Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Smallc

Theories of Indigenous Origin in the Americas

Recommended Posts

Just to expand on Ancient Civilizations of America ...

this is amazing too:

http://www.rabbithole2.com/presentation/ancient/ancient_artifacts_that_challenge_modern_archaeology.htm

ANCIENT PLANES FROM SOUTH AMERICA

ANCIENT GOLD AIRPLANES FROM SOUTH AMERICA

The mechanical features of the object suggest a highly sophisticated level of aerodynamics and construction. The objects are very old and small, approximately 2 inches long, objects, made of gold are estimated to be AT LEAST 1,000 years old. For archaeologists the artifacts were depicting animals and were classified as Sinu, a pre-Inca culture from A.D. 500 to 800... But only for them. For aeronautical engineers these objects more looked like airplanes with delta-shaped wings. So in 1997 they built a scaled up version of the objects to the exact specifications of the prototypes with the simple addition of an engine and propeller. The test was successful. The radio controlled aircraft flew performing airborn loops, rolls and other maneuvers, and then performed perfect landing. According to Dr. Ivan Sanderson, who studied the artifacts, these look too "mechanical" like an airplane, to be a natural object. Other similar objects have been discovered in Costa Rica, Venezuela and Peru.

Hmmm ...

All interesting.

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ya ya... you flogged this once already! Do you think your (almost decade old dated) 2007 published reference should just automatically negate subsequent... more recent... discoveries? Is that what you're saying?

.

What more recent evidence are you referencing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, what's wrong with the idea that aboriginal people migrated from Asia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, what's wrong with the idea that aboriginal people migrated from Asia?

It's worth considering too.

But some things don't fit.

It's an unfolding saga ...

Eta

Oh ... and it's used politically ... to dismiss Indigenous Peoples as 'settlers', to minimize and deny Aboriginal land rights.

But as long as everybody remains open to new evidence and it isn't suppressed, that theory remains on the table too.

I'm not a fan of singular discrete solutions though. I'm quite certain multiple complex interactions are involved.

For example, the existence of a Caucasian X haplogroup, but uniquely evolved, among a minority subgroup of Indigenous North Americans.

And the presence of pre'contact' Hebrew and Egyptian artifacts, Cahokia Mounds- barely scratched the surface yet ... ancient cities ... ancient giants.

The possibilities are mindboggling.

.

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, what's wrong with the idea that aboriginal people migrated from Asia?

Natives don't like to admit that their ancestors were colonists too that likely slaughtered the existing inhabitants when they encountered them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Natives don't like to admit that their ancestors were colonists too that likely slaughtered the existing inhabitants when they encountered them.

Who were the existing inhabitants?

You mean the ones that didn't come over the Bering bridge?

.

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who were the existing inhabitants?

You mean the ones that didn't come over the Bering bridge?

.

So are you at least at the point where you can accept that aboriginals migrated here if not solely from the Bering Strait but also other areas? Or do you still believe they sprouted here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you at least at the point where you can accept that aboriginals migrated here if not solely from the Bering Strait but also other areas? Or do you still believe they sprouted here?

I'm asking you ... who were the "existing inhabitants" you refer to?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm asking you ... who were the "existing inhabitants" you refer to?

You are the on arguing that natives migrated in multiple waves starting with the first wave from Europe. If that hypothesis is true then the first inhabitants were likely wiped out by subsequent migrants from Asia which now dominate the gene pool. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are the on arguing that natives migrated in multiple waves starting with the first wave from Europe. If that hypothesis is true then the first inhabitants were likely wiped out by subsequent migrants from Asia which now dominate the gene pool.

People are seldom wiped out.

Maybe they even coexisted with the "existing inhabitants" who you're suggesting were ... European?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they even coexisted with the "existing inhabitants"

Sure you would like that narrative. But the Asian gene pool is dominant which suggests they were either assimilated by the invading tribe or wiped out. Your 'peaceful co-existence' hypothesis is shamelessly naive and denies the reality of human existence for last 100,000 years. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure you would like that narrative. But the Asian gene pool is dominant which suggests they were either assimilated by the invading tribe or wiped out. Your 'peaceful co-existence' hypothesis is shamelessly naive and denies the reality of human existence for last 100,000 years.

That's nonsense.

Check your haplogroups, matey.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm asking you ... who were the "existing inhabitants" you refer to?

.

I never said anything about existing inhabitants. That was TimG. Please try to follow the conversation.

In the previous thread you were upset about Jason Kenney saying aboriginals settled here at some point. Are you still saying they never settled here or have you moved from that point towards the common understanding that they migrated from other areas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said anything about existing inhabitants. That was TimG. Please try to follow the conversation.

