4 ms·

No one is forced to admit it is real. In fact, if you read the wikipedia article, there are a number of people offering alternative explanations to explain the

No one is forced to admit it is real. In fact, if you read the wikipedia article, there are a number of people offering alternative explanations to explain the site. But really, do you think there is a cabal of powerful academics who have their identity so wrapped up in "Humans only came to the Americas 25,000 years ago", that they would try to explain away clear evidence of humans in the Americas 130,000 years ago?

ncmncm 4y ago
Yet, astonishingly, did. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5z3DbmOuaFI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5z3DbmOuaFI
ncmncm 4y ago
Maybe if you find hominins in North America 130,000 years ago difficult to contemplate, you will have greater difficulty with 200,000 years? Look up "Leakey Calico Early Human site". Yes, that Leakey. National Geographic sponsored work. They dug down dozens of feet, kept finding older worked stone. 1960s.
- googlryas 4y ago
  I did look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_Early_Man_Site#Current_consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_Early_Man_Site#Current_... > The present consensus is that there is no evidence of human activity at the Calico Early Man site. This consensus developed based on a number of factors, including: > The lack of other evidence of human activity (e.g. human or animal remains, or non-tool artifacts). > The deep antiquity of the site (the next oldest date for human artifacts in the Americas is 30,000 BP, and that date itself is controversial). > The sheer number of possible tools, up to 60,000 by one account.[6] > The research by Duvall/Venner, Payen, and others providing possible natural explanations for the stone objects.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    In other words, there was so much evidence, none of it counted. They did not, at the time, know about the Cerutti Mastodon. You can see vids on YT of visits to the site. There were so many tools found, there are piles of them left out on the ground. Very, very obviously knapped tools.
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>do you think there is a cabal of powerful academics who have their identity so wrapped up in "Humans only came to the Americas 25,000 years ago" Unfortunately there is a cabal of powerful academics in almost every field who have their identities and their professional reputations wrapped up in a wide variety of flimsy, dated conjecture. It is why the statement, "science advances one funeral at a time" was coined and remains so relevant.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  When Harlen Bretz finally received Geology's highest honor for his work on the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington state, literally all of his opponents, who had rabidly blighted his career, had died of old age. There are still lots of geologists and historians who insist there was no Younger Dryas Boundary bolide strike and continentwide conflagration responsible for extinction of most large North American genera; and plenty who still even insist on Clovis First. Topically, Bretz was hampered buy lack of a source for the many cubic miles of meltwater his scenario called for. (Lake Missoula did not suffice, though it was pressed into service.) It was finally resolved by proof of the bolide strike.

ncmncm 4y ago

Yet, astonishingly, did. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5z3DbmOuaFI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5z3DbmOuaFI

ncmncm 4y ago

Maybe if you find hominins in North America 130,000 years ago difficult to contemplate, you will have greater difficulty with 200,000 years? Look up "Leakey Calico Early Human site". Yes, that Leakey. National Geographic sponsored work. They dug down dozens of feet, kept finding older worked stone. 1960s.

googlryas 4y ago
I did look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_Early_Man_Site#Current_consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_Early_Man_Site#Current_... > The present consensus is that there is no evidence of human activity at the Calico Early Man site. This consensus developed based on a number of factors, including: > The lack of other evidence of human activity (e.g. human or animal remains, or non-tool artifacts). > The deep antiquity of the site (the next oldest date for human artifacts in the Americas is 30,000 BP, and that date itself is controversial). > The sheer number of possible tools, up to 60,000 by one account.[6] > The research by Duvall/Venner, Payen, and others providing possible natural explanations for the stone objects.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  In other words, there was so much evidence, none of it counted. They did not, at the time, know about the Cerutti Mastodon. You can see vids on YT of visits to the site. There were so many tools found, there are piles of them left out on the ground. Very, very obviously knapped tools.

StanislavPetrov 4y ago

>do you think there is a cabal of powerful academics who have their identity so wrapped up in "Humans only came to the Americas 25,000 years ago" Unfortunately there is a cabal of powerful academics in almost every field who have their identities and their professional reputations wrapped up in a wide variety of flimsy, dated conjecture. It is why the statement, "science advances one funeral at a time" was coined and remains so relevant.

ncmncm 4y ago
When Harlen Bretz finally received Geology's highest honor for his work on the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington state, literally all of his opponents, who had rabidly blighted his career, had died of old age. There are still lots of geologists and historians who insist there was no Younger Dryas Boundary bolide strike and continentwide conflagration responsible for extinction of most large North American genera; and plenty who still even insist on Clovis First. Topically, Bretz was hampered buy lack of a source for the many cubic miles of meltwater his scenario called for. (Lake Missoula did not suffice, though it was pressed into service.) It was finally resolved by proof of the bolide strike.