Kennewick Man and the Solutreans

[hoarder]

is not the name of a rock band.

Who were the first Americans?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No_aGmprKM8&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2LbIE7juOw&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIkkA8STBDI&feature=player_embedded


This last one is long but interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZrXQy2tJDw&feature=player_embedded

[hoarder]

http://www.newnation.org/NNN-kennewick-man.html

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/hive/Kennewic.htm

http://www.louisbeam.com/kennewick.htm

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Kennewick-Man-s-secrets-still-mostly-secret-1305063.php#page-1

http://nephiliman.com/anomalies_kennewick_man.htm

http://vimeo.com/473625

http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/02/14/skull-may-prove-solutrean-hypothesis/

http://www.economist.com/node/4174278?story_id=4174278

The difference between an Asian skull and a European skull is easy to see. Europeans have narrower, elongated skull, smaller eye sockets, narrower bite, angle of bite is more at a right angle to facial profile, squarer jaw, lesser cheekbones, more chin etc..

[Dogman]

Good question, but the jury is still out, your collection of news casts and white nationalist videos and links only show a need to try and prove that white man was here first. While what has been found that there may have been many peoples in waves, from Asia, Europe and some speculate Polynesia in south America. There is a real chance that our native Americans are a very early mix of the Asia and European bunch. But so far it is all a theory and nothing that can be carved in stone.

So freespirit and you both can be right, but what you posted as evidence is beyond weak.

IMHO.

[milehi]

Paleolithic Cro-Magnons in the Americas.

http://www.atlantisquest.com/America.html

[Eyebone]

Good question, but the jury is still out, your collection of news casts and white nationalist videos and links only show a need to try and prove that white man was here first. While what has been found that there may have been many peoples in waves, from Asia, Europe and some speculate Polynesia in south America. There is a real chance that our native Americans are a very early mix of the Asia and European bunch. But so far it is all a theory and nothing that can be carved in stone.

So freespirit and you both can be right, but what you posted as evidence is beyond weak.

IMHO.

Do you think the evidence for the accepted theory of migration from Asia is stronger?

The fact that the Clovis style tools are only found in NA and Europe and not in Asia is strong evidence in my opinion.

[Dogman]

Do you think the evidence for the accepted theory of migration from Asia is stronger?

The fact that the Clovis style tools are only found in NA and Europe and not in Asia is strong evidence in my opinion. The asia route has the strongest evidence as one path of migration. Clovis I do feel comes from Europe and that suggests another migration and path. Then there is also in south America some evidence that suggests that peoples from Polynesia had very early contact/migration. Even today in the pacific islands one of the food plants, the sweet potato that it is believed to come from south America.

There is a consensus forming, that there were several waves of peoples and paths taken to the Americas north and south. Now who was first is hotly debated and may never be resolved.

What I do believe what is possible is that the people from all of the waves of immigration over time met each other and there was a mixing, the dna testing that has been done in the recent past has shown a very strong possibility that this happened. And is contenting even today. And not only here but all over the world, which pisses the purest totally off. But mixing of peoples have been going on all the way back in time as long as man has walked this planet. Hell even the bible talks about it, the giving of daughters and sons for marriage into other peoples and cultures. Or conquered people by others that are in time mixed with the conquering peoples.

Hell they have found cocaine in some mummy's in very ancient Egypt. And there is only one place on the planet that plant comes from. I believe that there has been more contact and trade and intermarriage all across this planet, for a dam sight longer in time than most academics wants to believe, because there is no hard proof.

So who was first to discover the Americas that settled and did not die out to be replaced by other peoples over time. And where they came from? Who in the hell right now knows?

Who was on first , and what was the second? I do not know, and nobody else does ether.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M

[Spectrism]

If I was an injun, I wouldn't want by gig exposed either. The injuns are not the "native Americans". They were a marauding race that wiped out the people here before them. Knowing that would cancel their claims on indigienous rights.

