The Clovis Comet

uniface

uniface

Silver Member
Jun 4, 2009
3,216
2,900
Central Pennsylvania
Primary Interest:
Other
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 1
uniface said:
Very long and very detailed paper. A great introduction to what produced the end of Clovis and the conditions the survivors were up against.


www.exploringrealhistory.blogspot.cm/2021/04/part-3-magicians-of-godsnanodiamonds.html

readng time est. 2 hours.
Click to expand...

I think this is the link Uniface was posting.

Part 3 : Magicians of the Gods..Nanodiamonds Are Forever...Fingerprints of a Comet


We continue today with Graham Hancock's Magicians of the Gods.Not so sure what it is with the mainstream scientists,who are fighting these findings tooth and nail.Think it must have something to do with how recent this event is compared to 65 million years and the demise of the dinosaurs.I have had this nagging thought for years now(20+) that the TPTA have been stalling for time.All the talk about underground tunnels and sites being destroyed, I am not buying it for a second. I am not sure exactly what IT is,but I believe the Earth and the folks on it, and in it are going to see and be affected by the events it brings before this decade is up.


...I’m no conspiracy theorist but I have a sneaking feeling—nothing more—that something a bit like a conspiracy is at work in science to prevent the proper consideration and wide public uptake of catastrophist ideas. I gave the example of J Harlen Bretz in Chapter Three. The frosty and deeply unpleasant reception initially given to his findings, the years that he spent in academic limbo afterward, the repeated, persistent efforts made by a host of scholars to dismiss his evidence entirely, or, failing that, to account for it by gradualist means, and then at last, years later, when all that had failed and the notion of outburst floods from Glacial Lake Missoula had offered itself as a solution, the realization that he had been right all along. But not right, not right under any circumstances, not right in any imaginable universe, on the issue of the single cataclysmic “debacle” that his instincts had originally led him to! If J Harlen Bretz was to be right, then it was necessary that he should be right in a politically correct way—in other words, in a way that could be redacted by skilled uniformitarian spin-meisters to edit out any hint of lurking cosmic disaster!


Indeed, within the fantasy of such a conspiracy (I sincerely hope it is a fantasy!) the jökulhlaups idea is an exceptionally useful one. First of all, it provides what purports to be a wholesomely rational, sober and above all “scientific” account of the tortured geological features witnessed by Bretz in the Scablands. Secondly, jökulhlaups happen every year in various parts of the world today, and thus do not violate the commandment that existing processes, acting as at present, must be held sufficient to account for all geological changes. Thirdly, present relevance can be assigned. The Ice Age floods need not be simply of scholarly interest; since jökulhlaups still occur in the twenty-first century, science can be brought to bear to anticipate and ameliorate their effects.


All of this might start to look like a very effective diversion from the truth, if the truth is that a cataclysm, a single, prodigious cataclysm, did occur at the end of the Ice Age …

Continued on link below.
​

Exploring Real History
 

Last edited:
I think somebody's screwing with it. Have encountered that elsewhere today too with articles that go against the grain. Don't know what else to say. Works fine when I type the address in, but the links from here are dead.

Worth the extra effort of copying & pasting, IMO.

UPDATE : First link, last link are dead ends. Shouldn't be, but are. My second link does work. TH's link works to the hosting site.
 

Last edited:
......I added the missing “o” and it worked.

Im reading. Two hours straight is alot. I am enjoying some of the references Ive got to so far also.
It reminds me of somebody’s day journal with alot of references? and also kinda jumping in, along for the ride half way into story?
 

It's a good introduction to the gulf between officially-mandated dogma (belief) and demonstrable reality in the social sciences. Archaeology in the US is, for all intents and purposes, a secular religion -- a cult.
 

uniface said:
It's a good introduction to the gulf between officially-mandated dogma (belief) and demonstrable reality in the social sciences. Archaeology in the US is, for all intents and purposes, a secular religion -- a cult.
Click to expand...

