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

Re: Europeans in Maryland 20,000 years ago? ( Update)

Expand Messages
  • bigalemc2
    Oops! Wrong link on the Firestone 2007 paper. It should have been this link . Steve G ... counting...) ...
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 18, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Oops!  Wrong link on the Firestone 2007 paper.

      It should have been this link .

      Steve G


      --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" <puppet@...> wrote:
      >
      > Susan -
      >
      > Is this the first mention of this in this group? Good get! "Ancient
      > waterways" has to include the Atlantic, too, doesn't it? If an ocean
      > isn't a waterway, what is?
      >
      > Standford and Bradley have been pushing this pretty much ever since
      > Clovis First was shot down in 1997. The DNA evidence gives them a
      > boost, too. But as is normal, arkies can only go one step into the
      > abyss, and even then their ideas are labeled "radical" for half a
      > century. (Standford and Bradley are at about 15 years and counting...)
      > It is pathetic when radical means not quite as conservative as an Oxford
      > Don.
      >
      > Whether first or not, certainly someone came from that direction, the
      > East. For us Atlantean advocates it is being misread, but it still is
      > one more thing that 'is consistent' with a Atlantean hypothesis, so it
      > is a good thing. Our meme is more that both Solutrean and Clovis came
      > from Atlantis. As I hear all the time at another science bog I haunt,
      > "Correlation does not mean causation." With the Atlantean
      > infrastructure dead and buried Atlantean refugees did the best they
      > could with what they had at hand. In Egypt they had a lot of
      > infrastructure to rebuild with, but not so in the far reaches of Europe
      > or anywhere in America.
      >
      > When I first heard of the Solutrean points back 20 years ago or more,
      > the connection with Clovis points was said to be impossible because of
      > the time gap between the two. I thought, "What horseshit. Don't they
      > realize that their time scheme has every possibility of being changed
      > with new discoveries?" I predicted back then that the gap between
      > Solutreans and Clovis would be shown to be zero.
      >
      > Someone last week wrote me and said how he had found that by taking the
      > diametrically opposite position from what science says is true, he has
      > found that things make more sense and new discoveries seem not to be
      > shockers. I could have told him that; I took that position 40 years
      > ago.
      >
      > Now, for those who haven't been aware of it, this month has also had the
      > announcement of a new paper about lake sediment cores in central Mexico,
      > from Lake Cuitzeo about 3 hours WNW of Mexico City. The cores support
      > the hypothesis that a comet - maybe more than one - exploded in the
      > atmosphere over North America about 12,900 years ago, at the very
      > beginning of the Holocene, at the onset of what is called the Younger
      > Dryas (YD) stadial. Stadials were ice age periods, and the YD was the
      > last one. It lasted 1,200 years and its onset was also when the
      > mammoths and over 30 other North American megafauna went extinct.
      >
      > The article here <http://io9.com/younger-dryas-impact-hypothesis/> had
      > a good point:
      > Between this and the Solutrean hypothesis
      > <http://io9.com/5890637/could-the-first-humans-to-reach-the-americas-hav\
      > e-actually-come-from-europe> , this is apparently the week for
      > controversial hypotheses on North American prehistory. The Younger
      > Dryas impact hypothesis has been around since around 2007, and it might
      > actually be the subject of even fiercer dispute than the Solutrean
      > model, considering its proponents and its detractors can't even agree
      > on whether the supposed evidence to support it even exists.
      > It was good to put it in the perspective of that first sentence.
      >
      > The last point it make is a correct one. An cometary air burst would be
      > like the Tbunguska blast of 1908, which wiped out about 500 square miles
      > of trees without having an actual crater or meteor fragment, which
      > caused over 80 years of confusion. (Remember what I said above about
      > 'radical' ideas taking 50 years?) Only in the last 20 years has it been
      > mostly agreed that it probably was a comet - calculated to be 10 meters
      > across - that exploded over Siberia. The lack of evidence there -
      > besides trees flattened like during the Mt St Helens eruption of 1980 -
      > shows that all impacts do not look like meteors. Then consider that a
      > N.A. impact coming would have more than likely hit the ice sheets, which
      > is what the impact hypothesis people think happened. No matter HOW big,
      > an air burst over a 2-mile-thick ice sheet isn't going to show much in
      > the geological record, if any. As a result, there is a lot of ridicule
      > being thrown at the impact folks.
      >
      > For those of you who don't know him (Susan does), Ed Grondine has a book
      > called "Man and Impact in the Americas," in which he delineates much
      > about past impacts and goes so far as to show what the indigenous
      > accounts told of 'flaming mountains being cast down to Earth" and of
      > multiple Suns with many of them falling to Earth. If there is one thing
      > daytime impactors would look like it is multiple suns in the sky. For
      > those who don't know it, two of our main annual meteor showers is
      > actually a slew of comet fragments which are strung out over the entire
      > orbit of the Comet Encke. This orbital evidence has astronomers taking
      > to mean that Encke (4.2 km) was once a much larger single comet, and
      > that since its break up an estimated 30,000 years ago the fragments have
      > stretched out like the fragmented comet Shoemaker-Levy/9 did before
      > impacting Jupiter in 1994. The fragments of the porgenitor of Comet
      > Encke are called the Taurids because when they come inward toward the
      > Sun their 'radiant' (where they appear to be coming from) is in the
      > constellation Taurus. This happens just after the summer solstice, in
      > late June and early July. (Tunguska arrived on June 30th, so it is
      > understood by many to have been one of the Taurids.) Since all comets
      > that approach the Sun also head back out, we also run into the Taurids
      > later in the year, too. This happens around Halloween every year.
      >
      > This is all pertinent to groups that study pre-Columbian American
      > history because our history either began with Clovis Man or was severely
      > affected at the time of Clovis Man. The original Firestone et al 2007
      > <http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/comment-reply/pdf/i1052-5173-18-6-e1\
      > 3.pdf> hypothesis pointed out that not only the mammoths and other
      > megafauna went extinct at the 12,900 year point, but so did Clovis Man
      > himself. So what we seem to have is an abbreviated or punctuated - I
      > prefer to call it 'interrupted" - history of man in the Americas (if not
      > the world). Ed Grondine's work shows evidence that men here witnessed
      > impacts several times within the Holocene; i.e., since 12,900 years ago,
      > and that the impacts devastated their peoples. The impacts essentially
      > blew them back to the stone age - even though they were just barely out
      > of the stone age themselves!
      >
      > So with the history of the Americas being re-written - even in academia
      > - before our very eyes, and on two fronts - these are pretty exciting
      > times for pre-Columbian and Ancient Waterways participants. Our
      > hollering and screaming that so much is being overlooked may not be
      > noticed, but it does mean that what we have been saying needs to be
      > looked at again, and with a different perspective. For others it means
      > that impacts may be happening much more than the astronomers have always
      > told us, such as that we will not experience a big impact more than once
      > every 100,000 years. Alternate researchers and their audience have
      > always thought that was a ridiculous number and based on faulty
      > assumptions. Even if we are proven in the end to have been right we
      > will not be given any credit for it - but at that time we will TAKE
      > credit for it, anyway! Why? Because you cannot come up with any correct
      > understandings if your permises and assumptions are wrong. And their
      > assumptions about our history are simply wrong. There is far too much
      > evidence out there pointing straight in the eye, yet the academics
      > continue to sweep it under the carpet as either fraudulent or "you all
      > are stoo stupid to know what it is you are looking at."
      >
      > On the contrary, it is not OUR paradigms which keep having to be
      > updated.
      >
      > New evidence coming in seems to always move the balance of evidence
      > closer to our end of the scale. We should all be proud that our own
      > logic and assembling of evidence keeps being more and more likely to be
      > correct.
      >
      > And in this month of March 2012, we have it our way on two fronts. The
      > academics will push back, of course. They always do. There are still
      > those who haven't given up Clovis First, though it is now 15 years since
      > it was shot down in a blaze of glory. No matter what was found, from
      > the 1930s to 1997, it was always, "You people are full of shit. Clovis
      > Man came over Beringia 13,000 years ago when the ice-free corridor first
      > oepneed up, and that is that. now go home and SRFU." We had to put up
      > with that and put up with that and put up with that. Hubris. As in
      > rubbing our noses in it. And in the end, the mofos were WRONG. And
      > then to add schadenfreud to injury, the DNA evidence agreed - and
      > pointed out that, NO, all incursions into the Americas did NOT come over
      > Beringia - we are NOT all from NE Asiatic stock. It was THEY who had to
      > retrench. It was THEY who had to eat crow - though we never got invited
      > to the feathered feast so WE could rub it in.
      >
      > Though we did not always have the Internet with which to share thoughts
      > and support each other, we never gave up. We would all look at the same
      > evidence they did. But we would not reject inconvenient parts of the
      > evidence and cherry pick the rest. WE looked at ALL the evidence. And
      > cine we did, we caem up with better interpretations of the evidence than
      > they did. They claim that only THEY are trained and ony THEY know how
      > to properly think and assemble evidence into a whole. In reality, it is
      > WE who know best how to assemble evidence and assess it - because what
      > they left out was important. We chose to not leave out anomalous
      > evidence. We may not individually be as smart as them (I don't accept
      > that, but it might be true even in the face of my disagreement), but
      > collectively we are smarter, because we KNOW to our roots that you
      > cannot pretend some evidence doesn't exist, just because you don't want
      > it to exist. And if anyone posits hypotheses that fly in the face of
      > the evidence it is a fools errand.
      >
      > When I once read an assertion that 85% Carbon14 test results were tossed
      > out by the scientists who received such results from labs I was
      > horrified. I thought it must be untrue, so I went and looked into it as
      > much as I could in the time before the Internet. I found some things
      > to support it, but never did figure it out altogether, one way or the
      > other. What I DID find is that archeologists and geologists start out
      > with preconceived notions of the dates, and that when individual lab
      > results don't fit that date range, it is up to the researcher to include
      > - or not to include - each individual contrary result. The lab is never
      > informed which decision was made, so the researcher is free to exclude
      > whatever he wants to exclude. And he can word his paper such that no
      > one ever knows he had X number of lab results that didn't fit his
      > conclusions about dates. Was that number 85%? I don't know. When they
      > actually speak of excluding data (e.g., see Callendar 1938 and Slocum
      > 1955 <http://www.pensee-unique.eu/001_mwr-083-10-0225.pdf> pointing
      > out the cherry-picking by Callendar) they point at trivial reasons or
      > assert that the "sample was contaminated." They do not need to prove
      > such contamination; their word is taken for it.
      >
      > If any appreciable percentage of evidence - C14 or otherwise, or
      > 'fraudulent' tablets from American caves or mounds - is excluded, a
      > false and illusory history is all that can be built from what remains.
      > An illusory history is not a history, however, so we cannot know - we
      > cannot accept - any history built by the very 'disciplines' whose
      > beginning motives were either to prove the truth of the Bible or the
      > superiority of Anglo-Saxon religious males. Especially when the early
      > paradigms of such disciplines are still with us in large measure, we
      > cannot 'accept their word for it' on history.
      >
      > Such developments as these two March papers are truly important. That
      > the authors of the paper about the lake sediment cores in Mexico were
      > Mexican - the University of Michoacan! - is an amazing and very good
      > sign that the Anglo-Saxon hegemony in science may be showing signs of
      > being finally overcome. Latin American archeologists have been railing
      > for some time about the hubris of the Norteamericano arkies. One can
      > hope things are beginning to change. And perhaps a real history of
      > humans - at lest in the Americas - can be written some day.
      >
      > Steve Garcia
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"
      > beldingenglish@ wrote:
      > >
      > > Certainly these weren't the 'first Americans', but this is an update
      > on
      > > a discovery fom 1970 of possibly the earliest 'Europeans in the
      > > Americas:
      > > From the 3/17/12 Andy's Megalithic Portal News Summary :
      > >
      > > Radical theory of first Americans places Europeans in Maryland 20,000
      > > years ago
      > > Subject: North America
      > > Stanford and Bradley's Solutrean Hypothesis - and new book's publicity
      > > machine - attract attention.. When the crew of the Virginia scallop
      > > trawler Cinmar hauled a mastodon tusk onto the deck in 1970, another
      > > oddity dropped out of the net: a dark, tapered stone blade, nearly
      > eight
      > > inches long and still sharp. Forty years later, this rediscovered
      > > prehistoric slasher has reopened debate on a radical theory about who
      > > the first Americans were and when they got here.
      > > http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146414076
      > > <http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146414076> uf
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.