Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Not to be confused with:

Russian scientist says America was discovered by Siberians

1 posted on 09/30/2010 2:04:59 PM PDT by Palter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Palter

Not according to the Scientologist story of Creation.


2 posted on 09/30/2010 2:05:51 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Ask yourself,where does Saudi Arabia fit on a scale of "passive" to "moderate" to "extremist" Islam?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SunkenCiv
Just a summary, nothing new, ping.

btw, a great reference site:

THE PRE-CLOVIS AND CLOVIS WORLD

3 posted on 09/30/2010 2:06:24 PM PDT by Palter (If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it. ~ Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter

What the hell do i know?


4 posted on 09/30/2010 2:08:37 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (If Obama was the answer---that must have been one stupid question!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter

I think it was Jewish traders looking for a nice sunny spot away from suicide bombers...


5 posted on 09/30/2010 2:10:38 PM PDT by stefanbatory (Insert witty tagline here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter

Dont forget the Chinese report that they reached the New World. Every year there’s a new group making the same claim. Even pResident Dumbo said the mexicans were here first...and they’ve never left.


6 posted on 09/30/2010 2:11:52 PM PDT by max americana (Hoax and Chains, Dopeychangey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter

Not unless there was a bottle store here.


7 posted on 09/30/2010 2:12:12 PM PDT by steveo (2010 never again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter
"Russian scientist says America was discovered by Siberians"

I had to turn my computer back on because I remembered there is a Russian song about that.

10 posted on 09/30/2010 2:16:34 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (If Obama was the answer---that must have been one stupid question!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter
Aussie Aborigines are not really know for their seaman ship and I doubt if they walked there on a walkabout. Polynesians maybe.
11 posted on 09/30/2010 2:22:40 PM PDT by fish hawk (there is only one God and he is not called Allah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter
The fundamental problem of cranial analysis is that there are NO genes focused exclusively on cranial shape.

There are changes through time that literally mean nothing ~ one important one has to do with ROUND SKULLS. Currently East Asians have "round skulls". So do North Asians and, lo and behold many West Asians ~ take a good look at those Eastern European skulls and darned if they don't look round. Yet, the Eastern Europeans have no more ancestors from East Asian than do Western Europeans! The only major population of "white folks" with a large East Asian background are in the Middle East, and South Asia (Pakistan, India, etc.) And virtually none of them have "round skulls" except that sometimes they find remains with round skulls.

This particular report is based on skull measurements ~ and for every item brought forward, there is, somewhere, in somebody's scientific journal, a demonstration of the exact opposite finding.

You have to go way beyond skull shape and "roundness" into fundamental individual identification points ~ which I don't see in this report although I do see facial reconstructions that do exactly that.

Makes me think the author has some other news up his sleeve, and it's going to be all about Australians and Homo habilis. You have to remember, they claim there were still wild, natural homo habilis types wandering the land as recently as 14000 years ago ~ and they have some skulls and skeletons to prove it. Now we have a report that Australian types were in the Americas.

What the Australians want to prove, and may have, is that homo habilis and local successors had the ability to sail sea worthy boats for thousands of miles!~

12 posted on 09/30/2010 2:22:40 PM PDT by muawiyah ("GIT OUT THE WAY" The Republicans are coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter

That explains all the digiridoo music.


13 posted on 09/30/2010 2:23:57 PM PDT by P.O.E. (Compact Theory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter
A posting on this subject from 2003:

'First Americans Were Australian'

Luzia Woman


14 posted on 09/30/2010 2:26:06 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter
Vintage Skulls

"The oldest human remains found in the Americas were recently "discovered" in the storeroom of Mexico's National Museum of Anthropology. Found in central Mexico in 1959, the five skulls were radiocarbon dated by a team of researchers from the United Kingdom and Mexico and found to be 13,000 years old. They pre-date the Clovis culture by a couple thousand years, adding to the growing evidence against the Clovis-first model for the first peopling of the Americas."

"Of additional significance is the shape of the skulls, which are described as long and narrow, very unlike those of modern Native Americans."

15 posted on 09/30/2010 2:31:35 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter
2004: Top (Archaeological) Finds On Bolivian Highlands


16 posted on 09/30/2010 2:33:53 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter

Anyone ever think that the Americas didn’t need to be *discovered*?

Maybe there were and have been people here all along?


18 posted on 09/30/2010 2:45:14 PM PDT by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter

It would make sense or nonsense if the whole Pacific landmass was stuck together with Gowanaland and Lemuria and they just walked to Rio from Perth.


20 posted on 09/30/2010 2:53:17 PM PDT by bunkerhill7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter

for later


21 posted on 09/30/2010 3:32:04 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Obama. Chauncey Gardiner without the homburg.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

This is a blank form to fill in for genealogy, laboriously handcrafted by yours truly. The leftmost column is for your great-great-great-great-grandparents. There were 64 of them (give or take any cousin marriages within that span of seven generations; I've never found any, and have a reasonable expectation that the currently unknown spaces on my own tree are not duplicated in a seven-gen span).

As each of us (well, most of us) have 46 chromosomes -- 23 from each side -- at least 18 of the gggggrandparents contributed no chromosomes to my genetic constitution. That doesn't mean that they aren't my ancestors.
ggggGrand gggGrand ggGrand gGrand Grand parents YOU
             
 
   
 
     
 
   
 
       
 
   
 
     
 
   
 
         
 
   
 
     
 
   
 
       
 
   
 
     
 
   
 
           
 
   
 
     
 
   
 
       
 
   
 
     
 
   
 
         
 
   
 
     
 
   
 
       
 
   
 
     
 
   
 

22 posted on 09/30/2010 6:16:16 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Democratic Underground... matters are worse, as their latest fund drive has come up short...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter; muawiyah; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; 1010RD; 21twelve; 24Karet; ...

· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach ·
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·

 
 Antiquity Journal
 & archive
 Archaeologica
 Archaeology
 Archaeology Channel
 BAR
 Bronze Age Forum
 Discover
 Dogpile
 Eurekalert
 Google
 LiveScience
 Mirabilis.ca
 Nat Geographic
 PhysOrg
 Science Daily
 Science News
 Texas AM
 Yahoo
 Excerpt, or Link only?
 


Thanks Palter. Nice choice! :') I tried to sweet-talk someone into posting that Russian story the other day, and alas, no dice. :')

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
 

· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword ·
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·


23 posted on 09/30/2010 6:20:45 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Democratic Underground... matters are worse, as their latest fund drive has come up short...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter
The original population just sort of "died out", accidentally, and their dying off has absolutely nothing to do with the arrival of the people from Northern Asia because humans never have anything to do with mass extinctions. They just sort of happy by themselves, coincidentally, just as humans show up.
28 posted on 09/30/2010 9:53:20 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Palter; SunkenCiv
Uh-huh. The currents down that-a-way run from east to west, so let's try this on: The Aborigines came from South America, and those 11,000 year old skeletons are representatives of the last remnants of the Aborigine's New World ancestors.

They need to dig deeper, but the boys with the shovels are loathe to do that, because they have convinced themselves there isn't anything down there except dirt & rocks.

The only thing that is certain is that the taxonomists really screwed up our specie's designation. It should be Homo Meanderingcuss, because that is the one thing we have always done: meander all over the place; stop and maul a locality for a while, then move elsewhere, where the mooching is easier.

30 posted on 09/30/2010 11:09:43 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Made in America, by proud American citizens, in 1946.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson