'Unprecedented' Native American burial site discovered off Florida's Gulf Coast

a reply to: ClovenSky

I agree that the melted ice sheets world wide wound up in the seas - no argument here.

But your causality confused me.

Let me see if I am clear:

For 100 or so years comets hit north america.

This threw up dust and soot that killed all the extinct mega fauna in North america, but spared other large animals like bears, wolves, bison, elk and moose.

The dust and soot (I believe) should lower temps, but the impacts melted the ice world wide.

Do I have this rigth?

Thanks.

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: DogStarIn1066

There's a paper on it forgetting the name...


Pretty sure it's linked on Hancocks site..

Randall Carlson too.

Sorry I'm at work atm.

Not a single person saying soot caused sea levels to rise it's part of dmg from fire from impact.

Where did the fire come from on the ice sheet? Did the ice burn? These ice sheets were a mile thick!

Or are you saying that the unglaciated portions of North America burned?

And that killed some but not all large animals on the continent?

Thanks.

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
He probably believes hunter gathers killed them all lol.
reply to: JohnnyCanuck
What about Mammoths thrown back on their haunches and had their legs broke in half food in mouth and died with erections (suffocated) ? Lemme know Brainiac.

You'll note that I was addressing the simple fact that the seas rose due to the ice melting. I was not addressing the causes of the retreat as I did not recognise that as the question. There are folks here that would not associate the two. You aren't one of them? Good for you! Some will have learnt something.

As to causality? Knock yourself out. Only a fool figures that the latest hypothesis is the final one.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Uh huh.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

The latest hypothesis seems to fit very very well.

Drumlin hills were what seaped it for me. It looks like the obvious result of massive movement of water. The kind of water movement that removes several feet of topsoil and human artifacts as it passes through.

Id suspect that buried in layers of gulf of mexico silt you can find 20k years of human history from canada through the Texas hill country.

a reply to: DogStarIn1066

There are theories, based on the type of destruction caused by the path of this water, that this phenomena could have occurred more rapidly than previously thought.

If you have time, here is another rogan/hancock/carlson video that I thought was really informative. They even provide proof of their theories.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
The latest hypothesis seems to fit very very well.
Drumlin hills were what seaped it for me. It looks like the obvious result of massive movement of water. The kind of water movement that removes several feet of topsoil and human artifacts as it passes through.
Id suspect that buried in layers of gulf of mexico silt you can find 20k years of human history from canada through the Texas hill country.

Solutrean looked good for a time, too, though that's now being slammed hard. First Nations oral histories up my way state that they were here to see the ice come. I won't argue with an Elder. Thing about drumlins is that they are salad. There are, however, river valleys that predate the glaciation. I'd sure like to get through the silt and scree to see what's there. But drowned sites such as this one are ripe (though expensive) for investigation.
Misread your drumlin reference...more caffeine, dammit!!...you wouldn't have a lot of context in the Gulf silt. In situ is key. That's why this latest is so interesting. And it all makes perfect sense in terms of where to look for the earliest remains. Like looking for paleo on highlands that were the shores of glacial lakes.

This issue is dealt with at length in Graham Hancock’s book Magicians of The Gods.
The wider theory of multiple comet, or comet debris strikes, seems to be upheld by the mounting evidence of mineral deposits as far apart as Syria and North America.

The first strikes are thought to have happened at the end of the ice age, throwing up huge amounts of debris into the atmosphere. This led to a very rapid cooling again and the “mini” ice age that followed. The subsequent impacts were on the ice packs from the mini ice age that then caused the massive flooding and sudden sea level rises. Very interesting reading.
What was also mentioned was that the comet debris field is still out there, with some very large chunks indeed, that we may encounter again.

So, given the depth of this new find, it may be that the site is a lot older than they currently think as it may have been above the flood levels more than 11,000 years ago when the rapid sea level rise is thought to have happened.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I think this thread has gone into causality.

Maybe even into hidden agendas.

The so called " black matt" theory posits that a comet(s) hit north america, started a big fire, and killed off all animals bigger than 2000 pounds. The theory neglects the climate change and human activities, both of which interacted for the mega fauna die off.

However, it does look like there was a single comet strike on north america at some point around this time.

Black Matt fails to account for the influence of humans repeated burning large areas of North America during the same period, continuing through the 18th century, radically changing the environment up to this day.


