Clovis man scoured the entirety of
              > > NA and killed every last large mammal, including - famously - the
              > > mammoths. (The first 20 times I heard that idea, I thought it was a
              > > joke, that small bands of hunters with anything less than modern
              > weapons
              > > could be imagined to kill so many animals before the animals could
              > > "end-run" back into areas already "wiped clean." Even with today's
              > > weaponry, I thought the odds were zilch. At what Silly U. did those
              > > pea-brains think that one up? Did even ONE of them think it through
              > > before publishing?)
              > >
              > > So, what killed the mammoths, if it wasn't Clovis man?
              > >
              > > Oh, BTW, they never happened to also mention that Clovis man himself
              > > didn't survive that period. So, perhaps it was a murder-suicide pact
              > > between Clovis man and mammoths, right? Wrong. Perhaps after their
              > > blood lust was up and the mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers and giant
              > > sloths were dead, they turned on each other, right? Wrong again.
              > > Something killed them both off, and it wasn't cave men running around
              > > in furs and stone spear points, looking for the latest Ultimate
              > > Fighting cage.
              > >
              > >
              > > More solid real scientific evidence is coming in all the time showing
              > > that there was a multiple-continent effect from the Younger-Dryas
              > > Impact Event. Most of the following is not exactly new news, but a
              > > re-hash. But what is new about it is that the volume of new evidence
              > > is supporting the Y-D impact theory. This is a good thing for those
              > > who think "something was going on in North America a long time ago."
              > >
              > > Evidently something from outer space hit the Earth and caused a
              > helluva
              > > lot of damage - and left evidence that is only in the last decade or
              > so
              > > being discovered. Nano-diamonds, Helium3, Iridium, and several other
              > > impact markers have been found in sites from California to Europe,
              > and
              > > all dating to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition at about 12.9 kya.
              > > No impact site has been found yet, and it may be that the impact(s)
              > > happened on the ice sheet. Most people involved believe it was a
              > comet
              > > (mostly friable materials, loosely agglomerated), not a solid stone or
              > > metallic meteor.
              > >
              > > The impact location presently is thought to be in the area in or
              > north
              > > of the Great Lakes. An impact on the ice sheet would have very
              > > different features from anything currently admitted as impact sites
              > by
              > > geologists (another ultra-conservative discipline). Geologists are
              > > subject to that "no new facts today, please" mentality, too. If it
              > > doesn't look like Barringer Crater, so far they are resisting that "it
              > > came from outer space" is a possible explanation.
              > >
              > > One wide-spread effect seems to have been a near continent-wide
              > > wildfire. This alone could have wiped out the mammoths - even the
              > ones
              > > it didn't burn. Burned vegetation doesn't have enough calories to
              > keep
              > > a hungry mammoth alive.
              > >
              > > Some people think that the Carolina Bays, a huge number of shallow,
              > > elliptical, hollowed-out landforms along the east coast of the U.S.,
              > > were created by the Y-D impact, as secondary impacts (from the
              > "splash"
              > > of the first impact). Myself, I am basically sitting on the fence as
              > to
              > > whether they were created by anything falling or from some unknown
              > form
              > > of geological process. I certanily do not believe the establishment
              > > idea - that they were formed by winds. It is patently impossible -
              > > especially since many overlap each other, and the overlapped features
              > of
              > > the underlying 'bays' would never have survived when the wind formed
              > the
              > > overlying bays.
              > >
              > > The recovery from the ensuing mini-ice age (called the Younger-Dryas
              > > stadial) lasted for about 1200 years, with temps averaging about
              > 12ãC
              > > lower than previous. This recovery was precisely at the time when
              > > humans "discovered" agriculture (circa 10,000 BCE, architecture, and
              > > began living in permanent settlements - the beginning of modern man
              > as
              > > modern man - one must ask the question: Did all of that really begin
              > > then, or did it just get re-established? I think it is a question we
              > > need to look into. If man was some portion of his way toward
              > > civilization, and then his progress was cut off by an impact event,
              > then
              > > at least two questions arise:
              > >
              > > 1. How far along was man when it happened?
              > >
              > > 2. How many other times has that happened?
              > >
              > > How far along man was in North America is certainly a question. Man
              > had
              > > certainly arrived in NA - at least a full 4,000-5,000 years previous
              > to
              > > that time. For all intents and purposes, America had to be
              > rediscovered
              > > all over again. The MtDNA evidence so far implies that man arrived in
              > > at least FIVE waves, Clovis being one of the later ones. So,
              > > "pre-Columbian" has an entirely new meaning.
              > >
              > > Cahokia, even if it had existed so early, would not have existed
              > > afterward. With its prime location near the confluence of the
              > > Mississippi-Missouri confluence (and just south of the Illinois River,
              > > too), no place in America was a crossroads like Cahokia. One must
              > assume
              > > that whoever lived in NA at the 12.9 kya would have established a base
              > > of operations or settlement there, too.
              > >
              >

            • bigalemc2
              Jeff, Tesla was a Serbian-American. As to the claims about him being connected to Tunguska, try this link as a starting point:
              Message 6 of 16 , Oct 15, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Jeff, Tesla was a Serbian-American.

                As to the claims about him being connected to Tunguska, try this link as a starting point:
                http://www.teslasociety.com/tunguska.htm
                Steve Garcia


                --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, quarefremeruntgentes7@... wrote:
                >
                > I heard that the Hungarian-American scientist Nicola Tesla claimed that the Tunguska blast was an accidental effect of an experimental weapon he was testing -- supposedly, a "death ray".
                >
                > If it had been due to a comet, then the comet should have been visible as it neared the Earth's orbit, and astronomers would have had some foreknowledge of its trajectory.
                >
                > Regrettably, I can no longer remember the source that attributed the incident to Tesla.
                >
                > Jeff Lewin
                > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: "bigalemc2" puppet@...
                > Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                > Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:50:03
                > To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                > Reply-To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain
                >
                > Thanks, land_lubber. It looks like they are on that one.
                >
                > FYI, they are always all over the ones that look like meteor or
                > "asteroid" impacts. Those are the ones they've accepted for a long
                > time.
                >
                > It is the other ones - comet impacts, especially - that they are overly
                > cautious about. if they can't find a stony meteorite in the crater,
                > their first reaction is, "Nope. Not an impact," no matter what other
                > evidence is present. Oh, they finally, finally have (mostly) accepted
                > that the Tunguska blast was a comet that exploded in the atmosphere.
                > But it took them longer than my lifetime to come to that.
                >
                > Beyond Tunguska, you can pretty much write them all off, all the
                > possible comet impacts. The Y-D is probably the next one, and the
                > establishment has attack dogs out there to try to shoot it down. But
                > this summary shows how poorly the D-Fence is doing: Summary of unusual
                > Mmaterial in early Younger-Dryas age sediments and their potential
                > relevance to the YD Cosmic Impact Hypothesis
                > <http://www.scribd.com/doc/64120238/Abbreviated-YDB-evidence-at-2011-Ber\
                > n-Switzerland-INQUA-Conference>
                >
                > If anyone here believes this is off topic for this forum, please let me
                > know. I know one researcher, Ed Grondine, who has compiled a book
                > relating the indigenous American accounts of impacts. Susan knows Ed
                > from Kempton. He is persona non grata there at this time, but his book,
                > Man and Impact In the Americas, is a terrific source of pre-Columbian
                > accounts.
                >
                > It is widely known that all over the world there are accounts of
                > "something" weird and violent happening in the skies and rains of stars,
                > etc. This is one area the arkies won't touch with a ten-foot Pole or a
                > 12-foot Indonesian. They sweep it into their "mumbo-jumbo" silly
                > stories repeated imperfectly over the generations.
                >
                > But Ed shows that some serious caca came down from the skies, and most
                > often the tales include dragons or "hairy stars" with tails, breathing
                > fire - in some way that really did impact the people's consciousnesses,
                > not to mention killing a lot of them. Suggestions by arkies that these
                > were made-up stories have to be balanced against the ubiquity of the
                > accounts and the similarities between them, over vast distances.
                >
                > Make no mistake about it - these were eyewitnesses within historical
                > times* - to something far out of the ordinary. Geologists toss about
                > ages of impacts usually in the millions of years, mostly in the tens of
                > millions of years. These are not eons ago - these are within the
                > Holocene. The Y-D impact happens to be at the very cusp of the
                > Pleistocene and Holocene. More than a few people believe the Holocene
                > was begun by the Y-D impact.
                >
                > I invite any interested parties to visit CosmicTusk.com
                > <www.CosmicTusk.com> .
                >
                > Steve Garcia
                >
                > * Historical at least in other parts of the world. Since arkies don't
                > credit indigenous accounts anywhere as being worth their spit, they
                > pooh-pooh pretty much all of them, relegating them to much less standing
                > than, say, the indigenous accounts of Jewish writers or Babylonian ones.
                > The Americas prior to 1492 are still seen as savages who get no respect.
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "land_lubber"
                > aa376@ wrote:
                > >
                > > Here is an interesting paper discussing a possible impact crater that
                > may have been on glacial ice around 12 kya.
                > >
                > >
                > http://www.acadiau.ca/~ispooner/pdfs_of_papers/Bloody%20Creek%20Crater.p\
                > df
                > >
                > > Terry
                > >
                > > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" puppet@
                > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > impact markers have been found in sites from California to Europe,
                > and
                > > > all dating to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition at about 12.9
                > kya.
                > > > No impact site has been found yet, and it may be that the impact(s)
                > > > happened on the ice sheet.
                > >
                >
              • quarefremeruntgentes7@yahoo.com
                Native Americans might have better luck with the authorities nowadays, than in 1830. I hope the 1823 Johnson v. Mcintosh case did not involve the family of a
                Message 7 of 16 , Oct 15, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Native Americans might have better luck with the authorities nowadays, than in 1830.

                  I hope the 1823 Johnson v. Mcintosh case did not involve the family of a distant uncle of mine, late Brig. Gen. Lachlan McIntosh.

                  Jeff

                  Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T


                  From: "joe white" <joe_white@...>
                  Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:44:34 -0500
                  To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
                  ReplyTo: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                  Cc: Pamela Sexton<psexton50@...>
                  Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain

                  DNA Testing of remains could be most useful.
                   
                  sitting owl
                   
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Rick O
                  Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 8:35 AM
                  Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain

                   

                  Jeff,

                  Second paragraph of chapter 2 of my book:
                  "In 1823, the Doctrine of Discovery was written into U.S. law as a way to deny land rights to Native Americans in the Supreme Court case, Johnson v. McIntosh. It is ironic that the case did not directly involve any Native Americans since the decision stripped them of all rights to their independence." I got this material verified in a discussion with Robert J. Miller, professor of law at Lewis and Clark College.

