Re: canada.com Story
- This brings a chuckle.
After Monte Verde, NOW they have to do the flexible thinking that should have been going decades earlier. But notice how they have to throw in their Clovis-First-era thinking, so as not to concede their Clovis-First-era errors outright:
the migration of Siberian big-game hunters -- who are known to havetravelled across the dried up Bering Strait and down an ice-freecorridor east of the RockiesYup, these are the same big-game hunters who killed all the mammoths, ha ha ha - by throwing the Younger Dryas meteor/comet at the mammoths.
Why were these "coastal migrations impossible to be considered before? The self-same ice sheets along the coast were a prohibition before, but now that they have had to eat crow about Clovis, they grudgingly concede.
Look at the way they throw Clovis-First in as
The rise of the "coastal migration" theory has also been spurred by asprinkling of other ancient archeological finds throughout the Americas-- several of them, including the 14,850-year-old Chilean site of MonteVerde, too old to fit the traditional theory of an overland migrationby the "first Americans" that didn't begin for another millennium ortwo.And what does "traditional theory" mean? Clovis-First. Yeah, traditional as in WRONG. And even in an article telling us Clovis-1st is wrong, they call the Clovis people the 'first Americans' - EVEN though the article clearly is about PRE-First Americans! Give up, people! The 'first Americans'? Thy are going to keep calling Clovis-1st the first Americans even when they weren't? Boy! Are these the same people who continue to insist there are WMDs in Iraq?
The rest of the article, outside the 'traditional' theory stuff, is a fine and informative article. Alternate ideas about the peopling of the hemisphere are happening finally, but the 'traditionalists' are bound and determined to hang as much of their past intransigent ideas onto all the new ones as much as they can get away with. And in the process, they will corrupt and dogmatize the new ones, just as they did the previous 'traditional theory'. And, if history shows us anything, they will latch onto the wrong things, draw incorrect conclusions, and build another wrong paradigm. And then another Monte Verde will have to be rubbed in their faces again. . . the same old same old...
(I still think the article is wrong in that comments like "an ice-free corridor east of the Rockies as the last glaciers began retreating about 13,000 years ago" are locked into 'traditional theories' about their imaginary ice ages. Siberia didn't have ice sheets during the last ice age for the most part. Shouldn't they be referring to Siberia as an ice-free corridor, too? Yes, I know that my thinking is 'non-traditional' and out of the mainstream, but . . . that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.)