Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
Again, jtem, you make no sense. What are you objecting to??? What are you schooling me on? You throw out an objection to…something…. I’m not really sure what, and then you say a bunch of stuff that’s not inconsistent with the previous info in the thread and that I’ve got no objection to—that’s actually fairly uncontroversial and is roughly in line with what I believe as far as multiple arrivals and population diffusion go.
I assume the bodies referred to above are the Windover bog people from Florida. They were discovered years ago and very little has ever been released about them—although there apparently was European genetic markers in their DNA. It was considered an incredibly important find, and now 30 years later and there’s still almost nothing out there. And the Indians were concerned about land rights in the case of the Kennewick Man. That wasn’t a big secret. And Kennewick Man’s origin has never been definitively determined. They’ve still not been given the chance to do much science on him—no DNA tests. All relevant exams have been morphological, so the Ainu or Polynesian speculation is just that—speculation.
As for the rest, do I think there’s a more compelling case for the Solutreans than you? Seems like it. But then I probably give more weight to the the significance of the lithic evidence. But overall nothing you’ve said is very different than my take on things. You like to fill in the blanks based on what you think you know about people and their motivations, and what you think they don’t know, but once again you give yourself far too much credit.
I was objecting to the conspiracy theories. I was not filling in blanks, I was responding to the conspiracy theories.
Yes, everyone agrees that some of the earliest human remains found in the Americas do resemble Europeans. Few anthropologist believe they are European in origins, but fewer still would ever deny the resemblance.
Yes, some of the DNA “Evidence” is consistent with a European contribution. Not exclusively though.
And, as I said, the “Clovis Points” most closely resemble European technology, your Solutrean technology. Could it have come from Europe? Most definitely. The biggest argument against it is that Clovis culture arose much, much later (thousands of years later), but this is not inconsistent with a “trickling in” theory on American arrivals. Until the population achieved a certain minimum density, sites would be so few and so far apart that finding them would be next to impossible. However, once the population density had crossed a certain threshold, as it obviously did with Clovis Culture, not only would the number of sites increase to the point where the odds of finding one are very good, but the area covered by this culture would be quite extensive…
The famed Acheulean “hand axes” remained in use for more than a million years, so it’s not at all unreasonable to believe that your Solutrean technology could survive in the Americas, isolated from Europe, for many thousands of years….
The final bone I’ll throw you is the circumstantial evidence for sea crossings within the Mediterranean stretching back 100 thousand years ago. If true, this would provide the means for reaching the new world from Europe.
Put all this together and you know what you’ve got? Absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. It’s all circumstantial at best, and none of it is truly exclusive to Europe (or anywhere else for that matter).
And yes your Windover people appear to be European, but they’re also way too young to be counted amongst the earliest Americans. Kennwick Man is at least a thousand years older, found on the west coast and superficially (physically) appears very European. I believe there was another find, older still, way down in south America that also looks very European. In both cases the consensus is that they’re not European.
I just learned in my Ancient World class that the first humans in North America were Caucasoids, not mongoloids. Natives are begging the government not to release scientific studies on the skeletons, as it would destroy any claims of land or resources for…
It’s much worse than this. The government is actively covering it up. Go and look up “Kennewick Man”. Kennewick Man was a Caucasoid skeleton discovered in Washington in the ’90s, and dated to about 9000 BC. The authorities just wanted to hand it over to the Indians and get rid of it, but the scientists sued them for control saying it wasn’t Native American. But the government actually went into the site where he was discovered and destroyed it, archaeologically. They actually went into the site and dug it up and dumped a whole load of imported soil all over it, to destroy all the context and the chemicals and make it useless for further study.
Ah, yes, there is definitely no racism against whites.
The congressman from that district had a special law passed by Congress and ready for Clinton to sign to ban the Army Corp of Engineers from doing anything to the site, but they went in and destroyed it anyways.
This is nuts. It’s kooky conspiracy theory without basis (in reality, that is).
And, yes, Kennewick Man and others do look “Caucasoid,” white, but even if they were (the consensus is that they weren’t) still other early finds are unambiguously Asian, most closely resembling Japanese populations.
Personally, I’ve always argued that the answer is “All of the above.” That, humans first began to trickle into the Americans from the first moments they were capable of it (probably starting around 40,000 years ago or so), but these were small, isolated groups or individuals. It took a very long time for the population density to reach a point where groups could begin to connect with their nearest neighbors, forming a chain, and finally some semblance of an American culture could form (i.e. “Clovis Culture”). This appears to have occurred just in time to have been wiped out by a natural catastrophe (The proposed Younger Dryas impact, no doubt), and finally to be genetically swamped by the new arrivals from Asia who genetically dominate the present native populations.
