SEMI-RANTING ABOUT THE SOLUTREAN AND Y-D PAPERS


[At Europeans in America 20,000 years ago? Susan Belding posted about the Delmarva discoveries about the ‘radical’ theory of Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley.  The news had broken back on the 6th or so, and somehow it had not yet made it onto our American Waterways message board.  This is my reply to Susan… (cross-posted there)]

Susan –

Is this the first mention of this in this group? Good get! “Ancient
waterways” has to include the Atlantic, too, doesn’t it? If an ocean
isn’t a waterway, what is?

Standford and Bradley have been pushing this pretty much ever since
Clovis First was shot down in 1997. The DNA evidence gives them a
boost, too. But as is normal, arkies can only go one step into the
abyss, and even then their ideas are labeled “radical” for half a
century. (Standford and Bradley are at about 15 years and counting…)
It is pathetic when radical means not quite as conservative as an Oxford
Don.

Whether first or not, certainly someone came from that direction, the
East. For us Atlantean advocates it is being misread, but it still is
one more thing that ‘is consistent’ with a Atlantean hypothesis, so it
is a good thing. Our meme is more that both Solutrean and Clovis came
from Atlantis. As I hear all the time at another science bog I haunt,
“Correlation does not mean causation.” With the Atlantean
infrastructure dead and buried Atlantean refugees did the best they
could with what they had at hand. In Egypt they had a lot of
infrastructure to rebuild with, but not so in the far reaches of Europe
or anywhere in America.

When I first heard of the Solutrean points back 20 years ago or more,
the connection with Clovis points was said to be impossible because of
the time gap between the two. I thought, “What horseshit. Don’t they
realize that their time scheme has every possibility of being changed
with new discoveries?

I predicted back then that the gap between Solutreans and Clovis would be shown to be zero.Someone last week wrote me and said how he had found that by taking the
diametrically opposite position from what science says is true, he has
found that things make more sense and new discoveries seem not to be
shockers. I could have told him that; I took that position 40 years
ago.Now, for those who haven’t been aware of it, this month has also had the
announcement of a new paper about lake sediment cores in central Mexico,
from Lake Cuitzeo about 3 hours WNW of Mexico City. The cores support
the hypothesis that a comet – maybe more than one – exploded in the
atmosphere over North America about 12,900 years ago, at the very
beginning of the Holocene, at the onset of what is called the Younger
Dryas (YD) stadial. Stadials were ice age periods, and the YD was the
last one. It lasted 1,200 years and its onset was also when the
mammoths and over 30 other North American megafauna went extinct.The article here  had a good point:

Between this and the Solutrean hypothesis, this is apparently the week for
controversial hypotheses on North American prehistory. The Younger
Dryas impact hypothesis has been around since around 2007, and it might
actually be the subject of even fiercer dispute than the Solutrean
model, considering its proponents and its detractors can’t even agree
on whether the supposed evidence to support it even exists.
It was good to put it in the perspective of that first sentence.The last point it make is a correct one. An cometary air burst would be
like the Tunguska blast of 1908, which wiped out about 500 square miles
of trees without having an actual crater or meteor fragment, which
caused over 80 years of confusion. (Remember what I said above about
‘radical’ ideas taking 50 years?) Only in the last 20 years has it been
mostly agreed that it probably was a comet – calculated to be 10 meters
across – that exploded over Siberia. The lack of evidence there –
besides trees flattened like during the Mt St Helens eruption of 1980 –
shows that all impacts do not look like meteors. Then consider that a
N.A. impact coming would have more than likely hit the ice sheets, which
is what the impact hypothesis people think happened. No matter HOW big,
an air burst over a 2-mile-thick ice sheet isn’t going to show much in
the geological record, if any. As a result, there is a lot of ridicule
being thrown at the impact folks.For those of you who don’t know him (Susan does), Ed Grondine has a book
called “Man and Impact in the Americas,” in which he delineates much
about past impacts and goes so far as to show what the indigenous
accounts told of ‘flaming mountains being cast down to Earth” and of
multiple Suns with many of them falling to Earth. If there is one thing
daytime impactors would look like it is multiple suns in the sky. For
those who don’t know it, two of our main annual meteor showers is
actually a slew of comet fragments which are strung out over the entire
orbit of the Comet Encke. This orbital evidence has astronomers taking
to mean that Encke (4.2 km) was once a much larger single comet, and
that since its break up an estimated 30,000 years ago the fragments have
stretched out like the fragmented comet Shoemaker-Levy/9 did before
impacting Jupiter in 1994. The fragments of the progenitor of Comet
Encke are called the Taurids because when they come inward toward the
Sun their ‘radiant’ (where they appear to be coming from) is in the
constellation Taurus. This happens just after the summer solstice, in
late June and early July. (Tunguska arrived on June 30th, so it is
understood by many to have been one of the Taurids.) Since all comets
that approach the Sun also head back out, we also run into the Taurids
later in the year, too. This happens around Halloween every year.This is all pertinent to groups that study pre-Columbian American
history because our history either began with Clovis Man or was severely
affected at the time of Clovis Man. The original Firestone et al 2007
hypothesis pointed out that not only the mammoths and other
megafauna went extinct at the 12,900 year point, but so did Clovis Man
himself. So what we seem to have is an abbreviated or punctuated – I
prefer to call it ‘interrupted” – history of man in the Americas (if not
the world). Ed Grondine’s work shows evidence that men here witnessed
impacts several times within the Holocene; i.e., since 12,900 years ago,
and that the impacts devastated their peoples. The impacts essentially
blew them back to the stone age – even though they were just barely out
of the stone age themselves!

