Posted on 05/17/2014 12:06:11 PM PDT by Renfield
Interesting observations but you forgot to address my first point which was actually the main point. The evidence of catastrophe near the end of the last glaciation is global but studiously ignored/suppressed by the scientific community. I daresay you won’t find much in “prestigious” scientific journals. Why is that?
Then why was much of the mega-fauna extinction limited to the Americas?
Here's a classic example of the conflicted PC-person.
http://australianmuseum.net.au/Megafauna-extinction-theories-patterns-of-extinction
Here, the claim is made, "Worldwide, there is no evidence of Indigenous hunter-gatherers systematically hunting nor over-killing megafauna."
This is in blatant conflict with exactly that happening in NZ and Madagascar.
Uhh, dude.
The oceans were much lower then, and most of the evidence of humans from then is probably near the previous seacoast.
IOW, humans then and now tended to hang out at the edge of the water. If you find artifacts, they're likely to be from the ocean bottom.
What is your explanation for this suppression?
Clearly, the Clovis' SUVs are to blame.
Thanks Explorer89.
Thanks CG. He’s one of those go-to guys when a quote is needed from a purported expert, but anyone who claims as he does that all evidence of pre-Clovis sites has been falsified is a scientist in name only.
Yes, the back of NYC restaurants.
You might point me to where I can study the remaining megafauna in Europe and Asia, excepting the Asian subcontinent where elephants still roam. As far as I can tell, Australia, with the exception of some overly large marsupials, never had much else in the way of megafauna to start with. A quick search indicates there were mammoths/mastodons on the African continent at one time. I didn't look any further to determine when they went missing. NZ and Madagascar???
There are so many anamolies associated with this time period that trying to put the blame on humans seems a PC endeavor at best and unmitigated propoganda at worst. There are indications of potential cosmic origin, along with pole wanderings, massive volcanism, flooding and enormous waves traversing entire continents; you get the idea...
From this SEARCH check out the first ARTICLE re boneyards in Alaska and almost complete islands composed of mammoth/mastodon remains in and north of Siberia.
You've been around here long enough that you should have at least become suspicious of the motives of many in the scientific community™. Uniformitarianism/gradualism is the name; lying is their game. Goes back to at least the early Catholic Church. The PTB don't like to be discovered in their ignorance/malfeasance and they will apparently do whatever is necessary to protect their turf, egos, government grants, whatever. JMO of course...
There was a comet, unlike any other thus far observed, that impacted in the Southern Ocean and flooded the former abyss where we evolved. Explained in a slide presentation here:
When? Perhaps it caused YD, perhaps it was more recent....
Let’s face it, the Indians did not have repeating rifles like the European invaders of Australia, New Zealand and Madagascar. Also I do not have the impression that the Clovis population was very numerous.
The megafauna of Oz, NZ and Madagascar were not wiped out by European settlers, but respectively by the Aborigines, Maori and Malagasy.
The Aborigines arrived in Oz sometime between 40,000 and 80,000 years ago. They were at a stone-age level and remained there till Euros showed up.
The Maoris arrived in NZ around 1200 to 1300 AD. They were also stone age.
The Malagasy arrive in Madagascar sometime between 500 BC and 500 AD. They came from Indonesia, not the nearby Africa. I don’t know whether they were using metals yet, but they probably were. Indonesia, then as now, was home to a wild variety of cultures and levels of civilization, but there were certainly fairly advanced cultures around. They quite obviously had fairly advanced boat-building capabilities, or they’d never have survived their voyage.
None of these peoples needed guns, or, in the case of at least two of them even metals, to wipe out the native megafauna. Assuming that’s what happened, which it’s pretty clear it did in at least NZ and Madagascar, they being so much more recent.
Extrapolating this to the Americas is, I agree, a big jump due to sheer acreage. But the example of Oz seems to indicate that a continent-sized population of megafauna might indeed be vulnerable to extinction by stone-age human hunters.
All somewhat speculative, but the dates and other history are certainly interesting. The biggest flaw in the “American mega-slaughter” theory, IMO, is the increasing evidence humans were in the Americas for many thousands of years before the extinctions started.
