Paleo People

[uniface]

An interesting take on prehistory (one of several on the web page) :

Your anthropology textbooks may claim that no skeletal evidence of these ancient people has yet been found, which is a convenient lie to cover up one interesting fact. Of the dozen or so so-far identified as Palo"Indian skeletal remains dating around 10,000 to 12, 000 years old, each and every one has been identified by physical anthropologists as Caucasian. So much for present Indian claims about being first and their rights to ownership of most of north America. Political correctness is the curse of modern society, and today's anthropology.

Repets itself, but interesting. And great atlatl stuff.

http://www.t-rat.com/Pages/ArchaeologyAz.html

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[oldgoat]

Uniface, someone wrote,The victors always write the history...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[pointdlr]

I almost don't want to be involved in this thread, but I will at my own expense.
There absolutely is factual evidence for Paleo people in North America being Caucasian rather than Mongoloid(present day native Americans). Like Joshua Ream states, this doesn't mean that the Paleo people were blond haired/blue eyed Nordics.
It is also a fact that present native American tribal leaders do not want this information studied further. Their fear is that if it becomes established that they were not here first, many of their special rights will become legally tenuous. This fear led to lawmakers(sponsored by John McCain) to amend the language of NAGPRA. Thankfully, this bill was squashed.
The entire story traces the Kennewick Man saga. I would recommend reading everything about Kennewick, and then branching out to the side issues.
This post is dreadfully short, and doesn't even begin to cover the issues. I will say that the idea that scientists are fabricating research to somehow show the white man was really here first, is completely ridiculous. I could care less who was here first, but care deeply about the right of scientists to study it.
Regards,
Jon Dickinson.

 

[Cappy Z.]

Folks. Allow me to digress. My two above posts were an attempt to defuse a never ending argument that leads nowhere. I try to use humor to spotlight what should be the obvious. It really doesn't matter who settle here in North America first. It's NOT like that group gets an award etc. We do care about scientific truth. Subsequently the real issue not directly being addressed is one of government interference. We all know the Indian Peoples have influenced our corrupt govt to pass laws 'protecting' 'their' deceased ancestors. The scientific community has and justly so countered this elitist govt group of 'professionals' with alternative evidence indicating the first peoples were not the ancestors of the so called American Indian thus these restrictive laws should be changed. This is not a new battle. It has been slowly grinding along for I believe more than 15 plus years. The average US citizen is too busy trying to make a living and the media coverage of this issue is so scant...only rocks erode faster in terms of any intelligent resolution. I myself have no faith in our govt. It is breaking the backs of the America people. It needs a major overhaul..except they all are in cahoots like Mafioso. There is no hope on the horizon for this issue to be resolved thus allowing for the scientific process to continue..legally. The only people to blame are the ones looking in the mirror. We Americans tolerate corrupt govt and thus pay a huge price. Sorry I got tangential..but once again just like with Florida's 50 year Rule..we have govt that needs to be removed.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I don't think it matters one tiny bit who was the very first man to set foot on the American continent, the Native American Indians were here with their civilizations for thousands of years before the reappearance or appearance of white man with our civilization.

 

[uniface]

I assembled a slew of citations and quotations for the follow-up, but that approach probably isn't needed.

There are two points I was driving at. Number One :

Real Science examines the unexplained.
Fake "science" explains the unexamined.

Ever since Julian Huxley decided to run Darwin's theory down peoples' throats, we've been innundated by fake "science" trumpeting that humans are only hairless apes that "evolved." This was "an unquestionable scientific fact" from then on, even though example after example of the "fossil evidence" of it was faked.

The Scopes Trial, for example, was a publicity stunt staged by the American Civil Liberties Union. It advertised in the newspapers of Tennessee for a teacher who would be a test case, offered to finance the defence (and then stiffed it), exercisied complete control over the "science" side, and used ridicule as its strategy to make the point it set out to make : that people who don't believe (note choice of terms) in "evolution" are backward fools. The "scientific" evidence it relied on was "Piltdown Man" (eventually exposed as a flagrant hoax once independent investigators finally got to examine the evidence) and "Nebraska Man" (one fossilised tooth from an extinct pig).