So with the history of the Americas being re-written – even in academia
– before our very eyes, and on two fronts – these are pretty exciting
times for pre-Columbian and Ancient Waterways participants. Our
hollering and screaming that so much is being overlooked may not be
noticed, but it does mean that what we have been saying needs to be
looked at again, and with a different perspective. For others it means
that impacts may be happening much more than the astronomers have always
told us, such as that we will not experience a big impact more than once
every 100,000 years. Alternate researchers and their audience have
always thought that was a ridiculous number and based on faulty
assumptions. Even if we are proven in the end to have been right we
will not be given any credit for it – but at that time we will TAKE
credit for it, anyway! Why? Because you cannot come up with any correct
understandings if your premises and assumptions are wrong. And their
assumptions about our history are simply wrong. There is far too much
evidence out there pointing straight in the eye, yet the academics
continue to sweep it under the carpet as either fraudulent or “you all
are too stupid to know what it is you are looking at.”

On the contrary, it is not OUR paradigms which keep having to be
updated.

New evidence coming in seems to always move the balance of evidence
closer to our end of the scale. We should all be proud that our own
logic and assembling of evidence keeps being more and more likely to be
correct.

And in this month of March 2012, we have it our way on two fronts. The
academics will push back, of course. They always do. There are still
those who haven’t given up Clovis First, though it is now 15 years since
it was shot down in a blaze of glory. No matter what was found, from
the 1930s to 1997, it was always, “You people are full of shit. Clovis
Man came over Beringia 13,000 years ago when the ice-free corridor first
opened up, and that is that. now go home and SRFU.” We had to put up
with that and put up with that and put up with that. Hubris. As in
rubbing our noses in it. And in the end, the mofos were WRONG. And
then to add schadenfreud to injury, the DNA evidence agreed – and
pointed out that, NO, all incursions into the Americas did NOT come over
Beringia – we are NOT all from NE Asiatic stock. It was THEY who had to
retrench. It was THEY who had to eat crow – though we never got invited
to the feathered feast so WE could rub it in.

Though we did not always have the Internet with which to share thoughts
and support each other, we never gave up. We would all look at the same
evidence they did. But we would not reject inconvenient parts of the
evidence and cherry pick the rest. WE looked at ALL the evidence. And
cine we did, we came up with better interpretations of the evidence than
they did. They claim that only THEY are trained and only THEY know how
to properly think and assemble evidence into a whole. In reality, it is
WE who know best how to assemble evidence and assess it – because what
they left out was important. We chose to not leave out anomalous
evidence. We may not individually be as smart as them (I don’t accept
that, but it might be true even in the face of my disagreement), but
collectively we are smarter, because we KNOW to our roots that you
cannot pretend some evidence doesn’t exist, just because you don’t want
it to exist. And if anyone posits hypotheses that fly in the face of
the evidence it is a fools errand.

When I once read an assertion that 85% Carbon14 test results were tossed
out by the scientists who received such results from labs I was
horrified. I thought it must be untrue, so I went and looked into it as
much as I could in the time before the Internet. I found some things
to support it, but never did figure it out altogether, one way or the
other. What I DID find is that archeologists and geologists start out
with preconceived notions of the dates, and that when individual lab
results don’t fit that date range, it is up to the researcher to include
– or not to include – each individual contrary result. The lab is never
informed which decision was made, so the researcher is free to exclude
whatever he wants to exclude. And he can word his paper such that no
one ever knows he had X number of lab results that didn’t fit his
conclusions about dates. Was that number 85%? I don’t know. When they
actually speak of excluding data (e.g., see Callendar 1938 and Slocum
1955 <http://www.pensee-unique.eu/001_mwr-083-10-0225.pdf> pointing
out the cherry-picking by Callendar) they point at trivial reasons or
assert that the “sample was contaminated.” They do not need to prove
such contamination; their word is taken for it.

If any appreciable percentage of evidence – C14 or otherwise, or
‘fraudulent’ tablets from American caves or mounds – is excluded, a
false and illusory history is all that can be built from what remains.
An illusory history is not a history, however, so we cannot know – we
cannot accept – any history built by the very ‘disciplines’ whose
beginning motives were either to prove the truth of the Bible or the
superiority of Anglo-Saxon religious males. Especially when the early
paradigms of such disciplines are still with us in large measure, we
cannot ‘accept their word for it’ on history.

Such developments as these two March papers are truly important. That
the authors of the paper about the lake sediment cores in Mexico were
Mexican – from the University of Michoacan – is an amazing and very good
sign that the Anglo-Saxon hegemony in science may be showing signs of
being finally overcome. Latin American archeologists have been railing
for some time about the hubris of the Norteamericano arkies. One can
hope things are beginning to change. And perhaps a real history of
humans – at least in the Americas – can be written some day.

Steve Garcia

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s