                  Correct. If a new case were brought challenging the US, English, French, and / or original Spanish claims based on previous occupancy by a Christian nation or that even some small percentage of Native Americans were Christian at the time of Columbus' "discovery", then all bets are off as far as the outcome of that case. However, the most likely outcome in practicality would be like the Supreme Court ruling that the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was unconstitutional (which it did) only to have the executive branch ignore the ruling. Nonetheless, such a trial would put overwhelming evidence of pre-Columbian presence before a court that judges evidence on its merit instead of before a kangaroo scientific review jury bound to their own discipline's dogma.

                  --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, quarefremeruntgentes7@... wrote:
                  >
                  > If what you imply were correct, then who would claim the Cahokia area?
                  >
                  > Is this going to end in a lawsuit?
                  >
                  > Jeff
                  > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: "Rick O" <ozman@...>
                  > Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                  > Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:58:11
                  > To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Reply-To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain
                  >
                  >
                  > Oh definitely. Great stuff all the way through, Steve.
                  >
                  > One note in particular.
                  >
                  > The Crossroads of America. No, not Terre Haute, Indiana, the city that
                  > has used the slogan for a 150 years, because of its placement where the
                  > National Road (now US 40) crosses the Wabash River. Rather the
                  > confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi. Although that section of the
                  > Ohio used be part of the Wabash. Nevermind, it's complicated.
                  >
                  > Near the end of your post, Steve, you said, "no place in America was
                  > a crossroads like Cahokia. One must assume that whoever lived in NA at
                  > the 12.9 kya would have established a base of operations or settlement
                  > there, too."
                  >
                  > They didn't settle exactly at Cahokia. It was closer to Cairo, but the
                  > confluence then was itself several miles closer to Cahokia.
                  >
                  > The oldest large-context map of the Mississippi basin that is somewhat
                  > geographically accurate is the Delisle map (1716). I has a note at the
                  > confluence "Ancien Fort". Yes, I know, "ancien" usage in
                  > French can run the gamut from "ancient Egypt" to "former
                  > belly dancer" to "last time I ate truffles". In this usage,
                  > it can only apply as an English speaker would read it. The French never
                  > built a fort or even a trading post exactly there. The note acknowledges
                  > someone else did. Another quirk of French language and usage, it had to
                  > have been a stone fort or they would have called it a palisad.
                  >
                  > Our own Vince and Shari Burrows may have stumbled upon the most
                  > important "new" find in my forty years of chasing this stuff.
                  >
                  > Jefferson County, MO; reported by Vince and Shari Barrows, private
                  > property
                  >
                  > The local residents informed us upon inquiry about archaeology in the
                  > area that there was a large stone wall of unknown age and two mounds
                  > directly across the railroad tracks. We walked over to the site and
                  > found that the rock wall was easy to locate. It was about 20 feet tall,
                  > and composed of limestone, gravel, and chert, combined in layers. The
                  > wall was covered with vines and trees, and was very weathered.
                  >
                  > The weathering and materials used in construction indicated a great age.
                  > Upon inspection, the wall was found to extend up the hill and may have
                  > been once part of a much larger enclosure. Large oak trees had grown on
                  > top of segments of the wall. The tree roots were causing major cracks to
                  > develop in the structure of the wall. Severe erosion and weathering was
                  > also clear and it is unknown how long the wall extended up the hillside.
                  >
                  > The thick underbrush made it difficult to determine the extents of the
                  > walls dimensions. Further investigation and following a well used ATV
                  > trail led us to two mounds that were side by side.
                  >
                  >
                  > Okay. Why is it important? If it is a stone fortress, it puts the
                  > fortress builders on both sides of the Mississippi.
                  >
                  > Then it goes to land title validity of the Louisiana Purchase, even
                  > under the terms of the Papal Bulls, the title becomes questionable.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2"
                  > <puppet@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > This should affect discussion here, actually, as well as the
                  > > Pre-Columbian group, since it impacts our understanding of the
                  > > prehistory of North America. Therefore, I am posting there, too.
                  > >
                  > > Rant warning!
                  > >
                  > > I have rarely posted here, in a long time. But the Cahokia topic by
                  > > Rick got my hackles up - not at him, but at archeologists.
                  > >
                  > > Cahokia is/was in my back yard (grew up in the village of Cahokia,
                  > > about 6 miles from the mounds). I don't have anything specific to add
                  > to
                  > > Rick's post, but when I got to writing
                  > >
                  > > Archeology is one of the few disciplines that is wrong almost all the
                  > > time. Why it is even called a science I have argued for some time
                  > now.
                  > > 99% of it is in the interpretation of 1% of artifacts. Even Samuel
                  > > Clemens pointed that out, 130 years ago. And Old Sam thought they got
                  > > it wrong, too. It should be labeled a branch of history, not
                  > science.
                  > > Sometimes I wonder if it should be listed as a religion, even. So
                  > what
                  > > if they carefully lay out sites and note where everything was found,
                  > in
                  > > what layer and in what juxtaposition? Big deal. Historians have to
                  > do
                  > > that, too - so what that they do it with paper instead of dirt? Why
                  > > that could possibly matter, I don't know. Almost the entire body of
                  > > study is interpreatations and interpretations of interpretations. The
                  > > last one-hour video I saw about Cahokia had exactly ONE artifact
                  > > presented in the entire show, and that was in the last ten minutes.
                  > Up
                  > > till then it was all conjectural, premise, and pap for the non-masses,
                  > > as in pap for the academics, something to keep them appearing to be
                  > > intellectuals and people to be taken seriously.
                  > >
                  > > All the science that is connected to archeology is done by others - by
                  > > labs, on a piece-part basis, pay as you go. Science is quantification
                  > > of evidence. No one pretends that philologists are scientists.
                  > > Ceramics is all dated relative to other ceramics. The experts in both
                  > > fields are like art historians - they recognize swirls and gradual
                  > > changes from one style to another. It is not rocket science, though
                  > > there is much intelligence required. I do not argue that they do not
                  > > warrant respect - just that comparative ceramics is an art subject.
                  > > And IMHO, so is archeology.
                  > >
                  > > Then there is the stifle factor that is ever-present. To be an
                  > > archeologist is to toe an interpretive line that is tremendously
                  > > conservative. Not one thing is admitted into the corpus, except over
                  > > their dead bodies (no puns intended). And even one new piece of
                  > > evidence that manages to be accepted only inches things forward that
                  > > one millimeter - and no further - not until the next artifact is
                  > found,
                  > > and is accepted (which is not certain at all). It is a discipline
                  > with
                  > > the brakes on - all the time. It took 68 years to overthrow the
                  > Clovis
                  > > barrier, and the arkies who argue it still - they will be with us a
                  > long
                  > > time yet, even though it has been now 14 years since the Clovis
                  > barrier
                  > > was busted (as it always should have been). It should have been
                  > > presented as "This is the best idea we have so far," but they made it
                  > > into Newton's 4th Law of Motion.
                  > >
                  > > Until it failed.
                  > >
                  > > The other Clovis guesstimate is well on its way to being overthrown,
                  > too
                  > > - the Overkill Hypothesis, in which Clovis man scoured the entirety of
                  > > NA and killed every last large mammal, including - famously - the
                  > > mammoths. (The first 20 times I heard that idea, I thought it was a
                  > > joke, that small bands of hunters with anything less than modern
                  > weapons
                  > > could be imagined to kill so many animals before the animals could
                  > > "end-run" back into areas already "wiped clean." Even with today's
                  > > weaponry, I thought the odds were zilch. At what Silly U. did those
                  > > pea-brains think that one up? Did even ONE of them think it through
                  > > before publishing?)
                  > >
                  > > So, what killed the mammoths, if it wasn't Clovis man?
                  > >
                  > > Oh, BTW, they never happened to also mention that Clovis man himself
                  > > didn't survive that period. So, perhaps it was a murder-suicide pact
                  > > between Clovis man and mammoths, right? Wrong. Perhaps after their
                  > > blood lust was up and the mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers and giant
                  > > sloths were dead, they turned on each other, right? Wrong again.
                  > > Something killed them both off, and it wasn't cave men running around
                  > > in furs and stone spear points, looking for the latest Ultimate
                  > > Fighting cage.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > More solid real scientific evidence is coming in all the time showing
                  > > that there was a multiple-continent effect from the Younger-Dryas
                  > > Impact Event. Most of the following is not exactly new news, but a
                  > > re-hash. But what is new about it is that the volume of new evidence
                  > > is supporting the Y-D impact theory. This is a good thing for those
                  > > who think "something was going on in North America a long time ago."
                  > >
                  > > Evidently something from outer space hit the Earth and caused a
                  > helluva
                  > > lot of damage - and left evidence that is only in the last decade or
                  > so
                  > > being discovered. Nano-diamonds, Helium3, Iridium, and several other
                  > > impact markers have been found in sites from California to Europe,
                  > and
                  > > all dating to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition at about 12.9 kya.
                  > > No impact site has been found yet, and it may be that the impact(s)
                  > > happened on the ice sheet. Most people involved believe it was a
                  > comet
                  > > (mostly friable materials, loosely agglomerated), not a solid stone or
                  > > metallic meteor.
                  > >
                  > > The impact location presently is thought to be in the area in or
                  > north
                  > > of the Great Lakes. An impact on the ice sheet would have very
                  > > different features from anything currently admitted as impact sites
                  > by
                  > > geologists (another ultra-conservative discipline). Geologists are
                  > > subject to that "no new facts today, please" mentality, too. If it
                  > > doesn't look like Barringer Crater, so far they are resisting that "it
                  > > came from outer space" is a possible explanation.
                  > >
                  > > One wide-spread effect seems to have been a near continent-wide
                  > > wildfire. This alone could have wiped out the mammoths - even the
                  > ones
                  > > it didn't burn. Burned vegetation doesn't have enough calories to
                  > keep
                  > > a hungry mammoth alive.
                  > >
                  > > Some people think that the Carolina Bays, a huge number of shallow,
                  > > elliptical, hollowed-out landforms along the east coast of the U.S.,
                  > > were created by the Y-D impact, as secondary impacts (from the
                  > "splash"
                  > > of the first impact). Myself, I am basically sitting on the fence as
                  > to
                  > > whether they were created by anything falling or from some unknown
                  > form
                  > > of geological process. I certanily do not believe the establishment
                  > > idea - that they were formed by winds. It is patently impossible -
                  > > especially since many overlap each other, and the overlapped features
                  > of
                  > > the underlying 'bays' would never have survived when the wind formed
                  > the
                  > > overlying bays.
                  > >
                  > > The recovery from the ensuing mini-ice age (called the Younger-Dryas
                  > > stadial) lasted for about 1200 years, with temps averaging about
                  > 12ãC
                  > > lower than previous. This recovery was precisely at the time when
                  > > humans "discovered" agriculture (circa 10,000 BCE, architecture, and
                  > > began living in permanent settlements - the beginning of modern man
                  > as
                  > > modern man - one must ask the question: Did all of that really begin
                  > > then, or did it just get re-established? I think it is a question we
                  > > need to look into. If man was some portion of his way toward
                  > > civilization, and then his progress was cut off by an impact event,
                  > then
                  > > at least two questions arise:
                  > >
                  > > 1. How far along was man when it happened?
                  > >
                  > > 2. How many other times has that happened?
                  > >
                  > > How far along man was in North America is certainly a question. Man
                  > had
                  > > certainly arrived in NA - at least a full 4,000-5,000 years previous
                  > to
                  > > that time. For all intents and purposes, America had to be
                  > rediscovered
                  > > all over again. The MtDNA evidence so far implies that man arrived in
                  > > at least FIVE waves, Clovis being one of the later ones. So,
                  > > "pre-Columbian" has an entirely new meaning.
                  > >
                  > > Cahokia, even if it had existed so early, would not have existed
                  > > afterward. With its prime location near the confluence of the
                  > > Mississippi-Missouri confluence (and just south of the Illinois River,
                  > > too), no place in America was a crossroads like Cahokia. One must
                  > assume
                  > > that whoever lived in NA at the 12.9 kya would have established a base
                  > > of operations or settlement there, too.
                  > >
                  >

