...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Palo-Americans and their descendants
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] Clyde stop with the bull sh*t. Almost ALL the research I have posted puts blacks as the first native Americans. So what the hell are you talking about me stealing? The point is simple, you have NO direct evidence that Africans set foot in the Americas as a result of DIRECT migration from Africa. NONE. All you are doing is guessing. And because you can't PROVE your own hypothesis with SOLID EVIDENCE, you go around and misrepresent other studies and research in order to suit your agenda. Instead of MAKING UP research to prove your point, just FIND SOME REAL EVIDENCE. You put on a grand show for someone with a theory that has yet to be proven beyond a doubt and all you can do is shuck and jive as opposed to putting in the WORK to see whether that hypothesis holds water. I can provide better evidence for the first populations of the Americas being from Africa than you can. That is the point. [/qb][/QUOTE]This science fool. You make a hypothesis then you confirm it. [IMG]http://saturniancosmology.org/bin/ice_sheet2.jpg[/IMG] Let's look at the facts: 1) the Australians represent the OOA population that settled Asia 2) during the OOA event much of Siberia and North America was under ice from 110,000 - 10,000BC. As a result there was no way Siberians could cross Beringa before the end of the ice age 3) Ice even separated much of South America east to west . [IMG]http://trylobyte.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ice_age_map.gif[/IMG] . 4) the first Americans appear in Brazil, Chile and Argintina Latin America around 30,000 BC 5)using craniometric evidence it is clear that the first Americans look like Africans not modern Asian Native Americans 6) using craniometrics I have pointed out that Asia was dominated by the Australian population until the rise of Suhulland when the Melanesian people appear in the area, at this time the Beringa was still under Ice 7) I pointed out that the Melanesian type reach East Asian mainland by 5000 BC, long after Africans had settled Latin America 8) between 15,000-12,000 we see numerous African populations in Mexico and Brazil; and skeletons dating to this period have even been found off the Yucatan coast in the Caribbean 9) these first Americans did not look like the Australians or modern Amerinds 10) iconography of PreClassic people like the Cherla, Ocos and other groups is of Negroes not Amerinds like the Maya 11) Amerind groups not associated with African slaves carry African genes 12) Maya carried African y chromosome 13) Chontal Mayan speakers were classified as Negroes by Quatrefages. This may explain why the Maya carry African genes 14)Negrocostachicanos claim that they have never been slaves and are indigenous to Guererro and Oaxaca on the Pacific coast 15) The Dufuna boat makes it clear that Africans probably had the technology to travel to the Americas 15,000 years ago. 16) Fuegians 100-400 BP carried haplogroup A1. Hg A1 is an African haplogroup. 17) Amerinds carry haplogroup N, just like Africans. 18)The y chromosome STRs of the Fuegians include DYS434,DYS437,DYS 439, DYS 393, DYS391,DYS390,DYS19, DYS 389I, DYS389II and DYS 388 (see: Garcia-Bour et al above). Except for DYS390 and DYS388 they are characteristic of haplogroup A1 . A1 is recognized as an African haplogroup. 19)Quatrefages noted numerous African Native American tribes 20)The antiquity of these populations is supported by the ancient iconography found in these countries which are of African Native Americans. 21) Most contemporary populations are descendants of the San people not Australians. Up to now you have presented no evidence disconfirming any of this evidence all you say is that all Black people look alike and and any dark people in Asia are also Blacks this is stupid. All Black people do not look alike. . [/qb][/QUOTE]Clyde stop spamming your theories. Those are all unsubstantiated theories in that brain of yours. Provide FACTS and EVIDENCE for a 30,000 year old settlement of the Americas. Where is it Clyde, or is the fact you cannot CITE any evidence for this some CONSPIRACY? YOU claim it and therefore YOU must provide the evidence. Which you can't. THAT makes you a fraud. If you CAN'T provide the evidence and you KEEP claiming it, then that also makes you a LIAR. Don't depend on me to prove your