Any such extinction would also seem to imply a rather large human population across North America, the physical evidence for which is darn thin, as you point out. A small band reproducing enough in a relatively short time to create that level of population seems unlikely.
OTOH, the Maoris apparently managed to overpopulate their islands and start fighting over the suddenly scarce resources in just two or three centuries, from just a few canoe-loads at the start. Extrapolating that to the American continent might take just one or two centuries more.
gleeakin, I think what we’ve got here is a “hunted to extinction” crusader. I sent him/her to some links that are pretty compelling re a catastrophic end to the Pleistocene and I’m guessing he/she got a painful whiplash turning away from it. Not only that but evidence of simultaneous megafauna extinctions in other parts of the world besides the Americas which he/she also ignored. I’m also wondering if he/she has read there has been few, if any, human artifacts found dating to within a thousand years or so AFTER the events that took out the megafauna. Indicating of course that whatever snuffed the megafauna likely also snuffed most of the peoples of at least North America. Don’t know about the rest of the world.
Having read the book that Sunken Civ has posted on this thread, I am inclined to think it was something more solid that a comet, or else a very large one, perhaps a broken up asteroid. For example, there is a picture of the bottom of Lake Michigan which appears to have been hit by either 2 or 3 large objects in a row. There is also evidence of some things striking Siberia or Scandinavia.
The early Australians had many tens of thousands of years to kill the mega fauna. They also may have killed off a pre sapiens homonid about 12,000 years ago called Kow swamp people. In the wall of human evolution in the Smithsonian one of the Kow skulls is in the far right lower corner. It is called homo sapien, but after comparing it to Neanderthal and earlier Heidelbergensis skulls, I am of the opinion it had more in common with the Heidelberg skulls. Really, the only basis for calling it sapiens is the 12,000 age. when the Europeans arrived in Australia the Tasmanian Devil and Tiger were still alive, and I believe other large animals that are now extinct had survived the aboriginies. They did not survive firearms. There are still significant killings and species depletion occurring in Madagascar as well.
The descriptions of massive bone yards appear in some of Velikovsky’s writings. I also have a book titled “My Way Was North” in which the author describes a cliff face (I think in Alaska) packed solid with bones being eroded out. Unfortunely it is packed away so I can’t give the more precise information and quote. They were bones of the type appropriate for a 13,000 bc disaster. I could imagine giant tsunamis causing such bone piles.
Maybe Denisovians?
"The enigma of Kow Swamp is that the skulls are younger than those at Keilor and Willandra Lakes, but appear much more archaic. The people at Kow Swamp had large, long heads with very thick bone, up to 13 mm thick. Their faces were large, wide and projecting, with prominent brow ridges and flat, receding foreheads. From above they show a pronounced inward curvature behind the eye sockets, giving the skull the appearance of a flask. They had enormous teeth and jaws, some even larger than Java Man, Homo erectus (Previously called Pithecanthropus, from the middle Pleistocene of Sangiran."
No doubt some of it at the hands of Man but when accompanied by evidence of catastrophe??? ONLY if one ignores the catastrophe I suppose. Anyhow, here in East Texas we have something similar occurring, after a fashion. Fire ants! Yep, fire ants have been credited with creating havoc amongst critters that nest on, near or under the ground. Larger young critters are even at risk if mama drops her newborn on or near a fire ant hill. Ground nesting birds like quail are nothing but a memory. I miss the night calls of Bobwhites and Whippoorwills.
Truth be told, it's the only thing that comes to mind that COULD explain it. Depositing the bones of millions of disarticulated animals along with splintered trees, volcanic ash, large rocks and sand over hundreds, maybe thousands of miles is tough to overlook but the scientific community™ has done a yeoman's job of it so far. Gives me a case of the RED A$$!
Parenthetically, and re your other post: From many accounts the Smithsonian has been complicit it hiding and/or losing evidence that doesn't fit the uniformitarian or other "consensus" narrative. Such and august institution guilty of fudging the facts??? Say it ain't so...
Maybe I am behind on news, but I thought they only had a few Denisovan teeth, not an actual skull. Has anyone seen the Smithsonian wall of skulls?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.