Site found in Mexico cartel drug cave pushes American habitation back to 30,000 years.

Check it out. A response two posts above your last

One little cave at a time bud.

The reality is no one living knows what our forebears could do, we only know what they did that we can’t.

Have fun being a zombie now.

a reply to: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Dalamax

Yep. That evidence and the rest posted in this thread.

You can do it little engine that could.

There is no evidence in the post, just a story that makes rather over the top statements. I'm all for finding 30,000 yearold remains. That would be crazy fun to figure out, but where is the peer review? A Mexico cartel drug cave sounds just a little convenient. Everyone acts like what is 10,000 years here and there and one just need to look at what humans were like 2000 years ago compared today. So suggesting 30,000 years, or 50,000 in some cases would be like the biggest discovery every.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Dalamax
Aliens? Next it will be zombies....

Well got to pick something, right? Because it wasn't just Jojo on his raft that went 2000 miles, and that also means they went another 40,000 years before Hawaii and all the islands in-between from Asia to there that show us 1500 years for them.
I'm going with aliens...

I not understanding everyone's point as they throw around 10,000s of years like they are 100s.

look and listen what was going on back then in borneo 30,000 ya.

yeah no way they can build a boat, rite?



i know, just because you can row 1500 miles doesn't mean you can cut someone's leg off and they live for 5 or 10 yrs.

A feather in the cap for Graham Hancock, as he had insisted that the Paleo Americans were here even longer than that, with some incredible proofs of his own, as well as research work he did with Randall Carlson who also deserves credit.

Mainstream archeology threw rocks at both of them for even bringing it up.

Graham wrote about it in his book "America Before", which is a must-read for anyone that wants to know the REAL hidden history of the Americas.

a reply to: Thrumbo

the thing is these people had a lot of plant knowledge so they'd have ways to get by
you can also preserve meat by burying it in the ground
salt can be found by following grazing animals , goats for example like to lick salt from rocks
and in caves salt deposits occur naturally

originally posted by: charlyv
A feather in the cap for Graham Hancock, as he had insisted that the Paleo Americans were here even longer than that, with some incredible proofs of his own, as well as research work he did with Randall Carlson who also deserves credit.

Mainstream archeology threw rocks at both of them for even bringing it up.

Graham wrote about it in his book "America Before", which is a must-read for anyone that wants to know the REAL hidden history of the Americas.

Many archaeologists believe that was also true. Which is why archaeologists were the one's to search for and find the information that overturned Clovis first two decades ago. Why aren't you aware of that? Who do you think found the evidence? Fringe folks screaming stuff on websites and Youtube (or USENET)? LOL

upload.wikimedia.org...

Hancock's ideas are misleading and lack supporting evidence. Ancient North American civilization? Nope a complete lack of supporting evidence. Were Native American and First Nation people here? Yes. Were they a civilization? No cultures.

originally posted by: sarahvital

look and listen what was going on back then in borneo 30,000 ya.

yeah no way they can build a boat, rite?

i know, just because you can row 1500 miles doesn't mean you can cut someone's leg off and they live for 5 or 10 yrs.

A ton of assumptions there...geez How do you go from someone losing their leg to having a boat? Also the people in Australia got there long before many other parts of the world because of the ice age, so yes humans got there 70,000 years ago, but that isn't Mexico, now is it...

The story is two years old.
If it's the one I remember, then these "tools" are now thought to be flakes of the limestone from the cave that have fallen off over the millennia.
Every "tool" is an exact match for the limestone the cave is in. That's EXTREMELY unlikely among tool makers.

Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune

Many archaeologists believe that was also true. Which is why archaeologists were the one's to search for and find the information that overturned Clovis first two decades ago. Why aren't you aware of that? Who do you think found the evidence? Fringe folks screaming stuff on websites and Youtube (or USENET)? LOL

upload.wikimedia.org...

Hancock's ideas are misleading and lack supporting evidence. Ancient North American civilization? Nope a complete lack of supporting evidence. Were Native American and First Nation people here? Yes. Were they a civilization? No cultures.

Looking at toca de tira peia, how accurate do you think they are? They found less than 20 rock tools in the layers that they suggest are up to 20,000 years ago, so looking at the layers that would mean they show 5000 years of people living there or longer and all they got is less than 20 tools.

originally posted by: Harte
The story is two years old.
If it's the one I remember, then these "tools" are now thought to be flakes of the limestone from the cave that have fallen off over the millennia.
Every "tool" is an exact match for the limestone the cave is in. That's EXTREMELY unlikely among tool makers.

Harte

As I said before, people around here like to throw around 10,000 years like its 1,000 years, so to them 30k or even 50k is no big deal.

Dang wrote a post and I lost it. Will repeat tomorrow. 113 fragments by the way

originally posted by: Hanslune
Dang wrote a post and I lost it. Will repeat tomorrow. 113 fragments by the way

Cool, I was looking at a soil layer chart and in each different chart they used the same dozen or so tools, so I was thinking that was all they found.