                • quarefremeruntgentes7@yahoo.com
                  I might lose out in court. I am suspecting that my county, and several counties here in Western Missouri and Eastern Kansas are situated on land that was
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jan 8, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I might lose out in court. I am suspecting that my county, and several counties here in Western Missouri and Eastern Kansas are situated on land that was permanently ceded, by treaty, to the independent Platte Nation. Sadly, it seems that white folks have not honored their obligations under this treaty, as anyone who goes for a ride through Platte City, Acheson, Benenda, etc. may easily observe.

                    Jeff


                    Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: "Rick O" <ozman@...>
                    Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:35:31
                    To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
                    Reply-To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain

                    Jeff,

                    Second paragraph of chapter 2 of my book:
                    "In 1823, the Doctrine of Discovery was written into U.S. law as a way to deny land rights to Native Americans in the Supreme Court case, Johnson v. McIntosh. It is ironic that the case did not directly involve any Native Americans since the decision stripped them of all rights to their independence." I got this material verified in a discussion with Robert J. Miller, professor of law at Lewis and Clark College.

                    Correct. If a new case were brought challenging the US, English, French, and / or original Spanish claims based on previous occupancy by a Christian nation or that even some small percentage of Native Americans were Christian at the time of Columbus' "discovery", then all bets are off as far as the outcome of that case. However, the most likely outcome in practicality would be like the Supreme Court ruling that the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was unconstitutional (which it did) only to have the executive branch ignore the ruling. Nonetheless, such a trial would put overwhelming evidence of pre-Columbian presence before a court that judges evidence on its merit instead of before a kangaroo scientific review jury bound to their own discipline's dogma.

                    --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, quarefremeruntgentes7@... wrote:
                    >
                    > If what you imply were correct, then who would claim the Cahokia area?
                    >
                    > Is this going to end in a lawsuit?
                    >
                    > Jeff
                    > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: "Rick O" <ozman@...>
                    > Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                    > Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:58:11
                    > To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Reply-To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain
                    >
                    >
                    > Oh definitely. Great stuff all the way through, Steve.
                    >
                    > One note in particular.
                    >
                    > The Crossroads of America. No, not Terre Haute, Indiana, the city that
                    > has used the slogan for a 150 years, because of its placement where the
                    > National Road (now US 40) crosses the Wabash River. Rather the
                    > confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi. Although that section of the
                    > Ohio used be part of the Wabash. Nevermind, it's complicated.
                    >
                    > Near the end of your post, Steve, you said, "no place in America was
                    > a crossroads like Cahokia. One must assume that whoever lived in NA at
                    > the 12.9 kya would have established a base of operations or settlement
                    > there, too."
                    >
                    > They didn't settle exactly at Cahokia. It was closer to Cairo, but the
                    > confluence then was itself several miles closer to Cahokia.
                    >
                    > The oldest large-context map of the Mississippi basin that is somewhat
                    > geographically accurate is the Delisle map (1716). I has a note at the
                    > confluence "Ancien Fort". Yes, I know, "ancien" usage in
                    > French can run the gamut from "ancient Egypt" to "former
                    > belly dancer" to "last time I ate truffles". In this usage,
                    > it can only apply as an English speaker would read it. The French never
                    > built a fort or even a trading post exactly there. The note acknowledges
                    > someone else did. Another quirk of French language and usage, it had to
                    > have been a stone fort or they would have called it a palisad.
                    >
                    > Our own Vince and Shari Burrows may have stumbled upon the most
                    > important "new" find in my forty years of chasing this stuff.
                    >
                    > Jefferson County, MO; reported by Vince and Shari Barrows, private
                    > property
                    >
                    > The local residents informed us upon inquiry about archaeology in the
                    > area that there was a large stone wall of unknown age and two mounds
                    > directly across the railroad tracks. We walked over to the site and
                    > found that the rock wall was easy to locate. It was about 20 feet tall,
                    > and composed of limestone, gravel, and chert, combined in layers. The
                    > wall was covered with vines and trees, and was very weathered.
                    >
                    > The weathering and materials used in construction indicated a great age.
                    > Upon inspection, the wall was found to extend up the hill and may have
                    > been once part of a much larger enclosure. Large oak trees had grown on
                    > top of segments of the wall. The tree roots were causing major cracks to
                    > develop in the structure of the wall. Severe erosion and weathering was
                    > also clear and it is unknown how long the wall extended up the hillside.
                    >
                    > The thick underbrush made it difficult to determine the extents of the
                    > walls dimensions. Further investigation and following a well used ATV
                    > trail led us to two mounds that were side by side.
                    >
                    >
                    > Okay. Why is it important? If it is a stone fortress, it puts the
                    > fortress builders on both sides of the Mississippi.
                    >
                    > Then it goes to land title validity of the Louisiana Purchase, even
                    > under the terms of the Papal Bulls, the title becomes questionable.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2"
                    > <puppet@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > This should affect discussion here, actually, as well as the
                    > > Pre-Columbian group, since it impacts our understanding of the
                    > > prehistory of North America. Therefore, I am posting there, too.
                    > >
                    > > Rant warning!
                    > >
                    > > I have rarely posted here, in a long time. But the Cahokia topic by
                    > > Rick got my hackles up - not at him, but at archeologists.
                    > >
                    > > Cahokia is/was in my back yard (grew up in the village of Cahokia,
                    > > about 6 miles from the mounds). I don't have anything specific to add
                    > to
                    > > Rick's post, but when I got to writing
                    > >
                    > > Archeology is one of the few disciplines that is wrong almost all the
                    > > time. Why it is even called a science I have argued for some time
                    > now.
                    > > 99% of it is in the interpretation of 1% of artifacts. Even Samuel
                    > > Clemens pointed that out, 130 years ago. And Old Sam thought they got
                    > > it wrong, too. It should be labeled a branch of history, not
                    > science.
                    > > Sometimes I wonder if it should be listed as a religion, even. So
                    > what
                    > > if they carefully lay out sites and note where everything was found,
                    > in
                    > > what layer and in what juxtaposition? Big deal. Historians have to
                    > do
                    > > that, too - so what that they do it with paper instead of dirt? Why
                    > > that could possibly matter, I don't know. Almost the entire body of
                    > > study is interpreatations and interpretations of interpretations. The
                    > > last one-hour video I saw about Cahokia had exactly ONE artifact
                    > > presented in the entire show, and that was in the last ten minutes.
                    > Up
                    > > till then it was all conjectural, premise, and pap for the non-masses,
                    > > as in pap for the academics, something to keep them appearing to be
                    > > intellectuals and people to be taken seriously.
                    > >
                    > > All the science that is connected to archeology is done by others - by
                    > > labs, on a piece-part basis, pay as you go. Science is quantification
                    > > of evidence. No one pretends that philologists are scientists.
                    > > Ceramics is all dated relative to other ceramics. The experts in both
                    > > fields are like art historians - they recognize swirls and gradual
                    > > changes from one style to another. It is not rocket science, though
                    > > there is much intelligence required. I do not argue that they do not
                    > > warrant respect - just that comparative ceramics is an art subject.
                    > > And IMHO, so is archeology.
                    > >
                    > > Then there is the stifle factor that is ever-present. To be an
                    > > archeologist is to toe an interpretive line that is tremendously
                    > > conservative. Not one thing is admitted into the corpus, except over
                    > > their dead bodies (no puns intended). And even one new piece of
                    > > evidence that manages to be accepted only inches things forward that
                    > > one millimeter - and no further - not until the next artifact is
                    > found,
                    > > and is accepted (which is not certain at all). It is a discipline
                    > with
                    > > the brakes on - all the time. It took 68 years to overthrow the
                    > Clovis
                    > > barrier, and the arkies who argue it still - they will be with us a
                    > long
                    > > time yet, even though it has been now 14 years since the Clovis
                    > barrier
                    > > was busted (as it always should have been). It should have been
                    > > presented as "This is the best idea we have so far," but they made it
                    > > into Newton's 4th Law of Motion.
                    > >
                    > > Until it failed.
                    > >
                    > > The other Clovis guesstimate is well on its way to being overthrown,
                    > too
                    > > - the Overkill Hypothesis, in which Clovis man scoured the entirety of
                    > > NA and killed every last large mammal, including - famously - the
                    > > mammoths. (The first 20 times I heard that idea, I thought it was a
                    > > joke, that small bands of hunters with anything less than modern
                    > weapons
                    > > could be imagined to kill so many animals before the animals could
                    > > "end-run" back into areas already "wiped clean." Even with today's
                    > > weaponry, I thought the odds were zilch. At what Silly U. did those
                    > > pea-brains think that one up? Did even ONE of them think it through
                    > > before publishing?)
                    > >
                    > > So, what killed the mammoths, if it wasn't Clovis man?
                    > >
                    > > Oh, BTW, they never happened to also mention that Clovis man himself
                    > > didn't survive that period. So, perhaps it was a murder-suicide pact
                    > > between Clovis man and mammoths, right? Wrong. Perhaps after their
                    > > blood lust was up and the mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers and giant
                    > > sloths were dead, they turned on each other, right? Wrong again.
                    > > Something killed them both off, and it wasn't cave men running around
                    > > in furs and stone spear points, looking for the latest Ultimate
                    > > Fighting cage.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > More solid real scientific evidence is coming in all the time showing
                    > > that there was a multiple-continent effect from the Younger-Dryas
                    > > Impact Event. Most of the following is not exactly new news, but a
                    > > re-hash. But what is new about it is that the volume of new evidence
                    > > is supporting the Y-D impact theory. This is a good thing for those
                    > > who think "something was going on in North America a long time ago."
                    > >
                    > > Evidently something from outer space hit the Earth and caused a
                    > helluva
                    > > lot of damage - and left evidence that is only in the last decade or
                    > so
                    > > being discovered. Nano-diamonds, Helium3, Iridium, and several other
                    > > impact markers have been found in sites from California to Europe,
                    > and
                    > > all dating to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition at about 12.9 kya.
                    > > No impact site has been found yet, and it may be that the impact(s)
                    > > happened on the ice sheet. Most people involved believe it was a
                    > comet
                    > > (mostly friable materials, loosely agglomerated), not a solid stone or
                    > > metallic meteor.
                    > >
                    > > The impact location presently is thought to be in the area in or
                    > north
                    > > of the Great Lakes. An impact on the ice sheet would have very
                    > > different features from anything currently admitted as impact sites
                    > by
                    > > geologists (another ultra-conservative discipline). Geologists are
                    > > subject to that "no new facts today, please" mentality, too. If it
                    > > doesn't look like Barringer Crater, so far they are resisting that "it
                    > > came from outer space" is a possible explanation.
                    > >
                    > > One wide-spread effect seems to have been a near continent-wide
                    > > wildfire. This alone could have wiped out the mammoths - even the
                    > ones
                    > > it didn't burn. Burned vegetation doesn't have enough calories to
                    > keep
                    > > a hungry mammoth alive.
                    > >
                    > > Some people think that the Carolina Bays, a huge number of shallow,
                    > > elliptical, hollowed-out landforms along the east coast of the U.S.,
                    > > were created by the Y-D impact, as secondary impacts (from the
                    > "splash"
                    > > of the first impact). Myself, I am basically sitting on the fence as
                    > to
                    > > whether they were created by anything falling or from some unknown
                    > form
                    > > of geological process. I certanily do not believe the establishment
                    > > idea - that they were formed by winds. It is patently impossible -
                    > > especially since many overlap each other, and the overlapped features
                    > of
                    > > the underlying 'bays' would never have survived when the wind formed
                    > the
                    > > overlying bays.
                    > >
                    > > The recovery from the ensuing mini-ice age (called the Younger-Dryas
                    > > stadial) lasted for about 1200 years, with temps averaging about
                    > 12ãC
                    > > lower than previous. This recovery was precisely at the time when
                    > > humans "discovered" agriculture (circa 10,000 BCE, architecture, and
                    > > began living in permanent settlements - the beginning of modern man
                    > as
                    > > modern man - one must ask the question: Did all of that really begin
                    > > then, or did it just get re-established? I think it is a question we
                    > > need to look into. If man was some portion of his way toward
                    > > civilization, and then his progress was cut off by an impact event,
                    > then
                    > > at least two questions arise:
                    > >
                    > > 1. How far along was man when it happened?
                    > >
                    > > 2. How many other times has that happened?
                    > >
                    > > How far along man was in North America is certainly a question. Man
                    > had
                    > > certainly arrived in NA - at least a full 4,000-5,000 years previous
                    > to
                    > > that time. For all intents and purposes, America had to be
                    > rediscovered
                    > > all over again. The MtDNA evidence so far implies that man arrived in
                    > > at least FIVE waves, Clovis being one of the later ones. So,
                    > > "pre-Columbian" has an entirely new meaning.
                    > >
                    > > Cahokia, even if it had existed so early, would not have existed
                    > > afterward. With its prime location near the confluence of the
                    > > Mississippi-Missouri confluence (and just south of the Illinois River,
                    > > too), no place in America was a crossroads like Cahokia. One must
                    > assume
                    > > that whoever lived in NA at the 12.9 kya would have established a base
                    > > of operations or settlement there, too.
                    > >
                    >