[Dogman]

The sad fact is in our written history, is that all across the world as far back in time we look or can look. No peoples of any nation or peoples, have not been conquered by others, and they in turn, be conquered again by someone else. Every one if you look back far enough came from somewhere else. In the recent past few hundred years it has been called colonialism. And as Ponce would say "If you do not hold it, you do not own it!' and that rule as far as nations go holds true even today. Is it right? That depends on who you ask! But it is the way it is today.We as a people in the modern world can look back, not so many generations into our past and be amazed at the changes of attitudes and the way we (all) in the world see how fast what is called civilization has grown. Civilizations evolve or die on the vine, if they do not change with the times.

But just like Israel and the Zionist people claiming Palestine as theirs because it was their land in the past is totally wrong. Using the worldview most have today, but by the standards of our past, and that is only less than the last 150 or so in the past, what the Zionist are doing is perfectly right and legal.

But this thread is about the Americas, but the reasoning being used from some posting is like what the Zionist are doing now. And trying to find justification for their beliefs.

Which can make for lively debate! As long as this thread can remain on topic. Which it will not I am sure. ;D

[hoarder]

Good question, but the jury is still out, your collection of news casts and white nationalist videos and links only show a need to try and prove that white man was here first. I'll ask you since freespirit ran away from the question in another thread; what is your definition of proof?

[Dogman]

Horder that is a good question with no easy answer. Because everyone looks at let's say the same thing or object and not see that thing/object as others. So proof is a argument used by people to establish fact, or truth in a ideal or object/thing. And in general is a fact or truth that is accepted and proven as fact. Like I said it is a good question! And not all will accept any fact or perceived truth as proof. Which makes for lively debate. So it may boil down to this , that a majority of independent thinkers/people see and agree that what is perceived as a fact is a truth and proof is there to make it so. But also what can be considered proof/fact/truth now, can and may change in the future.

My head hurts, dam you horder! For making me think (as zap would say! ;D) , before my full caffeine dose this morning!

Thanks!



1798

[Neuro]

If I was an injun, I wouldn't want by gig exposed either. The injuns are not the "native Americans". They were a marauding race that wiped out the people here before them. Knowing that would cancel their claims on indigienous rights.
May not have wiped them out. Just mated with them. Most of the people inhabiting the area north of the polar circle, is or used to be of Asian stock, and that goes for the North Scandinavia (Samic or Lapp people) also, one major reason for that is that Asians have a more compact build, which preserves heat better, and thus they are better equipped to survive the harsh winters...

[hoarder]

So proof is a argument used by people to establish fact, or truth in a ideal or object/thing. And in general is a fact or truth that is accepted and proven as fact. Whether or not it's accepted has no bearing on whether or not something is true.

So it may boil down to this , that a majority of independent thinkers/people see and agree that what is perceived as a fact is a truth and proof is there to make it so.Truth is not a democracy.

How widely accepted ideas are is relative to how widely they are distributed. Of course mass media and academia have the advantage here.
Most people have unflexible minds, whatever they believe first will stick with them regardless of how much contradicting information and evidence is presented later. They believe what media/academia tells them without doing much or any analysis of their own, but when contradicting info is presented, they loudly proclaim that they demand "PROOF".

My approach is this:
Hardly anything is 100% certain.
Almost anything is possible.
That leaves probability.

The best way to approach questions like "Who was here first?" is to examine both sides and debate which theory is most probable.

[DMac]

My research has led me to believe the second major migration was the one over the Alaskan land bridge to Asia, what eventually became the Native Americans.

The first was people that more closely resemble European men than Asian.

[hoarder]

May not have wiped them out. Just mated with them...Probably both. Being a Texan, I had always assumed that Indians were like the Aztecs and Yaquis from Mexico. They are squatty, frumpy built people with long torsos and short arms legs and necks. They have round featureless faces. When they move in a hurry their torsos flex a lot and do so with considerable coordination. This makes for a distinctive movement and they are identifiable at a distance. When I was in Hawaii, I was amazed to see that the natives had the exact same characteristics.

Up here in the NW, I see Indians like that and Indians that are completely different. At first I assumed that it was due to intermarriage with Whites.