Oh cool!
And how does this help me tomorrow?

So "Native Americans" aren't really "native"?
I was born here. But I'm not a "Native American"?
English killed my people and took our land.
Just like the people, them people came, and took their land. So we moved and took other people's land. Just like the "Natives/First Nations", did to other "natives" people, before us.

What a bunch of political science BS!

What next?... Let me guess?
Some black "Pastor" dude in Africa or Alabama,...is going to claim that not only are all the "Black People", "The Real Jews" and the "Real Pharaohs" of Egypt (that "enslaved" themselves), to themselves.

But they are also "native", to everywhere.

30,000 years past? I find it disturbing that somebody actually gets paid/money, to to be interested in that/this.

a reply to: Hanslune

Hancock's ideas are misleading and lack supporting evidence. Ancient North American civilization? Nope a complete lack of supporting evidence. Were Native American and First Nation people here? Yes. Were they a civilization? No cultures.

2 miles of ice sliding across the land would have obliterated just about anything, or the comet that hit the ice probably did the rest.

Also could have been a coastal civilization that was drowned with the ice melted.

I wouldnt even know where to look for it, but I vaguely remember sonar returns SW of cuba at an insane depth showing right angles that resembled buildings so far down little to no chance anyone would even try to get a camera down there.

with all the radical changes over the last 100k years who knows what was lost forever.

In my life time (50 yrs) a lot of absolutes in academia have changed to admit the fringe was right and established archeology was wrong.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: sarahvital

look and listen what was going on back then in borneo 30,000 ya.

yeah no way they can build a boat, rite?

i know, just because you can row 1500 miles doesn't mean you can cut someone's leg off and they live for 5 or 10 yrs.

A ton of assumptions there...geez How do you go from someone losing their leg to having a boat? Also the people in Australia got there long before many other parts of the world because of the ice age, so yes humans got there 70,000 years ago, but that isn't Mexico, now is it...

what assumptions? that flakes fell off the cave but not removed?

do you know what it takes to amputate a limb? it wasn't lost, it was deliberately removed.


x man, got where 70,000 ya? south america or australia.

that leaves 40,000 yrs to get to mexico and make coc aine caves.

from the north or south.

Monte Verde, Chile, 14.500 - 18.500 years old settlement.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Hanslune


(Hanslune)
Hancock's ideas are misleading and lack supporting evidence. Ancient North American civilization? Nope a complete lack of supporting evidence. Were Native American and First Nation people here? Yes. Were they a civilization? No cultures.

...

(Irishhaf)
I wouldnt even know where to look for it, but I vaguely remember sonar returns SW of cuba at an insane depth showing right angles that resembled buildings so far down little to no chance anyone would even try to get a camera down there.

with all the radical changes over the last 100k years who knows what was lost forever.

...

Did you mean the Zelitsky Pyramids story?

It was examined in some detail a while back.

(And came up again a couple of years ago).

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: TheAlleghenyGentleman

i'm thinking, not sure where i saw it, i'll have to see if i can find it, but the article said there is a place in Canada, U.S. border that remains and artifacts date back older than 15,000 years.

been a while, but it was basically about supporting the land bridge migration theory.

I believe you're thinking of Kennewick Man, which IIRC was found in a cave on the coast of Washington State. He was eventually identified as being most closely related to the Ainu (the indigenous people of Japan).

Ultimately, the idea that there were people in North America before the Native Americans was just way too politically incorrect to discuss, so Kennewick Man was buried, literally & figuratively.

At this point, however, there is plenty of evidence of non-Native people in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans, including the aforementioned Polynesians. (Christ, if they could get as far as Hawaii & Easter Island in what were basically canoes, what could stop them from going all the way to the Americas?)

originally posted by: sarahvital

what assumptions? that flakes fell off the cave but not removed?

do you know what it takes to amputate a limb? it wasn't lost, it was deliberately removed.


x man, got where 70,000 ya? south america or australia.

that leaves 40,000 yrs to get to mexico and make coc aine caves.

from the north or south.

I just do not understand your point. Whatever they did it involved chipped rock as their tool, so what point are you trying to make here? I could cut your leg off with some flint and zero skill. Put on a tight tourniquet, cut it off with some flint tools then sear it with fire, all better. I could do that, but I could not row 2000 miles or longer...lol

We also know that humans didn't really populate the Polynesia islands until like 2000 or less years ago, and as I said before that distance between Hawaii and Easter islands to the Americas is 2000 miles of nothing. So, we are back to my point of how could they get to Mexico?

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: TheAlleghenyGentleman

i'm thinking, not sure where i saw it, i'll have to see if i can find it, but the article said there is a place in Canada, U.S. border that remains and artifacts date back older than 15,000 years.

been a while, but it was basically about supporting the land bridge migration theory.

Did you mean Peace River Basin?