Posted on 01/15/2007 7:49:20 AM PST by FLOutdoorsman
of course you have absolute proof of this, right? Public school, right?
They are not native americans as the PC police insist on calling them. They are Siberian Americans.
At first, many scientists attacked the validity of the evidence and clung to the theory that the Clovis people arrived first, Collins said. Over time, they began to accept the site and the tide of opinion turned, he said.
Conventional wisdom and consensus are the enemies of science everywhere, as it always has been. History is riddled with examples of situations where science was stalled because of entrenched consensus in wrong theories. For example, when Lord Kelvin estimateed the age of the earth he was way off, but to attempt to second guess him was tantamount to scientific heresy. Scientists can be surpisingly closed minded and unwilling to examine evidence which is counter to their expectiations.
there were horse...then the first Indians (we can call them Paleo-Americans) came...then there were no horses...then there were the Spanish..then there were horses...the Indians took to the idea of riding them at that time(and probably ate some too).
....whether or not the indians killed off the indigenous horses (ie. caused their extinction) is not provable....but finding horse bones with cut marks from stone tools gives science a pretty good idea that the earliest Paleo-Americans killed and ate horse (and mammoth, giant ground sloth, giant bison....etc)
How dare you question the great and terrible state-school! Do pay attention to the politicians behind the curtain...
I learned to read a lot, keep my eyes open and my mouth shut! I formed opinions early on and had my own theories about how things worked.
Questioning and then insulting before you had the answer was not really wise. Kind of snotty, actually. Private school, right? ;-)
"In the late Pleistocene (~10,000 years ago), there was a rash of extinctions that wiped out most of the large mammals in North and South America . All the horses of North and South America died out, along with the mammoths and saber-tooth tigers. These extinctions seem to have been caused by a combination of climatic changes and overhunting by humans, who had just reached these continents. For the first time in tens of millions of years, there were no equids in the Americas."
http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/ecology/wildhorseburro/whb_faqs.shtml
Any idea of the age of the human footprints?
None, but I would love to know! Judging from the wealth of prints, and the layers of rock, this creek bed must have been a well traveled swampy, muddy area for a long, long time. The layers were any where from six inches to half an inch thick. The different prints showed up the most close to a waterfall where the rock had been worn away like steps. The human prints were near the top layers.
I grew up on a farm in lower Ohio. We had several creeks on the property, most with layers of smooth rock for the beds. In those beds, in the different layers, were vast amounts of footprints. Everything from tractor-looking dinosaur tracks to every imaginable animal to human footprints, clearly delineated. I spent many a day walking in those footprints, wondering where those long gone peoples were traveling to or from. Not only that, there were dog and horse tracks right along side the human prints. I didn't find out til much later that there weren't any horses in the new world when people were there. Being a farm kid, I knew and could identify most tracks. Guess the scientists were much smarter than a dumb farm kid! :) I figured out-all by myself-that rock either formed much faster than I'd been told, or the scientist-who-knew-everything didn't know as much as they thought!
XXXXXXXXXXXX
OK GARDENGIRL
SO WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH YOUR FARM KNOWLEDGE OF THIS EXCITINGG SITE AND FIND?
TELL ME MORE?
OLD FARMBOY FROM MICHIGAN
Love to have some shots of those, seriously.
A few years ago it was taught that the third whale with a mother and baby Humpback was a "nanny" female whale. It turns out they are males. Also , the Humpbacks are "gentle giants". Now they know that they fight like hell over the females at mating season, often bloodying the waters. And on top of that, are they not still teaching that man evolved from a monkey?
It is so hard to keep your mouth shut in the face of obvious ignorance! I learned to keep quiet in school but since I've become an adult, I'm much more likely to confront stupidity. I know, I know-it doesn't do any good. :)
For instance, I now live in coastal NC. Did a field trip with one of my younguns to one of the barrier islands. The college students in charge started off with-don't worry about where you're walking-there aren't any snakes out here.
He was from Minn, other was from Wisc. I stopped him where he was and told him, made sure the kids heard. "The biggest copperhead I ever saw was killed just a couple blocks from here." That went over like a lead balloon!
HIs next comment was-there have never been any tall trees on these barrier islands, only scrub. I stopped him again, asked him if he'd ever read any history? The first ships to come over sent back detailed reports of the abundant forests with TALL trees that covered the islands.
Needless to say, he made sure he stayed far away from me for the rest of the field trip!
Thanks! Looks like another FR GGG topic.
Iberia, Not Siberia
Team Atlantis | 12-6-2000 | Michael A Arbuthnot
Posted on 12/21/2003 12:48:22 PM EST by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1044449/posts
Nothing-because according to the experts it can't exist!
I remember reading an article awhile back about a portion of a creek bed much like mine being uncovered, and the discovery of human prints there as well. The scientist in charge accused the local towns people of carving the footprints and covering them back up! BWAHAHA!
I don't see what the 'emotional" fervor is about.Since "'emotional' fervor" is only mentioned in your post, neither do I.
They're never really established any evidence for anything older than 12,000 years old - this only debates whether relatively close to Clovis were 13,000 - 13,500 or 14,000 years old."They've" established evidence for PreClovis human sites in the Americas.
The entire continent was crossed east-west regularly by families on foot in 9 months. Pretending that families (equally on foot!) could NOT cross equally hard terrain going north-south (only three times as far, with the weather getting better the farther south they go!) in 1000, 2000, or 3000 years is foolish.No, pretending that the Monte Verde dates are younger than the Bering route is foolish.
So would I. Alas, we moved a long time ago. Last time I checked, the farm was still there and I doubt the rocks have gone anywhere.
"Even if the Indians killed horses for food is no reason to state the the Indians killed off the horses."
They contributed to the horses demise by overhunting. That's not an uncommon theory that is heavily supported by facts. That's pretty solid green light to state it, IMO.
Even if the Indians killed horses for food is no reason to state the the Indians killed off the horses. It was pretty easy to discover the earth travels around the sun but to state things that can not be known is often ridiculous.I wholeheartedly agree. There is no evidence that the horse was killed off by the tribes; there is also not one iota of evidence that the horse was reintroduced to the tribes by the Spanish.
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.