In the previous thread you were upset about Jason Kenney saying aboriginals settled here at some point. Are you still saying they never settled here or have you moved from that point towards the common understanding that they migrated from other areas?

Gee. I don't know.

I think there are lots of possibilities.

Are you open to all of them, or are you limited by some kind of dogma?

.

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee. I don't know.

.

Yes...that's what I thought even though you were adamant in the last thread that anyone who believed in the Bering Strait theory was a White Supremacist. Do you still think that or have you seen the error in your ways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes...that's what I thought even though you were adamant in the last thread that anyone who believed in the Bering Strait theory was a White Supremacist.

You certainly have the twisted dogma lingo down pat.

Keep chasing your tail.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You certainly have the twisted dogma lingo down pat.

Keep chasing your tail.

.

Yes....and you keep approaching science with philosophy as that has treated you well so far.

So I'm guessing that you are retracting your claim about Jason Kenney as your constant deflection continues to incriminate you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes....and you keep approaching science with philosophy as that has treated you well so far.

So I'm guessing that you are retracting your claim about Jason Kenney as your constant deflection continues to incriminate you.

Oh is that your problem?

Are you his 'protector'?

Lol

He said what he said, he knows why he said it.

Maybe the white supremacists learned that line from him.

:)

Wrong thread, though.

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong thread, though.

No....actually it's not. This thread was created to discuss the off topic aboriginal settlement that you initiated in the other thread but now constantly deflect away from as you realize how ludicrous your entire premise is which seems to be a constant theme.

Again, your constant deflection from a simple question is noted. Do you believe aboriginals were always here or did they (like us white folk) migrate from other areas?

The floor is yours jacee!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No....actually it's not. This thread was created to discuss the off topic aboriginal settlement that you initiated in the other thread but now constantly deflect away from as you realize how ludicrous your entire premise is which seems to be a constant theme.

Again, your constant deflection from a simple question is noted. Do you believe aboriginals were always here or did they (like us white folk) migrate from other areas?

The floor is yours jacee!

I believe it's too soon to say.

We're still generating theories in this thread.

.

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it's too soon to say.

We're still generating theories in this thread.

.

Too soon? But that didn't stop you from making the leap from your very minute, extreme fringe theory to claiming someone was a White Supremacist only because they believed in not just the most popular and widely held theory (Bering Strait) but any migration theory which happens to make up the vast majority.

I do particularly like your sudden retreat and attempts to forget your blunder however your credibility is shot at this point. So perhaps you might want to move on to the next urban legend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that didn't stop you from making the leap from your very minute, extreme fringe theory to claiming someone was a White Supremacist

clearly there was a reference to position/policy... there was no direct claim. Before you had the other thread locked, that very point was made to you by another MLW member. Instead of recognizing the error of your ways, you chose to further extend on your most visible 'attack mode' libel claim... and posturing on behalf of "MLW moderation". You've now chosen to carry that on through to this thread, attempting yet another thread derail.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

clearly there was a reference to position/policy... there was no direct claim.

If we're drawing conclusions on what Kenney said based on word association, I think we can do the same in this case for jacee.

Edited by Smallc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're drawing conclusions on what Kenney said based on word association, I think we can do the same in this case for jacee.

you could choose to do so... in spite of her repeat emphasis on comments/policy attachments and not using the direct label. But that was the other thread - there's only one 'no accountability' reason that's found its way to this thread in a clear derail attempt.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

clearly there was a reference to position/policy... there was no direct claim. Before you had the other thread locked, that very point was made to you by another MLW member. Instead of recognizing the error of your ways, you chose to further extend on your most visible 'attack mode' libel claim... and posturing on behalf of "MLW moderation". You've now chosen to carry that on through to this thread, attempting yet another thread derail.

.

Hey now...you're just sour that your recent copyright infringement from the CBC got you into hot water. Come to think of it i haven't seen you posting any sort of graphics lately. I guess that one stung pretty bad hey?? :D Maybe you should fire up another handle and start posting them again?

As for this recent account, numerous members called jacee out on her ties of white supremacy to what Kenney said including MLW member Squid who used the term 'hyperbole'. Of course in your mind one is only a white supremacist if they belong to a club. Claiming his position/policy is a kin to white supremacists but not claiming he is one is pure BS. Does that mean I can say that my policy against visual minorities is the same as racists but I'm not a racists since I don't belong to a club??? Only you and jacee would actually see how that is absolutely preposterous!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...