                    ------------------------------------

                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                  • Ted Sojka
                    Sadly, the majority of the treaties, even the later ones on the Black Hills, were easily changed by subsequent laws. The Dawes act really was meant to split
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jan 9, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Sadly, the majority of the treaties, even the later ones on the Black
                      Hills, were easily changed by subsequent laws. The Dawes act really
                      was meant to split up the reservations and give title that could be
                      given away, taken or sold. The design was to change the culture, or
                      assimilate the inhabitants.
                      Vine de Loria did a lot of work on the subject. The Long Island
                      tribes are trying to get their land back according to treaties past,
                      and some are trying to establish themselves again so that they can
                      have casinos in the Hamptons. There are one or two religious leaders
                      there fighting against the tribes goal. They know the cost to their
                      children. We have half a dozen casinos in my area that are run by
                      the HO Chunk nation, and they are getting their money back from the
                      surrounding people, one pull of the bandit's arm at a time. :-)
                      I hope they use their money wisely, as a son of a friend is a
                      counselor at a tribe in Minnesota where the children of that tribe are
                      in great need of help. They are falling victim to drugs, alcohol, and
                      the influence of a large payment they will receive when they turn 18.

                      What price financial "freedom" if it costs you your soul and your
                      culture?

                      On Jan 8, 2012, at 9:35 PM, quarefremeruntgentes7@... wrote:

                      > I might lose out in court. I am suspecting that my county, and
                      > several counties here in Western Missouri and Eastern Kansas are
                      > situated on land that was permanently ceded, by treaty, to the
                      > independent Platte Nation. Sadly, it seems that white folks have not
                      > honored their obligations under this treaty, as anyone who goes for
                      > a ride through Platte City, Acheson, Benenda, etc. may easily observe.
                      >
                      > Jeff
                      >
                      >
                      > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: "Rick O" <ozman@...>
                      > Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                      > Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:35:31
                      > To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Reply-To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a
                      > slow thing, but not uncertain
                      >
                      > Jeff,
                      >
                      > Second paragraph of chapter 2 of my book:
                      > "In 1823, the Doctrine of Discovery was written into U.S. law as a
                      > way to deny land rights to Native Americans in the Supreme Court
                      > case, Johnson v. McIntosh. It is ironic that the case did not
                      > directly involve any Native Americans since the decision stripped
                      > them of all rights to their independence." I got this material
                      > verified in a discussion with Robert J. Miller, professor of law at
                      > Lewis and Clark College.
                      >
                      > Correct. If a new case were brought challenging the US, English,
                      > French, and / or original Spanish claims based on previous
                      > occupancy by a Christian nation or that even some small percentage
                      > of Native Americans were Christian at the time of Columbus'
                      > "discovery", then all bets are off as far as the outcome of that
                      > case. However, the most likely outcome in practicality would be like
                      > the Supreme Court ruling that the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was
                      > unconstitutional (which it did) only to have the executive branch
                      > ignore the ruling. Nonetheless, such a trial would put overwhelming
                      > evidence of pre-Columbian presence before a court that judges
                      > evidence on its merit instead of before a kangaroo scientific review
                      > jury bound to their own discipline's dogma.
                      >
                      > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com,
                      > quarefremeruntgentes7@... wrote:
                      >>
                      >> If what you imply were correct, then who would claim the Cahokia
                      >> area?
                      >>
                      >> Is this going to end in a lawsuit?
                      >>
                      >> Jeff
                      >> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
                      >>
                      >> -----Original Message-----
                      >> From: "Rick O" <ozman@...>
                      >> Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                      >> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:58:11
                      >> To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
                      >> Reply-To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                      >> Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is
                      >> a slow thing, but not uncertain
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> Oh definitely. Great stuff all the way through, Steve.
                      >>
                      >> One note in particular.
                      >>
                      >> The Crossroads of America. No, not Terre Haute, Indiana, the city
                      >> that
                      >> has used the slogan for a 150 years, because of its placement where
                      >> the
                      >> National Road (now US 40) crosses the Wabash River. Rather the
                      >> confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi. Although that section
                      >> of the
                      >> Ohio used be part of the Wabash. Nevermind, it's complicated.
                      >>
                      >> Near the end of your post, Steve, you said, "no place in America was
                      >> a crossroads like Cahokia. One must assume that whoever lived in NA
                      >> at
                      >> the 12.9 kya would have established a base of operations or
                      >> settlement
                      >> there, too."
                      >>
                      >> They didn't settle exactly at Cahokia. It was closer to Cairo, but
                      >> the
                      >> confluence then was itself several miles closer to Cahokia.
                      >>
                      >> The oldest large-context map of the Mississippi basin that is
                      >> somewhat
                      >> geographically accurate is the Delisle map (1716). I has a note at
                      >> the
                      >> confluence "Ancien Fort". Yes, I know, "ancien" usage in
                      >> French can run the gamut from "ancient Egypt" to "former
                      >> belly dancer" to "last time I ate truffles". In this usage,
                      >> it can only apply as an English speaker would read it. The French
                      >> never
                      >> built a fort or even a trading post exactly there. The note
                      >> acknowledges
                      >> someone else did. Another quirk of French language and usage, it
                      >> had to
                      >> have been a stone fort or they would have called it a palisad.
                      >>
                      >> Our own Vince and Shari Burrows may have stumbled upon the most
                      >> important "new" find in my forty years of chasing this stuff.
                      >>
                      >> Jefferson County, MO; reported by Vince and Shari Barrows, private
                      >> property
                      >>
                      >> The local residents informed us upon inquiry about archaeology in the
                      >> area that there was a large stone wall of unknown age and two mounds
                      >> directly across the railroad tracks. We walked over to the site and
                      >> found that the rock wall was easy to locate. It was about 20 feet
                      >> tall,
                      >> and composed of limestone, gravel, and chert, combined in layers. The
                      >> wall was covered with vines and trees, and was very weathered.
                      >>
                      >> The weathering and materials used in construction indicated a great
                      >> age.
                      >> Upon inspection, the wall was found to extend up the hill and may
                      >> have
                      >> been once part of a much larger enclosure. Large oak trees had
                      >> grown on
                      >> top of segments of the wall. The tree roots were causing major
                      >> cracks to
                      >> develop in the structure of the wall. Severe erosion and weathering
                      >> was
                      >> also clear and it is unknown how long the wall extended up the
                      >> hillside.
                      >>
                      >> The thick underbrush made it difficult to determine the extents of
                      >> the
                      >> walls dimensions. Further investigation and following a well used ATV
                      >> trail led us to two mounds that were side by side.
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> Okay. Why is it important? If it is a stone fortress, it puts the
                      >> fortress builders on both sides of the Mississippi.
                      >>
                      >> Then it goes to land title validity of the Louisiana Purchase, even
                      >> under the terms of the Papal Bulls, the title becomes questionable.
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2"
                      >> <puppet@> wrote:
                      >>>
                      >>> This should affect discussion here, actually, as well as the
                      >>> Pre-Columbian group, since it impacts our understanding of the
                      >>> prehistory of North America. Therefore, I am posting there, too.
                      >>>
                      >>> Rant warning!
                      >>>
                      >>> I have rarely posted here, in a long time. But the Cahokia topic by
                      >>> Rick got my hackles up - not at him, but at archeologists.
                      >>>
                      >>> Cahokia is/was in my back yard (grew up in the village of Cahokia,
                      >>> about 6 miles from the mounds). I don't have anything specific to
                      >>> add
                      >> to
                      >>> Rick's post, but when I got to writing
                      >>>
                      >>> Archeology is one of the few disciplines that is wrong almost all
                      >>> the
                      >>> time. Why it is even called a science I have argued for some time
                      >> now.
                      >>> 99% of it is in the interpretation of 1% of artifacts. Even Samuel
                      >>> Clemens pointed that out, 130 years ago. And Old Sam thought they
                      >>> got
                      >>> it wrong, too. It should be labeled a branch of history, not
                      >> science.
                      >>> Sometimes I wonder if it should be listed as a religion, even. So
                      >> what
                      >>> if they carefully lay out sites and note where everything was found,
                      >> in
                      >>> what layer and in what juxtaposition? Big deal. Historians have
                      >>> to
                      >> do
                      >>> that, too - so what that they do it with paper instead of dirt? Why
                      >>> that could possibly matter, I don't know. Almost the entire body of
                      >>> study is interpreatations and interpretations of interpretations.
                      >>> The
                      >>> last one-hour video I saw about Cahokia had exactly ONE artifact
                      >>> presented in the entire show, and that was in the last ten minutes.
                      >> Up
                      >>> till then it was all conjectural, premise, and pap for the non-
                      >>> masses,
                      >>> as in pap for the academics, something to keep them appearing to be
                      >>> intellectuals and people to be taken seriously.
                      >>>
                      >>> All the science that is connected to archeology is done by others
                      >>> - by
                      >>> labs, on a piece-part basis, pay as you go. Science is
                      >>> quantification
                      >>> of evidence. No one pretends that philologists are scientists.
                      >>> Ceramics is all dated relative to other ceramics. The experts in
                      >>> both
                      >>> fields are like art historians - they recognize swirls and gradual
                      >>> changes from one style to another. It is not rocket science, though
                      >>> there is much intelligence required. I do not argue that they do
                      >>> not
                      >>> warrant respect - just that comparative ceramics is an art subject.
                      >>> And IMHO, so is archeology.
                      >>>
                      >>> Then there is the stifle factor that is ever-present. To be an
                      >>> archeologist is to toe an interpretive line that is tremendously
                      >>> conservative. Not one thing is admitted into the corpus, except
                      >>> over
                      >>> their dead bodies (no puns intended). And even one new piece of
                      >>> evidence that manages to be accepted only inches things forward that
                      >>> one millimeter - and no further - not until the next artifact is
                      >> found,
                      >>> and is accepted (which is not certain at all). It is a discipline
                      >> with
                      >>> the brakes on - all the time. It took 68 years to overthrow the
                      >> Clovis
                      >>> barrier, and the arkies who argue it still - they will be with us a
                      >> long
                      >>> time yet, even though it has been now 14 years since the Clovis
                      >> barrier
                      >>> was busted (as it always should have been). It should have been
                      >>> presented as "This is the best idea we have so far," but they made
                      >>> it
                      >>> into Newton's 4th Law of Motion.
                      >>>
                      >>> Until it failed.
                      >>>
                      >>> The other Clovis guesstimate is well on its way to being overthrown,
                      >> too
                      >>> - the Overkill Hypothesis, in which Clovis man scoured the
                      >>> entirety of
                      >>> NA and killed every last large mammal, including - famously - the
                      >>> mammoths. (The first 20 times I heard that idea, I thought it was a
                      >>> joke, that small bands of hunters with anything less than modern
                      >> weapons
                      >>> could be imagined to kill so many animals before the animals could
                      >>> "end-run" back into areas already "wiped clean." Even with today's
                      >>> weaponry, I thought the odds were zilch. At what Silly U. did those
                      >>> pea-brains think that one up? Did even ONE of them think it through
                      >>> before publishing?)
                      >>>
                      >>> So, what killed the mammoths, if it wasn't Clovis man?
                      >>>
                      >>> Oh, BTW, they never happened to also mention that Clovis man himself
                      >>> didn't survive that period. So, perhaps it was a murder-suicide
                      >>> pact
                      >>> between Clovis man and mammoths, right? Wrong. Perhaps after
                      >>> their
                      >>> blood lust was up and the mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers and
                      >>> giant
                      >>> sloths were dead, they turned on each other, right? Wrong again.
                      >>> Something killed them both off, and it wasn't cave men running
                      >>> around
                      >>> in furs and stone spear points, looking for the latest Ultimate
                      >>> Fighting cage.
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>> More solid real scientific evidence is coming in all the time
                      >>> showing
                      >>> that there was a multiple-continent effect from the Younger-Dryas
                      >>> Impact Event. Most of the following is not exactly new news, but a
                      >>> re-hash. But what is new about it is that the volume of new
                      >>> evidence
                      >>> is supporting the Y-D impact theory. This is a good thing for
                      >>> those
                      >>> who think "something was going on in North America a long time ago."
                      >>>
                      >>> Evidently something from outer space hit the Earth and caused a
                      >> helluva
                      >>> lot of damage - and left evidence that is only in the last decade or
                      >> so
                      >>> being discovered. Nano-diamonds, Helium3, Iridium, and several
                      >>> other
                      >>> impact markers have been found in sites from California to Europe,
                      >> and
                      >>> all dating to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition at about 12.9
                      >>> kya.
                      >>> No impact site has been found yet, and it may be that the impact(s)
                      >>> happened on the ice sheet. Most people involved believe it was a
                      >> comet
                      >>> (mostly friable materials, loosely agglomerated), not a solid
                      >>> stone or
                      >>> metallic meteor.
                      >>>
                      >>> The impact location presently is thought to be in the area in or
                      >> north
                      >>> of the Great Lakes. An impact on the ice sheet would have very
                      >>> different features from anything currently admitted as impact sites
                      >> by
                      >>> geologists (another ultra-conservative discipline). Geologists are
                      >>> subject to that "no new facts today, please" mentality, too. If it
                      >>> doesn't look like Barringer Crater, so far they are resisting that
                      >>> "it
                      >>> came from outer space" is a possible explanation.
                      >>>
                      >>> One wide-spread effect seems to have been a near continent-wide
                      >>> wildfire. This alone could have wiped out the mammoths - even the
                      >> ones
                      >>> it didn't burn. Burned vegetation doesn't have enough calories to
                      >> keep
                      >>> a hungry mammoth alive.
                      >>>
                      >>> Some people think that the Carolina Bays, a huge number of shallow,
                      >>> elliptical, hollowed-out landforms along the east coast of the U.S.,
                      >>> were created by the Y-D impact, as secondary impacts (from the
                      >> "splash"
                      >>> of the first impact). Myself, I am basically sitting on the fence
                      >>> as
                      >> to
                      >>> whether they were created by anything falling or from some unknown
                      >> form
                      >>> of geological process. I certanily do not believe the establishment
                      >>> idea - that they were formed by winds. It is patently impossible -
                      >>> especially since many overlap each other, and the overlapped
                      >>> features
                      >> of
                      >>> the underlying 'bays' would never have survived when the wind formed
                      >> the
                      >>> overlying bays.
                      >>>
                      >>> The recovery from the ensuing mini-ice age (called the Younger-Dryas
                      >>> stadial) lasted for about 1200 years, with temps averaging about
                      >> 12ãC
                      >>> lower than previous. This recovery was precisely at the time when
                      >>> humans "discovered" agriculture (circa 10,000 BCE, architecture,
                      >>> and
                      >>> began living in permanent settlements - the beginning of modern man
                      >> as
                      >>> modern man - one must ask the question: Did all of that really
                      >>> begin
                      >>> then, or did it just get re-established? I think it is a question
                      >>> we
                      >>> need to look into. If man was some portion of his way toward
                      >>> civilization, and then his progress was cut off by an impact event,
                      >> then
                      >>> at least two questions arise:
                      >>>
                      >>> 1. How far along was man when it happened?
                      >>>
                      >>> 2. How many other times has that happened?
                      >>>
                      >>> How far along man was in North America is certainly a question. Man
                      >> had
                      >>> certainly arrived in NA - at least a full 4,000-5,000 years previous
                      >> to
                      >>> that time. For all intents and purposes, America had to be
                      >> rediscovered
                      >>> all over again. The MtDNA evidence so far implies that man
                      >>> arrived in
                      >>> at least FIVE waves, Clovis being one of the later ones. So,
                      >>> "pre-Columbian" has an entirely new meaning.
                      >>>
                      >>> Cahokia, even if it had existed so early, would not have existed
                      >>> afterward. With its prime location near the confluence of the
                      >>> Mississippi-Missouri confluence (and just south of the Illinois
                      >>> River,
                      >>> too), no place in America was a crossroads like Cahokia. One must
                      >> assume
                      >>> that whoever lived in NA at the 12.9 kya would have established a
                      >>> base
                      >>> of operations or settlement there, too.
                      >>>
                      >>
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • quarefremeruntgentes7@yahoo.com
                      So far as the legacy of white American stands, good, bad, or otherwise, I believe the Creator made man in his own image, that recognizing inalienable rights,
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jan 9, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        So far as the legacy of white American stands, good, bad, or otherwise, I believe the Creator made man in his own image, that recognizing inalienable rights, the Bill of Rights, and Equal Justice are good things, but, sadly, admit we have observed these more 'in theory', than 'in practice'.

                        Jeff

                        Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
                        Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:37:51
                        To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
                        Reply-To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain

                        Sadly, the majority of the treaties, even the later ones on the Black
                        Hills, were easily changed by subsequent laws. The Dawes act really
                        was meant to split up the reservations and give title that could be
                        given away, taken or sold. The design was to change the culture, or
                        assimilate the inhabitants.
                        Vine de Loria did a lot of work on the subject. The Long Island
                        tribes are trying to get their land back according to treaties past,
                        and some are trying to establish themselves again so that they can
                        have casinos in the Hamptons. There are one or two religious leaders
                        there fighting against the tribes goal. They know the cost to their
                        children. We have half a dozen casinos in my area that are run by
                        the HO Chunk nation, and they are getting their money back from the
                        surrounding people, one pull of the bandit's arm at a time. :-)
                        I hope they use their money wisely, as a son of a friend is a
                        counselor at a tribe in Minnesota where the children of that tribe are
                        in great need of help. They are falling victim to drugs, alcohol, and
                        the influence of a large payment they will receive when they turn 18.

