Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 34

Thread: I found a series on the origins of humanity in north america and other places

  1. #16
    sleepless in basedworld ALCATRAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    9,816
    Rep Power
    46

    Default

    glad this thread is gettin sum attention, i think i'll continue watchin those vids ....

  2. #17

    Default

    their whole idea is fraudulent based purely on the fact they think Pangea supercontinent was only 10,000 years ago, when in scientific reality it was billions.

    This is pseodo science, not even done well.

    It will fool people without knowledge, but those who actually know abotu shit they are talking about will just laugh at most of this.


  3. #18
    The Smell of The Future LORD NOSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Double Barreled Snot Gun
    Age
    4
    Posts
    15,094
    Rep Power
    75

    Default

    this is a portion of your post that got deleted

    Quote Originally Posted by GHOSTLACED View Post
    there was already a thread on this dumb shit.
    don't come up in here with all that old lady complaining nonsense - why haven't you learned your lesson


    Quote Originally Posted by GHOSTLACED View Post
    why the fuck was my post deleted?

    this place fucking sucks, on some ignorant shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by GHOSTLACED View Post
    Are you fucking kidding? IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN HERE now Sunnys in charge. It was there, i saw it, in light blue text.

    where have you been lol, do you not know how sunnys been using this place?

    Im not gonna take the time to write it out again, fuck this place, im sick of making posts and seeing them deleted.

    Fuck Sunny, fuck KTL, fuck the nigga who put this guy in charge.
    Quote Originally Posted by GHOSTLACED View Post
    fuck that whats the point, nice sig vid btw

    now watch the rest of your silly post disappear

  4. #19
    sleepless in basedworld ALCATRAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    9,816
    Rep Power
    46

    Default

    damn is that erykah badu ... i wanna do nasty things to her

  5. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GHOSTLACED View Post
    their whole idea is fraudulent based purely on the fact they think Pangea supercontinent was only 10,000 years ago, when in scientific reality it was billions.
    they dont mention pangea but they mention the bridge between siberia and alaska, and sailing between continents.

  6. #21
    Dinosaur Hunter Slippy The Pimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Shadowland
    Age
    36
    Posts
    7,517
    Rep Power
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Man View Post
    What exactly is a "Red Indian" (that term is misleading and shows a disregard for the people who are called this name)? What makes them different from the other Indians?
    I used the term Red Indian, because that's what the narrator uses to describe the tribal people of North and South America. What I am referring to are the Original people of the western hemisphere. What makes the french different from the spanish? What makes the Zulu different from the Igbo?

    How is the narrator completely biased when he's given the history and culture of the indigenous people who settled in the Americas at different points in time?
    He doesn't give any insight into the culture. He just points out some similarities between cultures, he draws his conclusions based on outer appearances.

    He does not go into language, culture, religion, in depth.

    That's all.

    Why mention the narrator being biased against one group of people and not the other groups of people that weren't mentioned? You sound biased. The "Red Indians" weren't the first, second or third group of indigenous people to settle in the western hemisphere.
    I didn't make any claims any which way so I can't really have bias. I'm just telling people here to look at all the facts. I'm just trying tell people not to take the word of anyone just because it sounds good. I would do the same if the narrator was white, black, green, brown, purple.........etc.


    The "Red Indians" are the last group of indigenous people to settle in what's now known as North and South America, not the first.
    Native Americans have a rich history and culture. Many of the tribes were pre-literate, or rather- posessed a strict oral traditon. Because most Native Americans were killed from famine, disease, and war, much of that history has been lost. However they did have some written history.

    Speaking strictly from my own cultural perspective, we had our winter counts that were written on hides of animals. When European settlers came they destroyed much of that history. However some of our oral history remained. Yet, because many native Americans do not posses influence in academia a lot our oral history is disregarded as legend.

    And that's as bias as I can get. I don't know if "Black" people were here first too, or whites, or Asians or whoever. I don't how much of interracial tribal breeding took place. I do know there were people on this continent. I do know that history for the western hemisphere interacting with the rest of world date far back then most people will acknowledge.

    The Olmec came BEFORE the "Red Indians" yet they weren't the first either there's two other major migrations that's not been mentioned, and ever indigenous group of people who migrated to the America's have their origin in this world in the eastern hemisphere more specifically "Africa" and "Asia".
    Respectfully,

    You have as much proof of people immigrating here as I do that some people did not immigrate.

    I think it would be best if we just left it at that.

  7. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasjit View Post
    they dont mention pangea but they mention the bridge between siberia and alaska, and sailing between continents.
    the last video like this tried to tell us that when africa was connected to america,the africans walked over to america

    only problem wwith their theory was that africa was only connected to america abotu a billion years before humans or any animal we know now even existed


  8. #23

    Default

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Black Man
    What exactly is a "Red Indian" (that term is misleading and shows a disregard for the people who are called this name)? What makes them different from the other Indians?

    I used the term Red Indian, because that's what the narrator uses to describe the tribal people of North and South America. What I am referring to are the Original people of the western hemisphere. What makes the french different from the spanish? What makes the Zulu different from the Igbo?

    THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE.....THE 1ST PEOPLE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE WERE NOT THE "RED INDIANS" ALTHOUGH THEY ARE ORIGINAL (BLACK) PEOPLE TOO. THEY (THE PEOPLE CALLED "RED INDIANS") WERE NOT THE FIRST TO BE IN THE WEST.

    IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT MAKES THE "RED INDIANS" DIFFERENT FROM OTHER "INDIANS" ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SAY, I DON'T KNOW.



    Quote:
    How is the narrator completely biased when he's given the history and culture of the indigenous people who settled in the Americas at different points in time?
    He doesn't give any insight into the culture. He just points out some similarities between cultures, he draws his conclusions based on outer appearances.

    IF THIS IS THE CASE, THEN YOUR STATEMENT IS STILL IN ERROR BECAUSE THE NARRATOR IS NOT COMPLETELY BIASED. JUST AS YOU SAID, HE POINTED OUT SOME SIMILARITIES BETWEEN CULTURES....IF THE NARRATOR WAS COMPLETELY BIASED THEN THAT WOULDN'T BE THE CASE.

    WAS THE NARRATOR TRYING TO FOCUS OR EVEN GET INTO THE CULTURE? HOW MANY DIFFERENT "TRIBAL" CULTURES WOULD THE NARRATOR HAVE TO EXPRESS? SURELY NOT ONE OR TWO FOR THERE WERE NUMEROUS TRIBES WITH DIFFERENT CULTURES IN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH. THEN THE NARRATOR WOULD ALSO HAVE TO GET INTO THE CULTURE AT VARIOUS POINTS IN TIME.

    He does not go into language, culture, religion, in depth.

    NOT GOING INTO THE LANGUAGE CULTURE RELIGION IN DEPTH IS NOT BEING BIASED. JUST DEALING WITH ONE TRIBAL LANGUAGE IN DEPTH WOULD BE A SERIES OF VIDEOS/BOOKS/LECTURES ETC. ETC.

    That's all.

    Quote:
    Why mention the narrator being biased against one group of people and not the other groups of people that weren't mentioned? You sound biased. The "Red Indians" weren't the first, second or third group of indigenous people to settle in the western hemisphere.
    I didn't make any claims any which way so I can't really have bias. I'm just telling people here to look at all the facts. I'm just trying tell people not to take the word of anyone just because it sounds good. I would do the same if the narrator was white, black, green, brown, purple.........etc.

    YOU'RE TELLING THE PEOPLE HERE TO LOOK AT ALL THE FACTS, YET YOU YOURSELF ARE NOT WILLING TO LOOK AT ALL THE FACTS, AND IT SEEMS AS IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE INFORMATION PRESENTED. THAT'S BIASED.

    Quote:
    The "Red Indians" are the last group of indigenous people to settle in what's now known as North and South America, not the first.
    Native Americans have a rich history and culture. Many of the tribes were pre-literate, or rather- posessed a strict oral traditon. Because most Native Americans were killed from famine, disease, and war, much of that history has been lost. However they did have some written history.

    OK, NOBODY (SPECIFICALLY ME) IS TAKING ANYTHING AWAY FROM THOSE REFERRED TO AS "NATIVE AMERICANS" (THOSE SO-CALLED NATIVE AMERICANS NEVER CALLED THEMSELVES NATIVE AMERICANS BTW) THEIR HISTORY OR CULTURE. THEIR HISTORY AND CULTURE FOR THE MOST PART IS NO DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER INDIGENOUS GROUP OF PEOPLE. WASN'T THAT MENTIONED IN THE VIDEO....THE SIMILIARITES? WHY WAS THAT DONE? WHY MENTION SIMILIARITIES?