We’re often told that populations arrived in the Americas via some “Land Bridge,” but this is only partially true. See, the land bridge could only get you so far as Alaska, the rest of the way being blocked by the glaciers. It was only at the end of the glacial period, when an “Ice Corridor” opened through the glaciers (but the glaciers had not yet melted so much that the “land bridge” was swamped) when populations could migrate beyond Alaska.
Prior to the “Ice Corridor” people could only reach the Americas by boat, and they did.
So, right there alone we know that we have to be speaking of more than one migration, more than one people — at least one arriving my boat and another (larger) group arriving later by land via the land bridge & ice corridor.
Boats have long been accepted going back 40,000 years or so, the approximate time for the arrival of “Moderns” in Australia, with strong circumstantial evidence for their use in Europe going back much further than that. Thus, it is entirely plausible that humans could have been making the crossing to the Americas from Europe or Africa beginning as early as 100 thousand years ago, with arrivals from the pacific following about 40 thousand years ago.
Keep in mind, if people were making such crossings they would have been few and far between. Nobody is suggesting that early humans intentionally set out for the Americas. Sea level was a hundred meters or so lower, there would have been more & larger islands (the Azores, for example, would have been much larger) and the earliest Americans were likely caught in currents or blown off course by storms.
"Ship wrecked," is one way you might put it.
So it is very possible — and I argue likely — that Europeans were amongst the earliest arrivals to the Americas, but the claim that some type of conspiracy is destroying evidence for same is just plain nutty.
Fact is, conventional thinking is married to the stupid land bridge idea (though we have human remains which predate any possible arrival via such a bridge) and Europeans are considered an “Extraordinary Claim.”
In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and thus far all the evidence of European arrivals is either circumstantial or just plain non existent (no matter how logical Europeans might be).
It’s probably most accurate to state that some evidence IS CONSISTENT WITH a European origins for early Americans, but not exclusively so.
There. That’s probably far more than any racist is willing to read…
Tonight’s first half guest, Dr. Steven Greer, has released his report on a tiny, mummified humanoid that was found in the Chilean desert region of Atacama. According to the paper, CAT scans and x-rays of the specimen, as well as preliminary DNA testing, reveal that the entity possessed a number of qualities which suggest that it was probably not a human infant and may have had interstellar origins. You can read the complete report here (pdf file).
AIDS is man made.
Now I didn’t say that it was some CIA plot or even that it was intentional, but AIDS was clearly started by two vaccine programs.
First off, vaccines are a known conduit for disease. Vaccines have spread disease. During WWII a Yellow Fever vaccine, for example, exposed some 333,000 troops to Hepatitis and lead to the largest outbreak of Hepatitis B on record. This was because the vaccine used human blood serum in it’s manufacture, and one or more donors was a Hepatitis B carrier.
Now, about AIDS and vaccines…
There was a French (NOTE: I said “French” not “American” and certainly not “CIA”) oral vaccine program which inoculated about 1 million people in the Congo with an “Experimental” vaccine. The vaccine itself was probably quite safe though there is a chance that it could have been contaminated with HIV 2.
See, HIV 1 is the more common form of AIDS and can trace it’s roots back to Chimpanzees. HIV 2 is more rare and it appears to originate in Monkeys. The lab in Philadelphia which produced the oral vaccine in question did not use any material from Chimpanzees in it’s production, so it could not be a source for HIV 1. There is evidence that they used monkeys though, so it could have been a source for HIV 2.
NOTE: More than 20 years later, even knowing they were searching for a virus that we call “AIDS,” it took researchers some years to identify the virus. So back in 1957 when this Polio vaccine project was in the works it would have been impossible to even guess that such a thing as AIDS could result.
Anyhow, what happened was that the French team imported a relatively small amount of this vaccine to the Congo and then “Amplified” it locally using the resources available to them. This means they took, say, 100 doses and grew it into 1,000 doses.
Those numbers are merely for illustration. They actually inoculated about 1 million people, so they had to do quite a lot of amplifying. And they used local resources to do it. Meaning, they used tissue from Chimpanzees… the source of Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) which everyone agrees mutated into human AIDS. Human AIDS came from SIV.
Now everyone denies this, of course, but it’s all true and quite inescapable. They deny the use of chimps and even deny amplifying the vaccine! But, the denials are all rather transparent. Myself? I’ve found articles and letters on this subject dating back more than 20 years, and most actually supply motives for denying the facts. For example, one letter argued that a failure to repress the Oral Polio Vaccine theory on the origins of AIDS would result in a distrust of medicine and public health programs. They’re explaining why they deny despite the evidence!
Closer to home, for years the CDC kept a point-by-point refutation of the OPV theory on their website… only it never addressed any of the points. None. Going over it, one had to conclude that the page was written by P.R. people in an attempt to quiet fears & suspicions, rather than as an honest effort to inform the public. One would have to believe that the CDC was ignorant of the details of the OPV in order to mistaken the page as sincere… something that is most unlikely considering their stated mission.