Well, that’s a pretty harsh judgement. I can understand viewing the “Clovis First” paradigm as cultish, but, that is part of the nature of change in science. Any science, not just archaeology. Historian of science Thomas Kuhn summarized the situation decades ago in his seminal work “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”:


https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/19/thomas-kuhn-structure-scientific-revolutions


Basically, “science advances one funeral at a time”. This is attributed to physicist Max Planck, or, as he actually put it “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”


Anyway, despite anomalies, despite resistance to sites like the Cerutti Mastodon site, despite, in other words, the inertia of received wisdom(present in every science, and, for that matter, virtually any intellectual discipline), the understanding of the peopling of the Americas is not hidebound and stuck in neutral.

I recently came across an article in Scientific American that, for my money, is a “hit it out of the park” summary of current thought on the peopling of the Americas. Deserves a separate thread, really. This is a great read. We are a very long way from understanding this prehistory, but we are getting there. This read brings in virtually every new wrinkle in the debate. A lot of what upsets you, uni, I simply attribute to human nature, and it’s human nature behind the fact that sometimes “science advances one funeral at a time”. It can be frustrating at times, to be sure, but I try not to be too troubled by the things I cannot change, and human nature is sure one of the things I cannot change.

Again, great summary of current thinking. Not specific to the “Clovis comet”, but this summary is not the product of a cult:


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genomes-reveal-humanitys-journey-into-the-americas/

 3788BD09-B60D-40D6-8EB0-DC45F9F3C55D.png
 

Charl said:
I can understand viewing the “Clovis First” paradigm as cultish, but, that is part of the nature of change in science. Any science, not just archaeology.
Click to expand...


This doesn't flush, Charl. This is why: archaeology is a branch of anthropology (specifically sociology), which is devoted to studying human group behavior (Note: professional archaeology is a group endeavor). So if any scholastic discipline has no excuse for being oblivious to its own irrational behavior, it is archaeology itself. But, in practice, it is a poster child example of group irrationality. Or, in other words, of operating (as I charged) as a cult, depending (as all cults do) on brainwashing (operant conditioning) to control its members.


To grasp this (Doublethink) as a practical fact, easily seen once familiar with the way it works:


George Orwell said:
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.
Click to expand...


You can hardly take ten steps in the world today without having this confront you. "Science" has long since proven that there is no such thing as "race" where humans are concerned. But at the same time, without missing a beat, every example of human inequality imaginable is being denounced as due to "race-ism." This is not the behavior of rational human beings, able to evaluate their own attitudes and beliefs. It is the behavior of people rendered incapable of exercising independent judgement. Which is exactly what cults produce. They produce the kind of people who insist that anyone who picks up arrowheads is "looting" our cultural heritage, even if he's bringing the site that produced them to his own attention.


Charl said:
this summary is not the product of a cult
Click to expand...


It is exactly that, Charl. As I see things, only someone willingly blind to evidence of it could miss how obvious it is.


Our species, Homo sapiens, emerged in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago . . . the first H. sapiens who entered the Americas went somewhere no member of the human family had ever gone before
Click to expand...


You may have noticed, as I did 30 years ago, that these articles, whether for the popular press or not, always begin by reciting the US archaeological catechism. As this one does.


In point of fact, however, the allegation that modern humans emerged in Africa was shot down in flames, long ago; the evidence indicates they didn't. But that finding doesn't support the officially imposed narrative that we did, so it is simply ignored, as if the facts of the matter either don't exist, or aren't relevant.


Then we skip to the supposed human occupation of the Western Hemisphere for the first time by immigrants from Beringia around 20,000 years ago (give or take a few). In order to say this with a straight face, they have to ignore the proof, confirmed by multiple disciplines independently of each other, that people were making stone tools at Hueyatlaco around 300,000 years ago. (Not a misprint. Three hundred thousand years ago). Like that modern humans did not emerge in Africa, facts like this (it's not the only one) are simply left out of consideration. The same way that Doctor Gramly's proof that Cumberland is 3,000(+) years older than Clovis, since it can't be disproven, is simply ignored. The same way that Rick Donninger's huge Levallois assemblage from Indiana is ignored.