    Speaking strictly from my own cultural perspective, we had our winter counts that were written on hides of animals. When European settlers came they destroyed much of that history. However some of our oral history remained. Yet, because many native Americans do not posses influence in academia a lot our oral history is disregarded as legend.

    SO BY YOUR OWN ACCOUNT, YOU CAN'T KNOW YOUR OWN (PEOPLE'S)HISTORY ONLY A PORTION OF IT....THE PORTION THAT'S BEEN PRESERVED. WITH THAT ALONE, YOU'RE IN NO POSITION TO SAY WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW. THAT KNOWLEDGE/HISTORY HAS BEEN DESTROYED. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS WRITTEN ON THOSE ANIMAL SKINS.

    YOU SPEAK OF LEGEND.....INTERESTING BECAUSE THERE'S LEGENDS OF A PEOPLE BEING HERE BEFORE THE NATIVE AMERICANS AND THIS IS COMING FROM THEIR ORAL/WRITTEN HISTORY AND TRADITIONS.

    And that's as bias as I can get. I don't know if "Black" people were here first too, or whites, or Asians or whoever. I don't how much of interracial tribal breeding took place. I do know there were people on this continent. I do know that history for the western hemisphere interacting with the rest of world date far back then most people will acknowledge.

    SO MANY THINGS YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW, SO WHY TELL PEOPLE TO DISREGARD EVERYTHING MENTIONED IN THE ENTIRE VIDEO SERIES WHEN YOU YOURSELF SIMPLY DOESN'T KNOW?

    Quote:
    The Olmec came BEFORE the "Red Indians" yet they weren't the first either there's two other major migrations that's not been mentioned, and ever indigenous group of people who migrated to the America's have their origin in this world in the eastern hemisphere more specifically "Africa" and "Asia".
    Respectfully,

    You have as much proof of people immigrating here as I do that some people did not immigrate.

    YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I HAVE AND WHAT I DON'T HAVE. BECAUSE YOU LACK SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN THE NEXT PERSON LACKS SOMETHING. AGAIN, YOU'RE SPEAKING ON THINGS AS IF YOU KNOW WHEN YOU SIMPLY DON'T KNOW. YOU SPEAK AS THOUGH YOU'RE AN AUTHORITY DISMISSING THE ENTIRE VIDEO SERIES AND THEN ADMITTING THAT YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW....YOU ADMITTED THAT YOU CAN'T KNOW BECAUSE THAT HISTORY/KNOWLEDGE HAS BEEN DESTROYED.

    I think it would be best if we just left it at that.

  9. #24
    Dinosaur Hunter Slippy The Pimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Shadowland
    Age
    36
    Posts
    7,517
    Rep Power
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Man View Post
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Black Man
    What exactly is a "Red Indian" (that term is misleading and shows a disregard for the people who are called this name)? What makes them different from the other Indians?

    I used the term Red Indian, because that's what the narrator uses to describe the tribal people of North and South America. What I am referring to are the Original people of the western hemisphere. What makes the french different from the spanish? What makes the Zulu different from the Igbo?

    THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE.....THE 1ST PEOPLE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE WERE NOT THE "RED INDIANS" ALTHOUGH THEY ARE ORIGINAL (BLACK) PEOPLE TOO. THEY (THE PEOPLE CALLED "RED INDIANS") WERE NOT THE FIRST TO BE IN THE WEST.

    IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT MAKES THE "RED INDIANS" DIFFERENT FROM OTHER "INDIANS" ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SAY, I DON'T KNOW.



    Quote:
    How is the narrator completely biased when he's given the history and culture of the indigenous people who settled in the Americas at different points in time?
    He doesn't give any insight into the culture. He just points out some similarities between cultures, he draws his conclusions based on outer appearances.

    IF THIS IS THE CASE, THEN YOUR STATEMENT IS STILL IN ERROR BECAUSE THE NARRATOR IS NOT COMPLETELY BIASED. JUST AS YOU SAID, HE POINTED OUT SOME SIMILARITIES BETWEEN CULTURES....IF THE NARRATOR WAS COMPLETELY BIASED THEN THAT WOULDN'T BE THE CASE.