Anyhow, there was one and only one piece of evidence which could have abolished the OPV theory once and for all, one thing which could have proven that AIDS wasn’t invented by a French team working in the CONGO from 1957 until 1960. And that evidence never existed — not in the late 1980s/early 1990s, not even 10 years ago. It could have laid the matter to rest, but it simply did not exist. Not then. Nobody so much as thought to forge it yet. That is, assuming someone has recently.
Why, sillies: If the French team didn’t amplify the vaccine locally, all they had to do was show the shipping records for the 1 million or more doses that were supposedly delivered from Philadelphia. No such records exist. Well, they didn’t more than 20 years ago when this matter was raised, they didn’t ten years ago so if they exist now then they’re new.
…there IS records of the French team sending Chimpanzee tissue back to Philadelphia… the Chimpanzee tissue the French now pretend to not have used.
But that’s only one vaccine. I said that AIDS was the result of two vaccines. The second one was a hepatitis vaccine program in America. What’s strange about this one is that it’s impossible to deny, yet everyone denies it.
Now I said that more than 20 years after the French team created AIDS, even with researchers around the world knowing it was there and searching it still took years to isolate and identify the virus. And it did. But long before they identified it they knew it was there. They knew they had a virus on their hands. And they knew that it endangered the blood supply. And they needed a test.
They screened people for Hepatitis. According to contemporary accounts, the Hepatitis screening was about 80% effective in catching the AIDS victims. The nature of the diseases.. who caught them… how it was caught… everything was so similar that if you screened for one you had an 80% chance of catching the other. But…
Getting back to the Hepatitis vaccine: It was basically just the antibodies from Hepatitis carriers — some say grown using tissue from Chimpanzees. This wouldn’t be necessary to spread AIDS (the use of Chimpanzees) if AIDS was present in the population already. Remember, Hepatitis victims and AIDS victims were roughly one and the same population, at least back then. So each of the men donating blood for the development of the vaccine would have had a roughly 80% chance of carrying HIV as well, assuming it was already in the population. AND THEN add the potential threat from using material from Chimpanzees to produce the vaccine…
The point, of course, is that it is physically impossible for this vaccine to have not spread AIDS. If AIDS already existed in America then it was talking the people who had to be carrying it and then contaminating thousands of others with the disease… each of which would have contaminated anyone they had sexual contact with.
This is assuming that AIDS already existed in the population. If it didn’t, given the fact that Hepatitis and AIDS were so similar in who and how they spread, it would be unconscionable to ignore such an obvious vector as this vaccine when AIDS did arise… though that’s exactly what they did.
The only “Evidence” they claim against a man-made origins of AIDS is the “Molecular Clock.” That is to say, the claim that they can determine when AIDS entered the human population using a static mutation rate for the virus, which places the leap to humans well before the French vaccine efforts. There’s two obvious problem with this explanation:
There is no such thing as a molecular clock. Such “Estimates” are ballpark at best and pure rubbish at worst. Chimps, for example, diverged from humans about 6 million years ago… or less than 5 million years ago… or 7 million years ago…
Percentage wise, there’s a major difference in estimates, and even THAT level of inaccuracy is based on the unproven notion that ANY of those dates are so much as close to right.
Another common claim against the OPV theory as the origin of AIDS is that the theory itself is the brain child of a journalist. It’s not. The theory comes from a very respectable biologists by the name of Bill Hamilton, and not some unscientific “Journalist” or “teacher.”
There really aren’t any other arguments against the human creation of AIDS through vaccines. And, the fact is that humans did create AIDS.
The only “Kooky” element to any of this is the application of motives — “The CIA did it!” Or, “The Illuminati is behind it all!” The fact that people created the AIDS crisis is largely inescapable.
Just given myself the afternoon off. Bliss!
I’ve just handed in an essay I’ve been working on which focuses on whether or not human evolution has an aquatic component. The Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) is really interesting but, obviously, questionable. It’s suggested that humans, at some stage in their evolution, adapted to living in an aquatic environment. Supporters of AAT have attributed hairlessness, walking on two feet, our fat layer and our affinity for water are clear evidence that we occupied an aquatic niche at some point. They believe that many of these traits are shared, most notably, with marine mammals such as dolphins.
There’s actually no doubt in my mind that Aquatic Ape Theory is correct, though granted at a much smaller level than some might think.
My actual reasoning is quite lengthy and complex, but suffice it to say that the early “Evidence” — such as our webbed toes & fingers — is precisely the kind of evidence used to defend an arboreal origins for our species: “This looks like it must’ve been good for climbing, so they must’ve inherited it from climbers!”
Fact is, we all know that “Aquatic Ape” is accurate to at least some extant. After all, it is the only mechanism for getting our ancestors out of Africa, through the middle east and into southeast Asia and Australia (They were following along & living off of the sea).
Again, I’m over simplifying here. It’s a complicated subject, but we had to have “Aquatic” ancestors.
Page 1 of 2