Why NOT humans?
(too old to reply)
2017-11-08 21:35:23 UTC
We live inside of an interglacial period,
a brief, warm pause between two glaciations.


Now the conventional, dumb hypothesis is
that humans arrived here in the Americas
at the start of this interglacial, when
the ice was receding but there was still
enough of it keep sea levels low, and a
land bridge open. But...

This all happened before!

Before our interglacial was a glacial period,
right? And before that glacial period was
another interglacial, an earlier interglacial
where all the same circumstances existed. And
before THAT was yet another glacial period
preceded by yet another interglacial... and
so on & so forth.

So why wouldn't humans have come over at
the start of any of those other, earlier
interglacials? Why only during this one?

There may actually be a reason for it. I'm
not saying that there isn't one. But what I
am saying is that WITHOUT A REASON to stop
humans from coming here, even archaic types,
then we have to assume that they did.


Isn't that logical?

...if there was nothing stopping them from
coming here, they should have come here.

That *Is* logical.

It makes sense.

It is the single most safest, most conservative,
most likely answer; if there was nothing stopping
them from coming here, they had to come here.

So why does paleoanthropology insist on the

Either something was stopping humans from coming
to the Americas at the start of the previous
interglacial, or they came here.


-- --

2017-11-27 15:46:49 UTC
They did come. Recent headliners reported Neanderthal or Denisovan projectile point injuries in North American megafauna.

Fisherman dredged up a hyper-robust jaw here in Savannah during the 70s, though the only article I've found about it isn't available on the internet. Homo erectus-like skulls were also found in New Mexico and reburied due to Native American rights, but the articles on that have disappeared from the internet too.
2017-11-27 18:20:00 UTC
Post by J.LyonLayden
They did come. Recent headliners reported Neanderthal
or Denisovan projectile point injuries in North American
I am NOT so much as questioning pre clovis.

And I am fully aware of many anomalous finds myself,
some of which have been rather "Creatively" explained
away by the mainstream. My question was aimed at
those who uphold to the "Land Bridge" hypothesis.

My question wasn't rhetorical, but meant to express
the problem in a manner that people aren't accustomed
to thinking.

We are told that the Americas were peopled at a
specific time because of the conditions that existed
at the end of the glacial period. But there were
other glacial periods, and those conditions were
pretty much the same at the end of all of them. WHAT'S
MORE, those conditions existed towards the beginning!

Think about it: As the glaciers were growing, there
came a point where they trapped so much water that
sea levels dropped, but not enough YET so that they
blocked access to the Americas... right?

If we take __The Reason__ for the peopling of the
Americas when it officially happened, THAT REASON
existed many times. They had to come here a very,
very long time ago. Yet that logical conclusion is
ignored. It's not refuted, it's not scoffed it's

That was my point.

So we need a DIFFERENT REASON for saying that they
didn't come here. No, not the lack of a land
bridge -- there were many -- but some other reason.

...technological developments: Clothing. Tools.
Boats. Physical adaptations, like maybe a new mtDNA
line that allowed them to trek through the Siberian

There is a great deal missing from the official,
mainstream model. This is what I was pointing

-- --