Recently I saw some photographs of Sioux Indians that were taken over a century ago. My jaw dropped. They had long arms and legs like Black and White people, large jawbones and long noses!

[Dogman]

Whether or not it's accepted has no bearing on whether or not something is true.Truth is not a democracy.

How widely accepted ideas are is relative to how widely they are distributed. Of course mass media and academia have the advantage here.
Most people have unflexible minds, whatever they believe first will stick with them regardless of how much contradicting information and evidence is presented later. They believe what media/academia tells them without doing much or any analysis of their own, but when contradicting info is presented, they loudly proclaim that they demand "PROOF".

My approach is this:
Hardly anything is 100% certain.
Almost anything is possible.
That leaves probability.

The best way to approach questions like "Who was here first?" is to examine both sides and debate which theory is most probable.

I was using a global view on the question. Yes it does boil down to the individual and what he/she understands and sees, but that view also can be "colored" by bias, by what they want to see or believe. So ones persons or groups facts/truths/proofs may or not be correct. It takes the vast majority of independent and unbiased thinkers/people, to arrive and agree on what that is in question, "is" in fact a proof or truth.

[hoarder]

So ones persons or groups facts/truths/proofs may or not be correct. Facts may be correct but one-sided. Their "truths" are actually their perceptions. Truth exists independently of our perception.

It takes the vast majority of independent and unbiased thinkers/people, to arrive and agree on what that is in question, "is" in fact a proof or truth.Although truth is not a democracy, what experts agree on can be generally accepted as true. But then, how often do experts agree? It's up to the believer to determine if the views of some experts are censored, as in the case of Solutreans, and also to determine if any experts are biased. Bias does not neccessarily indicate an expert's asessment is incorrect, just that it's biased.
How many people are not biased?

Learning has a logical sequence to it. People should spend much more time pondering and discussing what proof, truth, probability, perception, facts and falshoods are and about how people circumvent our skill at grasping these distinctions before they learn anything else.

[Dogman]

Probably both. Being a Texan, I had always assumed that Indians were like the Aztecs and Yaquis from Mexico. They are squatty, frumpy built people with long torsos and short arms legs and necks. They have round featureless faces. When they move in a hurry their torsos flex a lot and do so with considerable coordination. This makes for a distinctive movement and they are identifiable at a distance. When I was in Hawaii, I was amazed to see that the natives had the exact same characteristics.

Up here in the NW, I see Indians like that and Indians that are completely different. At first I assumed that it was due to intermarriage with Whites.

Recently I saw some photographs of Sioux Indians that were taken over a century ago. My jaw dropped. They had long arms and legs like Black and White people, large jawbones and long noses! There maybe fact in your words, people are just like other critters on the planet. Are affected by their environment, diet and how isolated they are from others of their kind.

Take animals for example, Dogs now have a vast majority of breeds that vary in size/shape/attitude that one hundred years ago did not exist. But with interbreeding and mixing with other dogs you can create a new breed. Same with other critters with the mixing of genes in time new variations of any single breed are created.

Not saying humans are animals but the same holds true with us. Here is a fact generally agreed on, is that people are getting taller, it is calmed that nutrition has gotten better so people are growing taller. But if you look back in time , in general every new generation is taller than the ones before it.

So the peoples that first came to the Americas could have very well mixed. And from three groups, from Polynesia to south America and they moved north. The Asians that came from the north and moved south and spread, the Europeans from the east and then spread west.

And it is a proven fact that human males are horny bastards and if they can if their society allows it, they will screw any female they can get their hands on!;D

In those cultures the females did most all of the work, so the more the better as long as everyone can be kept fed, and that was the males job. To hunt and defend the food and water sources. (Mostly)


So it can be said that the Americas both north and south are a Hinze 57 mix, that is still mixing!