theories, prove them yourself as you are the so-called scholar. NO? Bottom line, you can make claims all you want but that doesn't mean anything with out proof. THAT is what makes you a clown, because you continually take your theories and promote them as fact with NO EVIDENCE and pretend that you have GOT something. All you GOT is hot air. On top of that you claim that the FIRST remains found in America do not match Australians, which goes AGAINST all the published research. But of course, you are providing NOTHING but your own THEORIES support for this, no research and no EVIDENCE of your own. Again, you DISTORT other studies in order provide support for your theories, as those studies DO NOT support what you are saying. Again, this makes you a liar. That is not science, that is BULL SH*T Clyde. Theories are not the problem here, it is your CLOWN ACT that you put as some sort of PROOF for these theories. I am not interested in CLOWN ACTS, I want proof. [/qb][/QUOTE]Fool you don't know what you're talking about. Several types of blacks entered the Americas including the San, Anu or negrito type and the Proto-Saharan variety of blacks. Up until recently it was believed that the first humans crossed the Bering Strait 12,000 B.P., to enter the North American continent.(Begley 1991, p.15) This view was never accepted by physical anthropologists who have found skeletal remains far older than 12,000 B.P. Today archaeologists have found sites from Argintina to Chile that range between 20,000 and 40,000 years old. There are numerous sites in South America which are over 35,000 years old (1). These sites are Pedra Furada (c.45,000 B.C.) (2), and Serra Da Capivara 50,000 BP. Given the fact that the earliest dates for habitation of the American continent occur below Canada in South America is highly suggestive of the fact that the earliest settlers on the American continents came from Africa before the Ice melted at the Bering Strait and moved northward as the ice melted. The early presence of ice-age sites in South America suggest that these people probably came from Africa. This would explain the affinities between African languages and the Amerind family of languages (3). In very ancient times the American continent was inhabited by Asian and African blacks. The oldest skeletal remains found in the Americas are of blacks. Marquez (1956,p.179) observed that "it is [good] to report that long ago the youthful America was also a Negro continent." Lanning (1963) noted that "there was a possible movement of negritos from Ecuador into the Piura Valley, north of Chicama and Viru" in early times. The appearance of pebble tools at Monte verde in Chile (c.32,000 B.P), and rock paintings at Pedra Furada in Brazil (c.22,000 B.P.) and mastodont hunting in Venezuela and Colombia (c.13,000 B.P.), and Dr. Walter Neves’ discovery of a 12,000 year old skeleton of an African woman in Brazil, have led some researchers to believe that the Americas was first settled from South America (4). C. Vance Haynes noted that:"If people have been in South America for over 30,000 years, or even 20,000 years, why are there so few sites?....One possible answer is that they were so few in number; another is that South America was somehow initially populated from directions other than north until Clovis appeared"(5). P.S. Martin and R. G. Klein after discussing the evidence of mastodont hunting in Venezuela 13,000 years ago observed that :"The thought that the fossil record of South America is much richer in evidence of early archaeological associations than many believed is indeed provocative .Have the earliest hunters been overlooked in North America? Or did the hunters somehow reach South America first" (6)? [list] [*]1. Warwick Bray,"The Paleoindian debate". Nature 332, (10 March) 1988, p.107. 2. Ibid, p.107; "Man's New World arrival Pushed back", Chicago Tribune, (9 May 1991) Sec.1A, p.40;and A.L. Bryan, "Points of Order". Natural History , (June 1987) pp.7-11. 3. Bryan, p.11. 4. C.V. Haynes,Jr.,"Geofacts and Fanny". Natural History ,(February 1988)pp.4-12:12. 5. P.S. Martin and R.G.Klein (eds.),Quarternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, (Tucson:University of Arizona Press,1989) p.111. 6. M.Ruhlen,"Voices from the Past". Natural History, (March 1987) pp.6-10:10; J.H. Greenberg,Language in the Americas. Stanford:Stanford University Press,1987. [/list] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3