It hasn't let up since, and it hasn't gotten any more honest, for the most part.

This is not to imply that people should believe something else instead -- only to point out that belief is out of place in science or anything even remotely like it. Beliefs are immune to logic, to experience and to common sense. That's why manipulators go to great trouble to impose them, and to maintain them by force of repetition. One example being that we are all descended from a little monkey in Africa named Lucy.

2) While, if all the evidence ever found and reported could be considered (and much of it has been destroyed as a matter of policy) it wouldn't be at all unlikely that people have pretty much always been here, there is (IMO) too much evidence by now that the Western Hemisphere has been repeatedly infused with new peoples from both hemispheres to make the whole "American Native" versus "White Man" (versus Asian) as meaningful as people take it to be. (The whole idea of versus is, IMO, out of place.

It's not a football game where you root for one side or the other.

At least it shouldn't be.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

While, if all the evidence ever found and reported could be considered (and much of it has been destroyed as a matter of policy) it wouldn't be at all unlikely that people have pretty much always been here, there is (IMO) too much evidence by now that the Western Hemisphere has been repeatedly infused with new peoples from both hemispheres to make the whole "American Native" versus "White Man" (versus Asian) as meaningful as people take it to be. (The whole idea of versus is, IMO, out of place.

"People have always been in the Americas? Where is the physical proof left of this, where are the remnants and signs of the great civilizations dating back thousands of years here in the Americas, like there are in Africa, China and the Middle East?

The oldest known civilization in the Americas dates back to about 2500 BC in Peru, the civilization included about seventeen +/- connected villages, and an urban center at Caral. The Sumerians was the world's earliest civilization, developed at the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in lower Mesopotamia, it dates back more then a 2000-2500 years prior to one in Peru, 4500-5000 BC.

If people have always been here in the Americas, why was the population so much less here then in Asia, Africa, and Europe? Why were there no great cities to rival those in Asia and Africa, why was their science so primitive compared to the rest of the world? Why is there documented evidence of thousands of more years of history in Asia and Africa then in the Americas?

 

[uniface]

One example I posted not long ago :

(Canada) : In the early 1950s, Thomas E. Lee of the National Museum of Canada found
advanced stone tools in glacial deposits at Sheguiandah, on Manitoulin Island in northern
Lake Huron. Geologist John Sanford of Wayne State University argued that the oldest
Sheguiandah tools were at least 65,000 years old and might be as much as 125,000 years
old. For those adhering to standard views on North American prehistory, such ages were
unacceptable. Humans supposedly first entered North America from Siberia about 12,000
years ago.

Thomas E. Lee complained: "The site's discoverer [Lee] was hounded from his
Civil Service position into prolonged unemployment; publication outlets were cut off; the
evidence was misrepresented by several prominent authors . . .; the tons of artifacts
vanished into storage bins of the National Museum of Canada; for refusing to fire the
discoverer, the Director of the National Museum, who had proposed having a monograph
on the site published, was himself fired and driven into exile; official positions of prestige
and power were exercised in an effort to gain control over just six Sheguiandah specimens
that had not gone under cover; and the site has been turned into a tourist resort. . . .
Sheguiandah would have forced embarrassing admissions that the Brahmins did not know
everything. It would have forced the rewriting of almost every book in the business. It had
to be killed. It was killed."

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

So your saying there is a conspiracy by scientists to keep hidden when man first came to the Americas. That every piece of evidence ever found that may show man came here other then approx. 12,000 years ago has either been destroyed or hidden.

Anyone that disagreed with Lee's findings were part of the conspiracy, and they hid "tons" of artifacts, and the site was turned into a tourist resort to hide it's existance?

Sorry, that is another conspiracy theory that I can't buy at all.

 

[uniface]

"Sorry, that is another conspiracy theory that I can't buy at all. "

Nobody is trying to sell you anything.

Especially on a belief.

Beliefs are a large part of what the problem is.

I'm trying to show something -- an overall pattern with specific case relevance : the bigger picture context which distorts the immediate issue within it.

Because people are approaching it as a matter of belief rather than of science.