1799

[Neuro]

Not saying humans are animals but the same holds true with us. Here is a fact generally agreed on, is that people are getting taller, it is calmed that nutrition has gotten better so people are growing taller. But if you look back in time , in general every new generation is taller than the ones before it.
This has been true only for the last 200 years or so actually. Cro Magnon man was taller than us. A thousand years ago in medieval Europe people were probably about the same height as today, most were self owning farmers, with no sttong masters that could exert taxes from people, since then people was increasingly supressed, taxed for their effort, and shrunk, the poverty among people was probably at its peak a few decades after the start of the industrial revolution, with malnutrition and filth and substandard housing rampant among urban dwellers. Children were dying in droves in the cities until about a hundred years ago.

Vaccination shills usually says the honour for eradicating deaths from childhood diseases, is due to immunization programs, but it was eradicated decades before mass vaccination. It was plumbing, central heating, transportation, refrigeration and labour unions, that made sure people in general had a reasonable standard of living in the cities...

[Dogman]

This has been true only for the last 200 years or so actually. Cro Magnon man was taller than us. A thousand years ago in medieval Europe people were probably about the same height as today, most were self owning farmers, with no sttong masters that could exert taxes from people, since then people was increasingly supressed, taxed for their effort, and shrunk, the poverty among people was probably at its peak a few decades after the start of the industrial revolution, with malnutrition and filth and substandard housing rampant among urban dwellers. Children were dying in droves in the cities until about a hundred years ago.

Vaccination shills usually take the honour for eradicating deaths from childhood diseases, but it was eradicated decades before mass vaccination. It was plumbing, central heating, transportation, refrigeration and labour unions, that made sure people in general had a reasonable standard of living in the cities... Thanks, I will need to do some more digging, But what you say feels right.

[Neuro]

Thanks, I will need to do some more digging, But what you say feels right.

Lemme know if I got something wrong... ;)

[freespirit]

I'll ask you since freespirit ran away from the question in another thread; what is your definition of proof?

i never ran away from anything...you were waving your "proof" flag around so much, i mistakenly assumed you knew what the definition of the term was...once i realized that was not the case and that you honestly needed someone to define it for you, i did.

your welcome.

[hoarder]

Here is a fact generally agreed on, is that people are getting taller, it is calmed that nutrition has gotten better so people are growing taller. But if you look back in time , in general every new generation is taller than the ones before it. It has been shown that genetic diversity creates taller offspring, but this phenomenon effects first generation only. Women tend to prefer taller men and this may account for increased height as well.
If nutrition is the reason, we should start getting shorter soon.

[hoarder]

i never ran away from anything...you were waving your "proof" flag around so much, i mistakenly assumed you knew what the definition of the term was...once i realized that was not the case and that you honestly needed someone to define it for you, i did.

your welcome.You're the one waving the "PROOF" flag, which you have described simplisticly as "the definition of proof is: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" in the other thread.
If you wish to stay in denial you can repeatedly state that I have not presented enough evidence without specifically engaging in details.

[Dogman]

Facts may be correct but one-sided. Their "truths" are actually their perceptions. Truth exists independently of our perception.Although truth is not a democracy, what experts agree on can be generally accepted as true. But then, how often do experts agree? It's up to the believer to determine if the views of some experts are censored, as in the case of Solutreans, and also to determine if any experts are biased. Bias does not neccessarily indicate an expert's asessment is incorrect, just that it's biased.
How many people are not biased?

Learning has a logical sequence to it. People should spend much more time pondering and discussing what proof, truth, probability, perception, facts and falshoods are and about how people circumvent our skill at grasping these distinctions before they learn anything else. In some ways all people are biased too one degree or another.

But does blindly believing something because of bias, is a truth/proof or fact, make it so? No it does not!

In most cases "experts" opinions on any subject is subject to the majority of those experts agreeing on the subject at hand. And as you say, not all experts agree the same on anything. It is like ass holes and opinions, everyone has one!

But bias can in fact blind one to fact and or truth so in the outcome what they believe as fact is not so.

[Dogman]

i never ran away from anything...you were waving your "proof" flag around so much, i mistakenly assumed you knew what the definition of the term was...once i realized that was not the case and that you honestly needed someone to define it for you, i did.

your welcome.


You're the one waving the "PROOF" flag, which you have described simplisticly as "the definition of proof is: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" in the other thread.
If you wish to stay in denial you can repeatedly state that I have not presented enough evidence without specifically engaging in details.