This is not the way science deals with facts. It is the way a cult deals with information that threatens it. Attack it, ridicule it, ignore it and, if finally forced to acknowledge it, claim it had always been known but not considered important. As the professional community did in the wake of the Paleoamerican Odyssey having rubbished "clovis first." One actual quote I remember from a former opponent: "We've know that Clovis wasn't the first for ten years." Archaeology in this country changes its corporate opinion with the same uncanny, instant change of direction as a school of fish does.


Then the article passes on DNA. Which allegedly proves that all Native Americans are descended from the original colonizers (one group or several). As well as suppressing relevant information (like the skulls and brain tissue at Windover Bog that remain a deep secret to this day) this allegation is made on the shaky basis of maternal DNA. Why shaky ? Because the same analytical technique, if applied to the population of Mexico, would conclude that the Spanish Conquest was a myth, unsupported by evidence. (Conquering women do not breed with defeated men. But conquering men do take up with captive women, adding their MtDNA to their downstream gene pool).


I was going to go down the whole grocery list of cult characteristics, pointing out the ways that archaeology in this country demonstrates them too obviously to miss once pointed out. But that would be overkill, given how much space this preliminary consideration has filled.


IMO, all that professional archaeology in this country can truthfully say for itself where actually letting evidence override theory is concerned is:


Pogo said:
We have met the enemy, and he is us
Click to expand...
 

For fun, compare the information in it about the climate in Siberia during the Pleistocene (warm and temperate) with the fairy story in the article I took exception to about it being frigid and arctic.
 

uniface said:
This doesn't flush, Charl. This is why: archaeology is a branch of anthropology (specifically sociology), which is devoted to studying human group behavior (Note: professional archaeology is a group endeavor). So if any scholastic discipline has no excuse for being oblivious to its own irrational behavior, it is archaeology itself. But, in practice, it is a poster child example of group irrationality. Or, in other words, of operating (as I charged) as a cult, depending (as all cults do) on brainwashing (operant conditioning) to control its members.


To grasp this (Doublethink) as a practical fact, easily seen once familiar with the way it works:





You can hardly take ten steps in the world today without having this confront you. "Science" has long since proven that there is no such thing as "race" where humans are concerned. But at the same time, without missing a beat, every example of human inequality imaginable is being denounced as due to "race-ism." This is not the behavior of rational human beings, able to evaluate their own attitudes and beliefs. It is the behavior of people rendered incapable of exercising independent judgement. Which is exactly what cults produce. They produce the kind of people who insist that anyone who picks up arrowheads is "looting" our cultural heritage, even if he's bringing the site that produced them to his own attention.





It is exactly that, Charl. As I see things, only someone willingly blind to evidence of it could miss how obvious it is.





You may have noticed, as I did 30 years ago, that these articles, whether for the popular press or not, always begin by reciting the US archaeological catechism. As this one does.


In point of fact, however, the allegation that modern humans emerged in Africa was shot down in flames, long ago; the evidence indicates they didn't. But that finding doesn't support the officially imposed narrative that we did, so it is simply ignored, as if the facts of the matter either don't exist, or aren't relevant.


Then we skip to the supposed human occupation of the Western Hemisphere for the first time by immigrants from Beringia around 20,000 years ago (give or take a few). In order to say this with a straight face, they have to ignore the proof, confirmed by multiple disciplines independently of each other, that people were making stone tools at Hueyatlaco around 300,000 years ago. (Not a misprint. Three hundred thousand years ago). Like that modern humans did not emerge in Africa, facts like this (it's not the only one) are simply left out of consideration. The same way that Doctor Gramly's proof that Cumberland is 3,000(+) years older than Clovis, since it can't be disproven, is simply ignored. The same way that Rick Donninger's huge Levallois assemblage from Indiana is ignored.