Additionally, the black matt theory is used to support some very "ahem" bleeding edge notions about lost civilizations, aliens, atlantis, etc. So it becomes somewhat of a sore spot for some folks. If you don't buy into the back matt, you are not in possession of special, secrets and higher knowledge.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Oral histories are pretty fascinating. I wouldnt doubt that they have oral traditions of the reglaciation of the scorched earth once the fires died out.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Something big hit in Quebec at René-Levasseur Island, just look at the shape of that site. Also Hudson's Bay in the southern end is an interesting location due to that half moon shape on the east side towards James Bay. It would be nice if the rocks could talk. Could a large comet account for glacial melting, I'd say it could, especially if it happened north of 30th parallel.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: DogStarIn1066

Subsequent to 11kya natives used fire to control flora. It appears they "farmed" bison on the plains they burned annually.

And possibly created the amazon as a large orchard.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Oral histories are pretty fascinating. I wouldnt doubt that they have oral traditions of the reglaciation of the scorched earth once the fires died out.

Not from my Ojibwe source.

a reply to: DogStarIn1066

You appear to have already come to a concrete conclusion. Why didn't you just mention that from the beginning? It would have saved people some time to know you fully agree with the mainstream theories already available. There should be a TON of previous writings and literature to satisfy your assumptions that the new theories are bunk.

Now the really important question, your true motivation. Why don't you give us your version of events?

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: DogStarIn1066

There are theories, based on the type of destruction caused by the path of this water, that this phenomena could have occurred more rapidly than previously thought.

If you have time, here is another rogan/hancock/carlson video that I thought was really informative. They even provide proof of their theories.

Thanks.

I have been to the Bitteroot valley in Montana and seen the ancient destruction of the water out west. Looks to me like that same did break. These big breaks might have done some serious work in a shot time.

originally posted by: Lysergic
Something happened 12000 years ago imo thus all the sites underwater.

End of the ice age??? Lol

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DogStarIn1066

Subsequent to 11kya natives used fire to control flora. It appears they "farmed" bison on the plains they burned annually.

And possibly created the amazon as a large orchard.

Some really nice work going on right now on how the natives really mastered the flora and fauna of North and South america. Even George Washington commented later in life how the forests of Virginia had changed since his youth, when the annual burnings allowed one to drive a carrage thought the woods.

I read a book some time ago about looking for the city of Z, and how they found all these abandoned terriced cities in the Amazon that used the controlled jungle like a farmer's market.

Much to learn, and exciting!

Thanks.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: DogStarIn1066

You appear to have already come to a concrete conclusion. Why didn't you just mention that from the beginning? It would have saved people some time to know you fully agree with the mainstream theories already available. There should be a TON of previous writings and literature to satisfy your assumptions that the new theories are bunk.

Now the really important question, your true motivation. Why don't you give us your version of events?

Sorry if I have given that impression. I have always had questions about black matt, and I asked them. I was not trying to be impolite.

My take is that the ice melted, sea level rose and places where people lived got flooded. The OP was about finding some of these places. Cool so far?

Then the discussion turned to "why did the ice melt" ?

Ok, so then the suggestions came forth about a comet or a century of comets hitting just north america, and the proof was the extinction of megafauna, and soot, and I was off to the races to ask some questions.

Thanks for answering some of them!

I can't give you anymore than science can on why climate changed. I think it doubtful that comets melted mile thick glaciers however. I would think comets would cause more ice, like the later dryas period. However, I am not a climate scientist, by traing, so I can't speculate with authority.

As to the mega fauna extiction, I can suggest that climate change, human predation, and environmental changes caused by humans (burning large areas repeatedly), along with the possibility that humans also brought new diseases to north america all may have played a part.

The book is not finished on the exciting history of our planet!

Thanks

ETA: I never said the new theories are bunk.I did say that they are often used as building blocks for other bleeding edge theories, and that some folks are touchy on the subject.

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066
a reply to: DogStarIn1066
I never said the new theories are bunk. I did say that they are often used as building blocks for other bleeding edge theories, and that some folks are touchy on the subject.

New ideas are always welcome...the fun is on the fringes! But care must be taken to touch all the bases. Hancock has a history of getting tagged out by facts.