NEWS: New Theory On Americas Discovery

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
This is very interesting indeed, however many forget that the Americans aren't really Americans but decendents of Mongolian and other northern asians. Also, the "Discovery" of America did not happen in the Carribbien by the Italian traitor, Colombus; but rather by Chinese Explorers during the early 12th century along the Alluetian Islands of Alaska. The More you learn the more you find that you know nothing.

Actually what you stated above may no longer be correct if this study is confirmed. It will clearly show that contrary to popular theories now were in fact wrong.

The study states they believe the land bridge theory is all wrong and the actual first humans in the Amercas did not come from Asia they came from Australia via boats.

Originally posted by drogo

any hope of pictures of these things? especialy the sandles would be nice but all would be helpfull.

Actually they have a human skelton from 12,000 years ago called the Kennewick Man who was believed to be caucasian. Certainly better then a pair of sandals wouldn't ya say?


www.kennewick-man.com...

Here is some additional info on this discovery along with links to learn more:

WILL A FOOTPRINT REWRITE THE HISTORY BOOKS?, July 05
Scientists have unearthed human footprints in central Mexico
which they claim are around 40,000 years old, shattering
previous theories on how humans first colonised the Americas.

Full story at www.physorg.com...
Additional links at www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk...
cogweb.ucla.edu...

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Astronomer68]

actualy artifacts are of slightly more importance. it "proves" the culture whereas a skeliton only proves the race of the person or peoples and possibly where they came from. artifacts can show that there is simmularity with others by way of how they built and did things.

just as an example, a child gets washed overboard from a passing boat, gets taken and raised by natives of an area. so the child may originaly be from one group but acts and reasons like his adoptive people. artifacts are more convinceing that a group of the spacific people probaly existed at a place. and can even show timewise when any sepparation might have occured. this can be from things that are alike with the "home" culture but even differances cropping up can show how they may have progressed while possibly cut off from the "home" culture.

Originally posted by Astronomer68

Full story at www.physorg.com...
Additional links at www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk...
cogweb.ucla.edu...

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Astronomer68]

Good links Astronomer I had seen one of them when I considered the story.

This discovery could change a lot of things considering the fact that folklore or spoken history has always insisted that the Native Americans came via the land bridge.

Kind of makes one wonder if the government will have to review the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act.

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
the Norse had made it all the way inland to Oklahoma (via water channels)
by 600-800AD... maybe earlier... but not later...
Runes that were used during that age are found all over the southeast (also near river channels)...

those wacky Norsemen... have boat...will travel...

Reminds me of the Al Murray joke, "you have to admire the vikings, they discovered America but then told noone about it"

If the foot print in Mexico is real, Sandia Man, Folsom Man are also real then I would venture to say they may be on to something.

www.abqtrib.com...

I'd better mention Sandia Cave, or someone will nail me. On the east side of the Sandias, in Las Huertas Canyon, between Sandia Crest and Placitas, is a cave where University of New Mexico anthropologist FrankHibben unearthed weapon points and debris in 1940. The artifacts suggest that man existed hunting saber-toothed tigers and elephants about 27,000 years ago, making "Sandia Man" pre-date New Mexico's Folsom man during the Ice Cream Age. This is one of those controversies inexorably encountered when studying the past. Some authorities accept this; others claim the entire thing was faked. Get in your car, drive out there, pay your parking fee, hike a short distance and decide for yourself.

Another article contradicts this but still...
www.abqjournal.com...

All I know is I used to ride my mountain bike out by Petroglyph Park, Sandias and well all over... and it is pretty amazing what you might find in them mountains



[edit on 6-7-2005 by cyberpunk1]

[edit on 6-7-2005 by cyberpunk1]

The prevailing theory of when and how the first Americans arrived has long been the so-called "Clovis First" theory which states that the first Americans crossed over a land bridge along the Aleutian islands chain thought to have existed near the end of the Pleistocene period (about 11,500 years ago). According to this theory, the first Americans walked from Asia to the New World and then spread out across first North America and then Central and South America. Any evidence to the contrary has been questioned and for the most part discarded as inconclusive or questionable. The new evidence from Mexico however poses a serious challenge to this theory.

Previous finds in Brazil and elsewhere indicating humans were here at least 35,000 years ago have largely been swept under the rug due to a lack of conclusive dating evidence. Adherents of the "Clovis First Model" have been very outspoken in their defense of the land bridge theory and have thus far beaten back all attempts to supplant it. It therefore comes as no surprise that the researchers in Mexico have exhaustively pursued every means possible to date their findings conclusively.

The academic controversy concerning the peopling of the Americas has been raging for around 50-60 years now and it is high time that textbooks about the subject get changed to reflect all the evidence available, not just that favoring the Clovis First Model

It saddens me how stubborn scholars are with history on this part of the world. I remember reading up about ancient sea farers a few years back and there was a few books where professors and doctors were showing evidence against the popular belief and were made out more or less to be hoaxers or bad at their field.

Soapydodger I didn't know this post was on ATS until today, when I tried to post pretty much the same story. Sorry, I wasn't trying to steal your thunder or anything, I just overlooked your post.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Soapydodger I didn't know this post was on ATS until today, when I tried to post pretty much the same story. Sorry, I wasn't trying to steal your thunder or anything, I just overlooked your post.

Dont worry. The more people that know the story the better.