                        What price financial "freedom" if it costs you your soul and your
                        culture?

                        On Jan 8, 2012, at 9:35 PM, quarefremeruntgentes7@... wrote:

                        > I might lose out in court. I am suspecting that my county, and
                        > several counties here in Western Missouri and Eastern Kansas are
                        > situated on land that was permanently ceded, by treaty, to the
                        > independent Platte Nation. Sadly, it seems that white folks have not
                        > honored their obligations under this treaty, as anyone who goes for
                        > a ride through Platte City, Acheson, Benenda, etc. may easily observe.
                        >
                        > Jeff
                        >
                        >
                        > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
                        >
                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: "Rick O" <ozman@...>
                        > Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                        > Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:35:31
                        > To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
                        > Reply-To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a
                        > slow thing, but not uncertain
                        >
                        > Jeff,
                        >
                        > Second paragraph of chapter 2 of my book:
                        > "In 1823, the Doctrine of Discovery was written into U.S. law as a
                        > way to deny land rights to Native Americans in the Supreme Court
                        > case, Johnson v. McIntosh. It is ironic that the case did not
                        > directly involve any Native Americans since the decision stripped
                        > them of all rights to their independence." I got this material
                        > verified in a discussion with Robert J. Miller, professor of law at
                        > Lewis and Clark College.
                        >
                        > Correct. If a new case were brought challenging the US, English,
                        > French, and / or original Spanish claims based on previous
                        > occupancy by a Christian nation or that even some small percentage
                        > of Native Americans were Christian at the time of Columbus'
                        > "discovery", then all bets are off as far as the outcome of that
                        > case. However, the most likely outcome in practicality would be like
                        > the Supreme Court ruling that the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was
                        > unconstitutional (which it did) only to have the executive branch
                        > ignore the ruling. Nonetheless, such a trial would put overwhelming
                        > evidence of pre-Columbian presence before a court that judges
                        > evidence on its merit instead of before a kangaroo scientific review
                        > jury bound to their own discipline's dogma.
                        >
                        > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com,
                        > quarefremeruntgentes7@... wrote:
                        >>
                        >> If what you imply were correct, then who would claim the Cahokia
                        >> area?
                        >>
                        >> Is this going to end in a lawsuit?
                        >>
                        >> Jeff
                        >> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
                        >>
                        >> -----Original Message-----
                        >> From: "Rick O" <ozman@...>
                        >> Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                        >> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:58:11
                        >> To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
                        >> Reply-To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                        >> Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is
                        >> a slow thing, but not uncertain
                        >>
                        >>
                        >> Oh definitely. Great stuff all the way through, Steve.
                        >>
                        >> One note in particular.
                        >>
                        >> The Crossroads of America. No, not Terre Haute, Indiana, the city
                        >> that
                        >> has used the slogan for a 150 years, because of its placement where
                        >> the
                        >> National Road (now US 40) crosses the Wabash River. Rather the
                        >> confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi. Although that section
                        >> of the
                        >> Ohio used be part of the Wabash. Nevermind, it's complicated.
                        >>
                        >> Near the end of your post, Steve, you said, "no place in America was
                        >> a crossroads like Cahokia. One must assume that whoever lived in NA
                        >> at
                        >> the 12.9 kya would have established a base of operations or
                        >> settlement
                        >> there, too."
                        >>
                        >> They didn't settle exactly at Cahokia. It was closer to Cairo, but
                        >> the
                        >> confluence then was itself several miles closer to Cahokia.
                        >>
                        >> The oldest large-context map of the Mississippi basin that is
                        >> somewhat
                        >> geographically accurate is the Delisle map (1716). I has a note at
                        >> the
                        >> confluence "Ancien Fort". Yes, I know, "ancien" usage in
                        >> French can run the gamut from "ancient Egypt" to "former
                        >> belly dancer" to "last time I ate truffles". In this usage,
                        >> it can only apply as an English speaker would read it. The French
                        >> never
                        >> built a fort or even a trading post exactly there. The note
                        >> acknowledges
                        >> someone else did. Another quirk of French language and usage, it
                        >> had to
                        >> have been a stone fort or they would have called it a palisad.
                        >>
                        >> Our own Vince and Shari Burrows may have stumbled upon the most
                        >> important "new" find in my forty years of chasing this stuff.
                        >>
                        >> Jefferson County, MO; reported by Vince and Shari Barrows, private
                        >> property
                        >>
                        >> The local residents informed us upon inquiry about archaeology in the
                        >> area that there was a large stone wall of unknown age and two mounds
                        >> directly across the railroad tracks. We walked over to the site and
                        >> found that the rock wall was easy to locate. It was about 20 feet
                        >> tall,
                        >> and composed of limestone, gravel, and chert, combined in layers. The
                        >> wall was covered with vines and trees, and was very weathered.
                        >>
                        >> The weathering and materials used in construction indicated a great
                        >> age.
                        >> Upon inspection, the wall was found to extend up the hill and may
                        >> have
                        >> been once part of a much larger enclosure. Large oak trees had
                        >> grown on
                        >> top of segments of the wall. The tree roots were causing major
                        >> cracks to
                        >> develop in the structure of the wall. Severe erosion and weathering
                        >> was
                        >> also clear and it is unknown how long the wall extended up the
                        >> hillside.
                        >>
                        >> The thick underbrush made it difficult to determine the extents of
                        >> the
                        >> walls dimensions. Further investigation and following a well used ATV
                        >> trail led us to two mounds that were side by side.
                        >>
                        >>
                        >> Okay. Why is it important? If it is a stone fortress, it puts the
                        >> fortress builders on both sides of the Mississippi.
                        >>
                        >> Then it goes to land title validity of the Louisiana Purchase, even
                        >> under the terms of the Papal Bulls, the title becomes questionable.
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >> --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2"
                        >> <puppet@> wrote:
                        >>>
                        >>> This should affect discussion here, actually, as well as the
                        >>> Pre-Columbian group, since it impacts our understanding of the
                        >>> prehistory of North America. Therefore, I am posting there, too.
                        >>>
                        >>> Rant warning!
                        >>>
                        >>> I have rarely posted here, in a long time. But the Cahokia topic by
                        >>> Rick got my hackles up - not at him, but at archeologists.
                        >>>
                        >>> Cahokia is/was in my back yard (grew up in the village of Cahokia,
                        >>> about 6 miles from the mounds). I don't have anything specific to
                        >>> add
                        >> to
                        >>> Rick's post, but when I got to writing
                        >>>
                        >>> Archeology is one of the few disciplines that is wrong almost all
                        >>> the
                        >>> time. Why it is even called a science I have argued for some time
                        >> now.
                        >>> 99% of it is in the interpretation of 1% of artifacts. Even Samuel
                        >>> Clemens pointed that out, 130 years ago. And Old Sam thought they
                        >>> got
                        >>> it wrong, too. It should be labeled a branch of history, not
                        >> science.
                        >>> Sometimes I wonder if it should be listed as a religion, even. So
                        >> what
                        >>> if they carefully lay out sites and note where everything was found,
                        >> in
                        >>> what layer and in what juxtaposition? Big deal. Historians have
                        >>> to
                        >> do
                        >>> that, too - so what that they do it with paper instead of dirt? Why
                        >>> that could possibly matter, I don't know. Almost the entire body of
                        >>> study is interpreatations and interpretations of interpretations.
                        >>> The
                        >>> last one-hour video I saw about Cahokia had exactly ONE artifact
                        >>> presented in the entire show, and that was in the last ten minutes.
                        >> Up
                        >>> till then it was all conjectural, premise, and pap for the non-
                        >>> masses,
                        >>> as in pap for the academics, something to keep them appearing to be
                        >>> intellectuals and people to be taken seriously.
                        >>>
                        >>> All the science that is connected to archeology is done by others
                        >>> - by
                        >>> labs, on a piece-part basis, pay as you go. Science is
                        >>> quantification
                        >>> of evidence. No one pretends that philologists are scientists.
                        >>> Ceramics is all dated relative to other ceramics. The experts in
                        >>> both
                        >>> fields are like art historians - they recognize swirls and gradual
                        >>> changes from one style to another. It is not rocket science, though
                        >>> there is much intelligence required. I do not argue that they do
                        >>> not
                        >>> warrant respect - just that comparative ceramics is an art subject.
                        >>> And IMHO, so is archeology.
                        >>>
                        >>> Then there is the stifle factor that is ever-present. To be an
                        >>> archeologist is to toe an interpretive line that is tremendously
                        >>> conservative. Not one thing is admitted into the corpus, except
                        >>> over
                        >>> their dead bodies (no puns intended). And even one new piece of
                        >>> evidence that manages to be accepted only inches things forward that
                        >>> one millimeter - and no further - not until the next artifact is
                        >> found,
                        >>> and is accepted (which is not certain at all). It is a discipline
                        >> with
                        >>> the brakes on - all the time. It took 68 years to overthrow the
                        >> Clovis
                        >>> barrier, and the arkies who argue it still - they will be with us a
                        >> long
                        >>> time yet, even though it has been now 14 years since the Clovis
                        >> barrier
                        >>> was busted (as it always should have been). It should have been
                        >>> presented as "This is the best idea we have so far," but they made
                        >>> it
                        >>> into Newton's 4th Law of Motion.
                        >>>
                        >>> Until it failed.
                        >>>
                        >>> The other Clovis guesstimate is well on its way to being overthrown,
                        >> too
                        >>> - the Overkill Hypothesis, in which Clovis man scoured the
                        >>> entirety of
                        >>> NA and killed every last large mammal, including - famously - the
                        >>> mammoths. (The first 20 times I heard that idea, I thought it was a
                        >>> joke, that small bands of hunters with anything less than modern
                        >> weapons
                        >>> could be imagined to kill so many animals before the animals could
                        >>> "end-run" back into areas already "wiped clean." Even with today's
                        >>> weaponry, I thought the odds were zilch. At what Silly U. did those
                        >>> pea-brains think that one up? Did even ONE of them think it through
                        >>> before publishing?)
                        >>>
                        >>> So, what killed the mammoths, if it wasn't Clovis man?
                        >>>
                        >>> Oh, BTW, they never happened to also mention that Clovis man himself
                        >>> didn't survive that period. So, perhaps it was a murder-suicide
                        >>> pact
                        >>> between Clovis man and mammoths, right? Wrong. Perhaps after
                        >>> their
                        >>> blood lust was up and the mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers and
                        >>> giant
                        >>> sloths were dead, they turned on each other, right? Wrong again.
                        >>> Something killed them both off, and it wasn't cave men running
                        >>> around
                        >>> in furs and stone spear points, looking for the latest Ultimate
                        >>> Fighting cage.
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>> More solid real scientific evidence is coming in all the time
                        >>> showing
                        >>> that there was a multiple-continent effect from the Younger-Dryas
                        >>> Impact Event. Most of the following is not exactly new news, but a
                        >>> re-hash. But what is new about it is that the volume of new
                        >>> evidence
                        >>> is supporting the Y-D impact theory. This is a good thing for
                        >>> those
                        >>> who think "something was going on in North America a long time ago."
                        >>>
                        >>> Evidently something from outer space hit the Earth and caused a
                        >> helluva
                        >>> lot of damage - and left evidence that is only in the last decade or
                        >> so
                        >>> being discovered. Nano-diamonds, Helium3, Iridium, and several
                        >>> other
                        >>> impact markers have been found in sites from California to Europe,
                        >> and
                        >>> all dating to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition at about 12.9
                        >>> kya.
                        >>> No impact site has been found yet, and it may be that the impact(s)
                        >>> happened on the ice sheet. Most people involved believe it was a
                        >> comet
                        >>> (mostly friable materials, loosely agglomerated), not a solid
                        >>> stone or
                        >>> metallic meteor.
                        >>>
                        >>> The impact location presently is thought to be in the area in or
                        >> north
                        >>> of the Great Lakes. An impact on the ice sheet would have very
                        >>> different features from anything currently admitted as impact sites
                        >> by
                        >>> geologists (another ultra-conservative discipline). Geologists are
                        >>> subject to that "no new facts today, please" mentality, too. If it
                        >>> doesn't look like Barringer Crater, so far they are resisting that
                        >>> "it
                        >>> came from outer space" is a possible explanation.
                        >>>
                        >>> One wide-spread effect seems to have been a near continent-wide
                        >>> wildfire. This alone could have wiped out the mammoths - even the
                        >> ones
                        >>> it didn't burn. Burned vegetation doesn't have enough calories to
                        >> keep
                        >>> a hungry mammoth alive.
                        >>>
                        >>> Some people think that the Carolina Bays, a huge number of shallow,
                        >>> elliptical, hollowed-out landforms along the east coast of the U.S.,
                        >>> were created by the Y-D impact, as secondary impacts (from the
                        >> "splash"
                        >>> of the first impact). Myself, I am basically sitting on the fence
                        >>> as
                        >> to
                        >>> whether they were created by anything falling or from some unknown
                        >> form
                        >>> of geological process. I certanily do not believe the establishment
                        >>> idea - that they were formed by winds. It is patently impossible -
                        >>> especially since many overlap each other, and the overlapped
                        >>> features
                        >> of
                        >>> the underlying 'bays' would never have survived when the wind formed
                        >> the
                        >>> overlying bays.
                        >>>
                        >>> The recovery from the ensuing mini-ice age (called the Younger-Dryas
                        >>> stadial) lasted for about 1200 years, with temps averaging about
                        >> 12ãC
                        >>> lower than previous. This recovery was precisely at the time when
                        >>> humans "discovered" agriculture (circa 10,000 BCE, architecture,
                        >>> and
                        >>> began living in permanent settlements - the beginning of modern man
                        >> as
                        >>> modern man - one must ask the question: Did all of that really
                        >>> begin
                        >>> then, or did it just get re-established? I think it is a question
                        >>> we
                        >>> need to look into. If man was some portion of his way toward
                        >>> civilization, and then his progress was cut off by an impact event,
                        >> then
                        >>> at least two questions arise:
                        >>>
                        >>> 1. How far along was man when it happened?
                        >>>
                        >>> 2. How many other times has that happened?
                        >>>
                        >>> How far along man was in North America is certainly a question. Man
                        >> had
                        >>> certainly arrived in NA - at least a full 4,000-5,000 years previous
                        >> to
                        >>> that time. For all intents and purposes, America had to be
                        >> rediscovered
                        >>> all over again. The MtDNA evidence so far implies that man
                        >>> arrived in
                        >>> at least FIVE waves, Clovis being one of the later ones. So,
                        >>> "pre-Columbian" has an entirely new meaning.
                        >>>
                        >>> Cahokia, even if it had existed so early, would not have existed
                        >>> afterward. With its prime location near the confluence of the
                        >>> Mississippi-Missouri confluence (and just south of the Illinois
                        >>> River,
                        >>> too), no place in America was a crossroads like Cahokia. One must
                        >> assume
                        >>> that whoever lived in NA at the 12.9 kya would have established a
                        >>> base
                        >>> of operations or settlement there, too.
                        >>>
                        >>
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >



                        ------------------------------------

                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                      • quarefremeruntgentes7@yahoo.com
                        My mom rook a lot of interest in Vine de Loria s writings. As an adult, I have taken different opinions than my folks on many things, but may get around to
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jan 10, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          My mom rook a lot of interest in Vine de Loria's writings. As an adult, I have taken different opinions than my folks on many things, but may get around to checking out his efforts on my own.

                          Jeff

                          Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
                          Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                          Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:37:51
                          To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
                          Reply-To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a slow thing, but not uncertain

                          Sadly, the majority of the treaties, even the later ones on the Black
                          Hills, were easily changed by subsequent laws. The Dawes act really
                          was meant to split up the reservations and give title that could be
                          given away, taken or sold. The design was to change the culture, or
                          assimilate the inhabitants.
                          Vine de Loria did a lot of work on the subject. The Long Island
                          tribes are trying to get their land back according to treaties past,
                          and some are trying to establish themselves again so that they can
                          have casinos in the Hamptons. There are one or two religious leaders
                          there fighting against the tribes goal. They know the cost to their
                          children. We have half a dozen casinos in my area that are run by
                          the HO Chunk nation, and they are getting their money back from the
                          surrounding people, one pull of the bandit's arm at a time. :-)
                          I hope they use their money wisely, as a son of a friend is a
                          counselor at a tribe in Minnesota where the children of that tribe are
                          in great need of help. They are falling victim to drugs, alcohol, and
                          the influence of a large payment they will receive when they turn 18.

                          What price financial "freedom" if it costs you your soul and your
                          culture?

                          On Jan 8, 2012, at 9:35 PM, quarefremeruntgentes7@... wrote:

                          > I might lose out in court. I am suspecting that my county, and
                          > several counties here in Western Missouri and Eastern Kansas are
                          > situated on land that was permanently ceded, by treaty, to the
                          > independent Platte Nation. Sadly, it seems that white folks have not
                          > honored their obligations under this treaty, as anyone who goes for
                          > a ride through Platte City, Acheson, Benenda, etc. may easily observe.
                          >
                          > Jeff
                          >
                          >
                          > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: "Rick O" <ozman@...>
                          > Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                          > Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:35:31
                          > To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
                          > Reply-To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is a
                          > slow thing, but not uncertain
                          >
                          > Jeff,
                          >
                          > Second paragraph of chapter 2 of my book:
                          > "In 1823, the Doctrine of Discovery was written into U.S. law as a
                          > way to deny land rights to Native Americans in the Supreme Court
                          > case, Johnson v. McIntosh. It is ironic that the case did not
                          > directly involve any Native Americans since the decision stripped
                          > them of all rights to their independence." I got this material
                          > verified in a discussion with Robert J. Miller, professor of law at
                          > Lewis and Clark College.
                          >
                          > Correct. If a new case were brought challenging the US, English,
                          > French, and / or original Spanish claims based on previous
                          > occupancy by a Christian nation or that even some small percentage
                          > of Native Americans were Christian at the time of Columbus'
                          > "discovery", then all bets are off as far as the outcome of that
                          > case. However, the most likely outcome in practicality would be like
                          > the Supreme Court ruling that the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was
                          > unconstitutional (which it did) only to have the executive branch
                          > ignore the ruling. Nonetheless, such a trial would put overwhelming
                          > evidence of pre-Columbian presence before a court that judges
                          > evidence on its merit instead of before a kangaroo scientific review
                          > jury bound to their own discipline's dogma.
                          >
                          > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com,
                          > quarefremeruntgentes7@... wrote:
                          >>
                          >> If what you imply were correct, then who would claim the Cahokia
                          >> area?
                          >>
                          >> Is this going to end in a lawsuit?
                          >>
                          >> Jeff
                          >> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
                          >>
                          >> -----Original Message-----
                          >> From: "Rick O" <ozman@...>
                          >> Sender: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                          >> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:58:11
                          >> To: <ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com>
                          >> Reply-To: ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com
                          >> Subject: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Archeological progress is
                          >> a slow thing, but not uncertain
                          >>
                          >>
                          >> Oh definitely. Great stuff all the way through, Steve.
                          >>
                          >> One note in particular.
                          >>
                          >> The Crossroads of America. No, not Terre Haute, Indiana, the city
                          >> that
                          >> has used the slogan for a 150 years, because of its placement where
                          >> the
                          >> National Road (now US 40) crosses the Wabash River. Rather the
                          >> confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi. Although that section
                          >> of the
                          >> Ohio used be part of the Wabash. Nevermind, it's complicated.
                          >>
                          >> Near the end of your post, Steve, you said, "no place in America was
                          >> a crossroads like Cahokia. One must assume that whoever lived in NA
                          >> at
                          >> the 12.9 kya would have established a base of operations or
                          >> settlement
                          >> there, too."
                          >>
                          >> They didn't settle exactly at Cahokia. It was closer to Cairo, but
                          >> the
                          >> confluence then was itself several miles closer to Cahokia.
                          >>
                          >> The oldest large-context map of the Mississippi basin that is
                          >> somewhat
                          >> geographically accurate is the Delisle map (1716). I has a note at
                          >> the
                          >> confluence "Ancien Fort". Yes, I know, "ancien" usage in
                          >> French can run the gamut from "ancient Egypt" to "former
                          >> belly dancer" to "last time I ate truffles". In this usage,
                          >> it can only apply as an English speaker would read it. The French
                          >> never
                          >> built a fort or even a trading post exactly there. The note
                          >> acknowledges
                          >> someone else did. Another quirk of French language and usage, it
                          >> had to
                          >> have been a stone fort or they would have called it a palisad.
                          >>
                          >> Our own Vince and Shari Burrows may have stumbled upon the most
                          >> important "new" find in my forty years of chasing this stuff.
                          >>
                          >> Jefferson County, MO; reported by Vince and Shari Barrows, private
                          >> property
                          >>
                          >> The local residents informed us upon inquiry about archaeology in the
                          >> area that there was a large stone wall of unknown age and two mounds
                          >> directly across the railroad tracks. We walked over to the site and
                          >> found that the rock wall was easy to locate. It was about 20 feet
                          >> tall,
                          >> and composed of limestone, gravel, and chert, combined in layers. The
                          >> wall was covered with vines and trees, and was very weathered.
                          >>
                          >> The weathering and materials used in construction indicated a great
                          >> age.
                          >> Upon inspection, the wall was found to extend up the hill and may
                          >> have
                          >> been once part of a much larger enclosure. Large oak trees had
                          >> grown on
                          >> top of segments of the wall. The tree roots were causing major
                          >> cracks to
                          >> develop in the structure of the wall. Severe erosion and weathering
                          >> was
                          >> also clear and it is unknown how long the wall extended up the
                          >> hillside.
                          >>
                          >> The thick underbrush made it difficult to determine the extents of
                          >> the
                          >> walls dimensions. Further investigation and following a well used ATV
                          >> trail led us to two mounds that were side by side.
                          >>
                          >>
                          >> Okay. Why is it important? If it is a stone fortress, it puts the
                          >> fortress builders on both sides of the Mississippi.
                          >>
                          >> Then it goes to land title validity of the Louisiana Purchase, even
                          >> under the terms of the Papal Bulls, the title becomes questionable.
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>
                          >> --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2"
                          >> <puppet@> wrote:
                          >>>
                          >>> This should affect discussion here, actually, as well as the
                          >>> Pre-Columbian group, since it impacts our understanding of the
                          >>> prehistory of North America. Therefore, I am posting there, too.
                          >>>
                          >>> Rant warning!
                          >>>
                          >>> I have rarely posted here, in a long time. But the Cahokia topic by
                          >>> Rick got my hackles up - not at him, but at archeologists.
                          >>>
                          >>> Cahokia is/was in my back yard (grew up in the village of Cahokia,
                          >>> about 6 miles from the mounds). I don't have anything specific to
                          >>> add
                          >> to
                          >>> Rick's post, but when I got to writing
                          >>>
                          >>> Archeology is one of the few disciplines that is wrong almost all
                          >>> the
                          >>> time. Why it is even called a science I have argued for some time
                          >> now.
                          >>> 99% of it is in the interpretation of 1% of artifacts. Even Samuel
                          >>> Clemens pointed that out, 130 years ago. And Old Sam thought they
                          >>> got
                          >>> it wrong, too. It should be labeled a branch of history, not
                          >> science.
                          >>> Sometimes I wonder if it should be listed as a religion, even. So
                          >> what
                          >>> if they carefully lay out sites and note where everything was found,
                          >> in
                          >>> what layer and in what juxtaposition? Big deal. Historians have
                          >>> to
                          >> do
                          >>> that, too - so what that they do it with paper instead of dirt? Why
                          >>> that could possibly matter, I don't know. Almost the entire body of
                          >>> study is interpreatations and interpretations of interpretations.
                          >>> The
                          >>> last one-hour video I saw about Cahokia had exactly ONE artifact
                          >>> presented in the entire show, and that was in the last ten minutes.
                          >> Up
                          >>> till then it was all conjectural, premise, and pap for the non-
                          >>> masses,
                          >>> as in pap for the academics, something to keep them appearing to be
                          >>> intellectuals and people to be taken seriously.
                          >>>
                          >>> All the science that is connected to archeology is done by others
                          >>> - by
                          >>> labs, on a piece-part basis, pay as you go. Science is
                          >>> quantification
                          >>> of evidence. No one pretends that philologists are scientists.
                          >>> Ceramics is all dated relative to other ceramics. The experts in
                          >>> both
                          >>> fields are like art historians - they recognize swirls and gradual
                          >>> changes from one style to another. It is not rocket science, though
                          >>> there is much intelligence required. I do not argue that they do
                          >>> not
                          >>> warrant respect - just that comparative ceramics is an art subject.
                          >>> And IMHO, so is archeology.
                          >>>
                          >>> Then there is the stifle factor that is ever-present. To be an
                          >>> archeologist is to toe an interpretive line that is tremendously
                          >>> conservative. Not one thing is admitted into the corpus, except
                          >>> over
                          >>> their dead bodies (no puns intended). And even one new piece of
                          >>> evidence that manages to be accepted only inches things forward that
                          >>> one millimeter - and no further - not until the next artifact is
                          >> found,
                          >>> and is accepted (which is not certain at all). It is a discipline
                          >> with
                          >>> the brakes on - all the time. It took 68 years to overthrow the
                          >> Clovis
                          >>> barrier, and the arkies who argue it still - they will be with us a
                          >> long
                          >>> time yet, even though it has been now 14 years since the Clovis
                          >> barrier
                          >>> was busted (as it always should have been). It should have been
                          >>> presented as "This is the best idea we have so far," but they made
                          >>> it
                          >>> into Newton's 4th Law of Motion.
                          >>>
                          >>> Until it failed.
                          >>>
                          >>> The other Clovis guesstimate is well on its way to being overthrown,
                          >> too
                          >>> - the Overkill Hypothesis, in which Clovis man scoured the
                          >>> entirety of
                          >>> NA and killed every last large mammal, including - famously - the
                          >>> mammoths. (The first 20 times I heard that idea, I thought it was a
                          >>> joke, that small bands of hunters with anything less than modern
                          >> weapons
                          >>> could be imagined to kill so many animals before the animals could
                          >>> "end-run" back into areas already "wiped clean." Even with today's
                          >>> weaponry, I thought the odds were zilch. At what Silly U. did those
                          >>> pea-brains think that one up? Did even ONE of them think it through
                          >>> before publishing?)
                          >>>
                          >>> So, what killed the mammoths, if it wasn't Clovis man?
                          >>>
                          >>> Oh, BTW, they never happened to also mention that Clovis man himself
                          >>> didn't survive that period. So, perhaps it was a murder-suicide
                          >>> pact
                          >>> between Clovis man and mammoths, right? Wrong. Perhaps after
                          >>> their
                          >>> blood lust was up and the mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers and
                          >>> giant
                          >>> sloths were dead, they turned on each other, right? Wrong again.
                          >>> Something killed them both off, and it wasn't cave men running
                          >>> around
                          >>> in furs and stone spear points, looking for the latest Ultimate
                          >>> Fighting cage.
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >>> More solid real scientific evidence is coming in all the time
                          >>> showing
                          >>> that there was a multiple-continent effect from the Younger-Dryas
                          >>> Impact Event. Most of the following is not exactly new news, but a
                          >>> re-hash. But what is new about it is that the volume of new
                          >>> evidence
                          >>> is supporting the Y-D impact theory. This is a good thing for
                          >>> those
                          >>> who think "something was going on in North America a long time ago."
                          >>>
                          >>> Evidently something from outer space hit the Earth and caused a
                          >> helluva
                          >>> lot of damage - and left evidence that is only in the last decade or
                          >> so
                          >>> being discovered. Nano-diamonds, Helium3, Iridium, and several
                          >>> other
                          >>> impact markers have been found in sites from California to Europe,
                          >> and
                          >>> all dating to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition at about 12.9
                          >>> kya.
                          >>> No impact site has been found yet, and it may be that the impact(s)
                          >>> happened on the ice sheet. Most people involved believe it was a
                          >> comet
                          >>> (mostly friable materials, loosely agglomerated), not a solid
                          >>> stone or
                          >>> metallic meteor.
                          >>>
                          >>> The impact location presently is thought to be in the area in or
                          >> north
                          >>> of the Great Lakes. An impact on the ice sheet would have very
                          >>> different features from anything currently admitted as impact sites
                          >> by
                          >>> geologists (another ultra-conservative discipline). Geologists are
                          >>> subject to that "no new facts today, please" mentality, too. If it
                          >>> doesn't look like Barringer Crater, so far they are resisting that
                          >>> "it
                          >>> came from outer space" is a possible explanation.
                          >>>
                          >>> One wide-spread effect seems to have been a near continent-wide
                          >>> wildfire. This alone could have wiped out the mammoths - even the
                          >> ones
                          >>> it didn't burn. Burned vegetation doesn't have enough calories to
                          >> keep
                          >>> a hungry mammoth alive.
                          >>>
                          >>> Some people think that the Carolina Bays, a huge number of shallow,
                          >>> elliptical, hollowed-out landforms along the east coast of the U.S.,
                          >>> were created by the Y-D impact, as secondary impacts (from the
                          >> "splash"
                          >>> of the first impact). Myself, I am basically sitting on the fence
                          >>> as
                          >> to
                          >>> whether they were created by anything falling or from some unknown
                          >> form
                          >>> of geological process. I certanily do not believe the establishment
                          >>> idea - that they were formed by winds. It is patently impossible -
                          >>> especially since many overlap each other, and the overlapped
                          >>> features
                          >> of
                          >>> the underlying 'bays' would never have survived when the wind formed
                          >> the
                          >>> overlying bays.
                          >>>
                          >>> The recovery from the ensuing mini-ice age (called the Younger-Dryas
                          >>> stadial) lasted for about 1200 years, with temps averaging about
                          >> 12ãC
                          >>> lower than previous. This recovery was precisely at the time when
                          >>> humans "discovered" agriculture (circa 10,000 BCE, architecture,
                          >>> and
                          >>> began living in permanent settlements - the beginning of modern man
                          >> as
                          >>> modern man - one must ask the question: Did all of that really
                          >>> begin
                          >>> then, or did it just get re-established? I think it is a question
                          >>> we
                          >>> need to look into. If man was some portion of his way toward
                          >>> civilization, and then his progress was cut off by an impact event,
                          >> then
                          >>> at least two questions arise:
                          >>>
                          >>> 1. How far along was man when it happened?
                          >>>
                          >>> 2. How many other times has that happened?
                          >>>
                          >>> How far along man was in North America is certainly a question. Man
                          >> had
                          >>> certainly arrived in NA - at least a full 4,000-5,000 years previous
                          >> to
                          >>> that time. For all intents and purposes, America had to be
                          >> rediscovered
                          >>> all over again. The MtDNA evidence so far implies that man
                          >>> arrived in
                          >>> at least FIVE waves, Clovis being one of the later ones. So,
                          >>> "pre-Columbian" has an entirely new meaning.
                          >>>
                          >>> Cahokia, even if it had existed so early, would not have existed
                          >>> afterward. With its prime location near the confluence of the
                          >>> Mississippi-Missouri confluence (and just south of the Illinois
                          >>> River,
                          >>> too), no place in America was a crossroads like Cahokia. One must
                          >> assume
                          >>> that whoever lived in NA at the 12.9 kya would have established a
                          >>> base
                          >>> of operations or settlement there, too.
                          >>>
                          >>
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >



                          ------------------------------------

                          Yahoo! Groups Links
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.