This is not the way science deals with facts. It is the way a cult deals with information that threatens it. Attack it, ridicule it, ignore it and, if finally forced to acknowledge it, claim it had always been known but not considered important. As the professional community did in the wake of the Paleoamerican Odyssey having rubbished "clovis first." One actual quote I remember from a former opponent: "We've know that Clovis wasn't the first for ten years." Archaeology in this country changes its corporate opinion with the same uncanny, instant change of direction as a school of fish does.


Then the article passes on DNA. Which allegedly proves that all Native Americans are descended from the original colonizers (one group or several). As well as suppressing relevant information (like the skulls and brain tissue at Windover Bog that remain a deep secret to this day) this allegation is made on the shaky basis of maternal DNA. Why shaky ? Because the same analytical technique, if applied to the population of Mexico, would conclude that the Spanish Conquest was a myth, unsupported by evidence. (Conquering women do not breed with defeated men. But conquering men do take up with captive women, adding their MtDNA to their downstream gene pool).


I was going to go down the whole grocery list of cult characteristics, pointing out the ways that archaeology in this country demonstrates them too obviously to miss once pointed out. But that would be overkill, given how much space this preliminary consideration has filled.


IMO, all that professional archaeology in this country can truthfully say for itself where actually letting evidence override theory is concerned is:
Click to expand...

Here’s a new wrinkle. It will be interesting to see how this plays out...


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ers-arrive-Asia-stepping-stone-migration.html


The paper, in English....


https://comptes-rendus.academie-sciences.fr/geoscience/item/10.5802/crgeos.53.pdf


Uni has issues with American archaeology. I have issues with scientific materialism, with scientism. Maybe the difference is my issues don’t get me all bent out of shape. I know consciousness studies will eventually overturn some of the basic assumptions of scientific materialism, things that prevent us from understanding better the nature of reality. I know it is only a matter of time before consciousness studies trigger the most basic change ever experienced by the Western mind, where our understanding of reality is concerned, where the relation of mind and matter is concerned. But most of that revision in our understanding will happen beyond my personal lifetime. Science will catch up, I’m not worried about that.


And our understanding of the peopling of the Americas will grow and mature as well. I’m not the least bit worried about that. There will always be people who deny truth. But truth is relentless. If far older sites, far older entry to America, is real, it will be acknowledged. Some folks see anomalies, things that rock the boat of received wisdom, and expect immediate paradigm shifts. And they grow angry, at entire disciplines, if that does not happen. I understand better how change actually happens, and am not the least bit concerned.


I’ve spent my entire life waiting for certain disciplines to catch up with certain understandings I was very blessed to learn. I predicted many developments before their time, witnessed people catch up long after I understood what changes needed to happen, and would happen. Sometimes I wish things would move faster in those disciplines.


Including our understanding of American prehistory. I was into pre-Clovis sites in the 1960’s, waiting for archaeology to catch up. Just never got bent out of shape about it. Unless I was prepared to single handedly change the direction of prehistory studies in the Americas, I can never be more than a very interested observer.


And, as far as cults, go, if American archaeology is a cult, there are far worse cults. I see a number in action today, that are far, far more dangerous, and of far greater concern to me than how long it takes for our understanding of American prehistory to flesh out the truth.
 

Last edited:
Post deleted for politics, no politics in this forum.
 

I was careful to point out that that what I wrote had no political intent, but was about lies . . . examples of these being the fairy stories that the professional anthropological community tells about American prehistory, passing these off as fact. And about the way telling lies has come to be business as usual in this country.

It was you who extended the implications of this into the political realm. Not me.
 

Uniface, saying your comment isnt meant to be political does not change its political content.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Powars Red Ocre

⬅️ Previous Thread

Possible Santa Fe?

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
High Plains Prospectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top