Graham Hancock being proven right all along about ancient humans in America.

.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: YourExcellency

Cant he be both a scientist AND a sailor? Seems he did a pretty good job sailing a primative ship.

ANd I believe it was called Ra. Kon Tiki left from someplace else.

Well, why don't you look it up.

a reply to: YourExcellency

Well, considering that is almost a whole entire continent away. Yes, it matters.

The RIchat structure looks very much what Plato drew, and really isn't far to be referred to as 'beyond the pillars'. Beyond in which direction?

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: YourExcellency

Well, considering that is almost a whole entire continent away. Yes, it matters.

The RIchat structure looks very much what Plato drew, and really isn't far to be referred to as 'beyond the pillars'. Beyond in which direction?

Sure... why not.

LOL

As far as I am concerned, I made my point.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: YourExcellency

The 'eye of the Sahara' is not south of Egypt. Its a bit SE of the Pillars and Morocco.

I know. Does it matter? You know what I meant to say.

Reply sent 2nd time. Original badly formatted and no way to correct it.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: schuyler

One look at a “Native American” and it’s obvious they’ve come from the Asian continent. The Bering straight being the passage to the Americas, most likely as the Younger Dryas ended and the route became passable and North America became habitable.

I’m amazed it’s even up for debate.

Obvious to one superficial look... yes.

Compare a number of north American natives (pure blood) with a number of Chinese. Then with a number of Koreans... Mongolians... Japanese... Vietnamese.

They are not the same.

They don't have the same skin color. Their skin color is different from either of the Asian people I mentioned.

It's why they were called RED Indians a hundred years ago, remember. Their are copper-colored, not yellow or anything like it.

a reply to: YourExcellency

12,000 years and breeding with natives from South America sure could explain a lot of the differences. I believe there was a native population in the Americas before the migration.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: YourExcellency

12,000 years and breeding with natives from South America sure could explain a lot of the differences. I believe there was a native population in the Americas before the migration.

Can you quote what exactly you are replying to please?

a reply to: Byrd

Wikipedia is not a valid source of information. You can use the footnotes, if there are any, as your starting point and go from there.

a reply to: jarsue97


although i don't agree with everything Byrd posts, for your information you should know that they are, or at least were a working scientist in the field, hence the astrik and FSME in their avatar.

i'm pretty sure that being the case, they are more than likely qualified to know what is reliable information posted in a wiki.

a reply to: YourExcellency

It was in reference to your quote about skin tones not matching Asians.

Genetic link between Asians and Native Americans

Asian migrations to North America

originally posted by: charlyv
Graham Hancock has been trying to convince present archeology that humans have been in the Americas for thousands of years longer than the accepted "Clovis" aged settlements of around ~13,000 years ago. His excellent book, "America Before" shows the kind of research he has been doing all of his life, including his previous works "Magicians of the Gods","Fingerprints of the Gods" and his recent Netflix special" Ancient Apocalypse". These works made Graham famous however mainstream science has never acknowledged the contributions he has made in his studies of ancient civilization on this planet, and how far back they really go.

Mainstream archeology has been throwing him under the bus ever since he published his research on early humans in America, but now he is being proven correct, every year that passes.

Additionally, his research with Randall Carlson in past years also proved the vast YD related flooding in the American NorthWest as well as in the Hudson Valley. This was also boo-hoo'ed by mainstream archeology but is now absolutely accepted science as well as other YD effects of a cosmic catastrophe all around the northern hemisphere of Earth.

Scientists say they’ve confirmed evidence that humans arrived in the Americas far earlier than previously thought

So, just last week, mainstream science acknowldedges a recent study of footprints discovered at an ancient lakebed in White Sands National Park date back to around 25,000 years ago.

Recently, Dr. Al Goodyear of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of South Carolina directed the research at the Topper Site. The site is on the bank of the Savannah River in Allendale County about 15 miles from the USC Salkehatchie Campus. Evidence was found of human settlement there that is over 50,000 years old, in a layer under the well known Paleo (Clovis) site there.

In 2020, archaeologists digging in
Chiquihuite Cave
in the Astillero Mountains of central Mexico unearthed about 1,900 stone artifacts. Radiocarbon and optically stimulated luminescence dating of the objects suggested that humans might have occupied the area 31,000 to 33,000 years ago.

As time marches on, I am sure that other existing evidence, yet unpublished and archived by Graham (to avoid the vicious attacks on him) will come to light and prove to the world what an extremely smart and dedicated researcher he is.

Hancock hasn't been right about anything concerning the ancient past. Nor has he conducted research.
One thing he IS right about is the naivete and gullibility of the uneducated. His income depends entirely on the ignorance of his public. It's a direct relationship. When the ignorance is higher, so is his paycheck. When lower, he loses money.

Harte

originally posted by: hangedman13
This is a science problem, very similar to what happened over the Covid outbreak. Established theories are bread & butter in science. In terms of money and ego. The peer review process has more to do with ego and funding than actual forwarding science. Remember all of Hancock's work was denied by the establishment in archeology. Clovis was not accepted initially either.