Ok Guys this can go on forever and achieve nothing.

Lets take a break and watch this!


http://www.metacafe.com/watch/87118/pissing_contest/

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/87118/pissing_contest/

And let's get back on topics.... 1801

[Joe King]

In some ways all people are biased too one degree or another......But bias can in fact blind one to fact and or truth so in the outcome what they believe as fact is not so.


Yep.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RsbmjNLQkc

[freespirit]

You're the one waving the "PROOF" flag, which you have described simplisticly as "the definition of proof is: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" in the other thread.
If you wish to stay in denial you can repeatedly state that I have not presented enough evidence without specifically engaging in details.

ACTUALLY YOU ARE THE ONE THAT RAISED THE PROOF FLAG IN THIS POST: http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?56666-40-Signs-That-America-Is-Rotting-From-The-Inside-Out&p=492163#post492163

you made the statement. i could post a video where a math teacher shows us that 2+2=5...that may be evidence submitted, but is not proof!

simply posting some videos and calling it proof does not make it so.

[hoarder]

In some ways all people are biased too one degree or another.

But does blindly believing something because of bias, is a truth/proof or fact, make it so? No it does not!

In most cases "experts" opinions on any subject is subject to the majority of those experts agreeing on the subject at hand. And as you say, not all experts agree the same on anything. It is like ass holes and opinions, everyone has one!

But bias can in fact blind one to fact and or truth so in the outcome what they believe as fact is not so.Agreed, but his is a nihilistic statement that takes us farther away rather than closer to agreeing on what is true. If only I can get you deniers to be more difinitive.....

[hoarder]

ACTUALLY YOU ARE THE ONE THAT RAISED THE PROOF FLAG IN THIS POST: http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?56666-40-Signs-That-America-Is-Rotting-From-The-Inside-Out&p=492163#post492163

you made the statement. i could post a video where a math teacher shows us that 2+2=5...that may be evidence submitted, but is not proof!

simply posting some videos and calling it proof does not make it so.If someone states that 2+2=5, it can be specifically refuted. If someone simply states that something is false, without specifically defining what is false about it, it cannot be refuted.

[freespirit]

but you cannot effectively tell me that what you are presenting is true either...

[hoarder]

but you cannot effectively tell me that what you are presenting is true either...I already did. Can you refute anything I stated or will you simply keep up your circular reasoning that I have not?

[Dogman]

Can you two take it to thunderdome and get over it? Even if this thread is horders , it is now public property, until he decides to lock it.

[Quad66]

Acknowledging the existence of prehistoric European settlements in North America may be difficult for certain Indian groups, but it poses no threat to the broader Multiculturalist/La Raza Cosmica agenda.

Which holds that the Americas are-- and always were--destined to be a melting pot.

[Dogman]

Acknowledging the existence of prehistoric European settlements in North America may be difficult for certain Indian groups, but it poses no threat to the broader Multiculturalist/La Raza Cosmica agenda.

Which holds that the Americas are-- and always were--destined to be a melting pot. Fully agree!

[Joe King]

Sure you didn't mean Boogie Man & the Soultrain?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unZPXyFnsR4

[Dogman]

Thanks joe for the derail. Knew it was a matter of time before the gasoline.

[hoarder]

Acknowledging the existence of prehistoric European settlements in North America may be difficult for certain Indian groups, but it poses no threat to the broader Multiculturalist/La Raza Cosmica agenda.

Which holds that the Americas are-- and always were--destined to be a melting pot.Destiny? Probably true considering that Khazars hold our destiny.

"The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races...and by the establishment of a world republic in which everywhere the Jews will exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this New World Order the Children of Israel...will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition..." (Karl Marx in a letter to Baruch Levy, quoted in Review de Paris, June 1, 1928, p. 574)

[hoarder]

Can you two take it to thunderdome and get over it? Even if this thread is horders , it is now public property, until he decides to lock it.I'm not a thread closer. Taking a discussion where ad hominem is accepted as the norm resolves nothing. If Freespirit refuses to specifically refute what I posted, I have no choice but to put him on my ignore list where he can keep Joe King company.

[freespirit]

I'm not a thread closer. Taking a discussion where ad hominem is accepted as the norm resolves nothing. If Freespirit refuses to specifically refute what I posted, I have no choice but to put him on my ignore list where he can keep Joe King company.


...an honor, i am sure...

[freespirit]

I already did. Can you refute anything I stated or will you simply keep up your circular reasoning that I have not?

..goes both ways, slick...

[Neuro]

IMO it doesn't really matter who was in North America first, nor anywhere else. It may very well be that Europeans inhabited North America first, and then they were killed or effectively fucked out (more or less), by a superior number of asians. However the same thing happened again but in the opposite direction 1-300 years ago... Might is right, and that is the way it has always been, still is today. Even if 'Europeans' were the first to inhabit North-America 10-15.000 years ago, they probably had more in common culturally with the asians that came later (if that is true), than the Europeans that came 100-500 years ago, that was way more advanced than the indians technologically.

Making a case for Europeans having a greater right to America because they were first is a weak one IMO, even if they were. However a stronger case for them is that they were technologically superior when they arrived a few hundred years ago.

Might is right, that is the history of humankind. If you don't want to get wiped out, you have to be smarter than your opponent...

[Eyebone]

Mr. Neuro,

The fact that Caucasian types were here very early, possibly earlier than the excepted theoretical time line of Asian migration, should at least eliminate the special treatment given to the "red man".

Also it should eliminate one source of White guilt.

Did anyone catch what type of spear or arrow point was embedded in Kennewick Man?

[Neuro]

Mr. Neuro,

The fact that Caucasian types were here very early, possibly earlier than the excepted theoretical time line of Asian migration, should at least eliminate the special treatment given to the "red man".

Also it should eliminate one source of White guilt.

Did anyone catch what type of spear or arrow point was embedded in Kennewick Man?As I understood it he had his skull broken, probably something blunt, like a rock or a piece of wood smacked in his head...

[Neuro]

Btw I don't think anyone should be treated any differently than anyone else, who is a citizen of a country...

[Joe King]

Btw I don't think anyone should be treated any differently than anyone else, who is a citizen of a country...

Oh, c'mon now! What kinda fun would there be in that? lol :D [/sarc]

[hoarder]

IMO it doesn't really matter who was in North America first, nor anywhere else. It may very well be that Europeans inhabited North America first, and then they were killed or effectively fucked out (more or less), by a superior number of asians. However the same thing happened again but in the opposite direction 1-300 years ago... Might is right, and that is the way it has always been, still is today. Even if 'Europeans' were the first to inhabit North-America 10-15.000 years ago, they probably had more in common culturally with the asians that came later (if that is true), than the Europeans that came 100-500 years ago, that was way more advanced than the indians technologically.

Making a case for Europeans having a greater right to America because they were first is a weak one IMO, even if they were. However a stronger case for them is that they were technologically superior when they arrived a few hundred years ago.

Might is right, that is the history of humankind. If you don't want to get wiped out, you have to be smarter than your opponent...Agreed. It only matters in terms of social engineering. Hopefully the truth will demolish the "victim status" that Indians hold at the expense of Whites. Most likely it will not. Media and academia have done a fine job of marginalizing, obscuring and covering up what the remains of the ancient Europeans tell us.

In a sane and healthy society such "victim status" would not exist anyway.

[Joe King]

Agreed. It only matters in terms of social engineering. Hopefully the truth will demolish the "victim status" that Indians hold at the expense of Whites. Most likely it will not. Media and academia have done a fine job of marginalizing, obscuring and covering up what the remains of the ancient Europeans tell us.

In a sane and healthy society such "victim status" would not exist anyway.How do you know that the ones you're talking about weren't invaders themselves that were fought off by those already here? How can you prove that wasn't the case?

[Eyebone]

How do you know that the ones you're talking about weren't invaders themselves that were fought off by those already here? How can you prove that wasn't the case?

First, we have to get rid of the law that states that any human remains of a certain antiquity are "indian", and cannot be studied.