Hancock has done no "work."
Most of what he has written is parroting of other fringe author's claims.

Harte

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: game over man

Egyptians could have easily sailed to the new world. It's been demonstrated by a sailor named Thor Hyderdal, or something like that. He navigated a model of an Egyptian ship to show it could be done.

But that would have been much later.

Truth is, Heyerdahl failed on his first attempt.
Egypt had squat for ocean-going vessels, and no need whatsoever to worry about developing some.

Harte

originally posted by: YourExcellency

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: charlyv

I've read two of his books.
Fingerprints of the gods, and America before. Both gave absolutely nothing in the slightest the vibe of an actual report or even presenting evidence beyond just making grand hypothesis off the backs of what other people have found.

The part that I didn't like about his works is that he comes up with the narrative: "there was a grand civilization before what 'mainstream' science tells us". And then pieces together evidence from bronze age and early agricultural settlements and trys to convince the reader that's the key... the ironic thing is he literally uses "mainstream" archaeology and science to make his grand assumptions.

Why shouldn't he use it? IF it's valid data, why shoud he ignore or reject them?

If that's your position, you might wonder why he ignores any other evidence that shows he's completely wrong?
None of that seems to make it into his books.
Why would that be?
What is he afraid of?

Harte

originally posted by: TheValeyard
I'm still waiting for society to realize Gobekli Tepe was a trade bazaar and not a religious site.

That one's actually MY OWN hypothesis, so please give me credit when it's proven.

Because it was a gathering place for hunter-gatherer groups, it was almost certainly a place where trading took place.
That doesn't mean it wasn't a religious site.

originally posted by: TheValeyardAnyway, good on Hancock I guess, and props to Jimmy Corsetti and Randall Carlson, and the REAL archaelogists.
I'm not giving any credit to any mainstream science morons who mock a hypothesis, then try to claim credit for it later.

That's your short list of huckster con men.

originally posted by: TheValeyardThere were plenty of discoveries that had already proven the global lost civilization theory anyway.
Just the weather erosion on the Sphynx, and ancient people themselves saying they'd discovered sites and moved into them, should have been enough to take this seriously at least,

Erosion on the sphinx is completely explained within the evidenced time frame.

originally posted by: TheValeyard and Gobekli Tepe was clear evidence of a civilization at least 12,000 years ago. People want to split hairs on the definition of society, but, they had agriculture, mass cohabitation in at least one city, tools, art, and they had to have had language to coordinate, so I don't see how that's NOT a civilization, and that's just Gobekli.

There was no agriculture to be found at Gobekli Tepe. No mass habitation was found there either. There are no cities from the time period that have been found anywhere on Earth.
Their tools were stone. Yes, they had art and language, but there's evidence of both that are ten times older than Gobekli Tepe.

originally posted by: TheValeyardThey're bound to find something that proves the Eye of the Sahara was indeed the capital of Atlantis, and then mainstream scientists will try to take credit for that too, and pretend Jimmy Corsetti didn't exist. It's what they do.
I've half a mind to just ignore all of mainstream archaeology at this point. Hell, mainstream everything might be useless.

If you were really interested in any of this, and not just blowing smoke, you'd already know that there have been two archaeological digs at the Richat structure, both of which turned up Acheulean tools.
Find out what that means, then watch your Atlantis hypothesis sink - this time into the desert.

Harte

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: YourExcellency
The RIchat structure looks very much what Plato drew, and really isn't far to be referred to as 'beyond the pillars'. Beyond in which direction?

First of all. Plato drew nothing.
Second, the Richat structure does not match the size Plato described. It's not even close.
Third, the Richat structure did not sink into the sea.

Harte

originally posted by: jarsue97
a reply to: Byrd

Wikipedia is not a valid source of information. You can use the footnotes, if there are any, as your starting point and go from there.

You can also use the articles as your starting point, if you know what you are doing, and you know you have to go from there.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: YourExcellency
The RIchat structure looks very much what Plato drew, and really isn't far to be referred to as 'beyond the pillars'. Beyond in which direction?

First of all. Plato drew nothing.
Second, the Richat structure does not match the size Plato described. It's not even close.
Third, the Richat structure did not sink into the sea.

Harte

Fourth... nothing in the Richat structure suggests actual construction. Stones, Masonry, etc.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: YourExcellency

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: charlyv

I've read two of his books.
Fingerprints of the gods, and America before. Both gave absolutely nothing in the slightest the vibe of an actual report or even presenting evidence beyond just making grand hypothesis off the backs of what other people have found.

The part that I didn't like about his works is that he comes up with the narrative: "there was a grand civilization before what 'mainstream' science tells us". And then pieces together evidence from bronze age and early agricultural settlements and trys to convince the reader that's the key... the ironic thing is he literally uses "mainstream" archaeology and science to make his grand assumptions.

Why shouldn't he use it? IF it's valid data, why shoud he ignore or reject them?

If that's your position, you might wonder why he ignores any other evidence that shows he's completely wrong?
None of that seems to make it into his books.
Why would that be?
What is he afraid of?

Harte

What evidence shows he's completely wrong?