That law prevents real science and real answers.

[JDRock]

or...how can you prove ther were not?? i guess it comes down to will you bow before the godess of political correctness, or will we reserve the right to make descisions that are unpopular..

[Joe King]

or...how can you prove ther were not?? i guess it comes down to will you bow before the godess of political correctness, or will we reserve the right to make descisions that are unpopular..No, what it comes down to is ones personal bias. You obviously have one. ie ignore/discredit anything that doesn't support your pre-existing view.

Bottom line is that no one can really say for sure anything 10,000 years ago happened one way or another and/or whose land was whose. IMHO, you're really stretchin' it in trying to prove your superiority over all other races.

[hoarder]

I remember a giant human mandible was found in Texas before all this was known. No one could figure out it's origin.

"My people say that the tribe we exterminated had reddish hair. I have some of their hair, which has been handed down from father to son. I have a dress which has been in our family a great many years, trimmed with the reddish hair. I am going to wear it some time when I lecture. It is called a mourning dress, and no one has such a dress but my family." Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins Life Among the Piutes: Their Wrongs and Claims

The Paiute Indian legends describe a race of red-haired giants called Si-te-cahs. Like their red-haired counterparts , The Ronnongwetowanca and Adena giants of the Ohio River Valley {See: The Mound Builders}, The Si-te-cahs were the enemies of many Indian tribes of the region. also according to the Paiutes, the Si-Te-Cah were hostile and warlike and practiced cannibalism.

The Si-Te-Cah and the Paiutes were at war, and after a long struggle a coalition of tribes trapped the remaining Si-Te-Cah in Lovelock Cave. When they refused to come out and be slaughtered, the Indians piled brush before the mouth of lovelock cave and set it on fire, annihilating The Si-Te-Cah .

http://nephiliman.com/ancient_giants_sitecah.htm


The Unexplained: An Illustrated Guide to the World's Natural and Paranormal Mysteries by Karl P. N. Shuker reports that in 1911, Guano [bat excrement] miners discovered a treasure trove of prehistoric artifacts at Lovelock Cave, [the same cave in which per Paiute legend states was where the Si-te-cah were slaughtered] above the southeastern shore of Humboldt Sink. Archeologists from the Nevada Historical Society and the University of California believe the cave was occupied from approximately 1500 B.C. until a few hundred years before the white man appeared in the region . Red-haired mummies and skeletal remains ranging from 6 and a half feet to 8 feet tall were discovered in lovelock cave . Some skulls recovered from Lovelock Cave can still be seen in museums in Lovelock and Winnemucca, Nevada.

[hoarder]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1mPD3jbF5k

[Neuro]

First, we have to get rid of the law that states that any human remains of a certain antiquity are "indian", and cannot be studied.

That law prevents real science and real answers.
Was Bin Laden indian?


Sorry for the derail...

Btw that is a ridiculos law!

[Tumbleweed]

I don't know who was here first and it doesn't matter all that much to me because I'm here now. My mother found what appears to me to be a stone knife on a ridge not far from where I live. She took it to the school of mines and technology and they said it was 5 to 7000 years old.

Some of the injuns I saw in Browning, Mt looked to me like they had some negro in their ancestry and that would figure because the injuns wanted to get their women bred to the black man Lewis and Clark had with them.

I shop at walmart and so do all the Lakota Sioux injuns from the res. There's a woman from china that has worked there off and on for several years. It always amazes me how much the injuns look like that chinese woman when they are face to face in the check out line.

The white people and injuns have been mixing where I live ever since they met up. If they weren't killing each other they were breeding and making babies and they still are.

[hoarder]

Another video for those interested in the subject:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLV9A8P00bw&feature=player_detailpage

[End Times]

I love to mindfuck people by telling them I am a "Native American of Wholly European Ancestry."


10062

https://dailystormer.name/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/1546224517961.png

[madfranks]

I love to mindfuck people by telling them I am a "Native American of Wholly European Ancestry."


10062

https://dailystormer.name/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/1546224517961.png

I like that, I'll have to start using that one!