    WAS THE NARRATOR TRYING TO FOCUS OR EVEN GET INTO THE CULTURE? HOW MANY DIFFERENT "TRIBAL" CULTURES WOULD THE NARRATOR HAVE TO EXPRESS? SURELY NOT ONE OR TWO FOR THERE WERE NUMEROUS TRIBES WITH DIFFERENT CULTURES IN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH. THEN THE NARRATOR WOULD ALSO HAVE TO GET INTO THE CULTURE AT VARIOUS POINTS IN TIME.

    He does not go into language, culture, religion, in depth.

    NOT GOING INTO THE LANGUAGE CULTURE RELIGION IN DEPTH IS NOT BEING BIASED. JUST DEALING WITH ONE TRIBAL LANGUAGE IN DEPTH WOULD BE A SERIES OF VIDEOS/BOOKS/LECTURES ETC. ETC.

    That's all.

    Quote:
    Why mention the narrator being biased against one group of people and not the other groups of people that weren't mentioned? You sound biased. The "Red Indians" weren't the first, second or third group of indigenous people to settle in the western hemisphere.
    I didn't make any claims any which way so I can't really have bias. I'm just telling people here to look at all the facts. I'm just trying tell people not to take the word of anyone just because it sounds good. I would do the same if the narrator was white, black, green, brown, purple.........etc.

    YOU'RE TELLING THE PEOPLE HERE TO LOOK AT ALL THE FACTS, YET YOU YOURSELF ARE NOT WILLING TO LOOK AT ALL THE FACTS, AND IT SEEMS AS IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE INFORMATION PRESENTED. THAT'S BIASED.

    Quote:
    The "Red Indians" are the last group of indigenous people to settle in what's now known as North and South America, not the first.
    Native Americans have a rich history and culture. Many of the tribes were pre-literate, or rather- posessed a strict oral traditon. Because most Native Americans were killed from famine, disease, and war, much of that history has been lost. However they did have some written history.

    OK, NOBODY (SPECIFICALLY ME) IS TAKING ANYTHING AWAY FROM THOSE REFERRED TO AS "NATIVE AMERICANS" (THOSE SO-CALLED NATIVE AMERICANS NEVER CALLED THEMSELVES NATIVE AMERICANS BTW) THEIR HISTORY OR CULTURE. THEIR HISTORY AND CULTURE FOR THE MOST PART IS NO DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER INDIGENOUS GROUP OF PEOPLE. WASN'T THAT MENTIONED IN THE VIDEO....THE SIMILIARITES? WHY WAS THAT DONE? WHY MENTION SIMILIARITIES?

    Speaking strictly from my own cultural perspective, we had our winter counts that were written on hides of animals. When European settlers came they destroyed much of that history. However some of our oral history remained. Yet, because many native Americans do not posses influence in academia a lot our oral history is disregarded as legend.

    SO BY YOUR OWN ACCOUNT, YOU CAN'T KNOW YOUR OWN (PEOPLE'S)HISTORY ONLY A PORTION OF IT....THE PORTION THAT'S BEEN PRESERVED. WITH THAT ALONE, YOU'RE IN NO POSITION TO SAY WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW. THAT KNOWLEDGE/HISTORY HAS BEEN DESTROYED. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS WRITTEN ON THOSE ANIMAL SKINS.

    YOU SPEAK OF LEGEND.....INTERESTING BECAUSE THERE'S LEGENDS OF A PEOPLE BEING HERE BEFORE THE NATIVE AMERICANS AND THIS IS COMING FROM THEIR ORAL/WRITTEN HISTORY AND TRADITIONS.

    And that's as bias as I can get. I don't know if "Black" people were here first too, or whites, or Asians or whoever. I don't how much of interracial tribal breeding took place. I do know there were people on this continent. I do know that history for the western hemisphere interacting with the rest of world date far back then most people will acknowledge.

    SO MANY THINGS YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW, SO WHY TELL PEOPLE TO DISREGARD EVERYTHING MENTIONED IN THE ENTIRE VIDEO SERIES WHEN YOU YOURSELF SIMPLY DOESN'T KNOW?

    Quote:
    The Olmec came BEFORE the "Red Indians" yet they weren't the first either there's two other major migrations that's not been mentioned, and ever indigenous group of people who migrated to the America's have their origin in this world in the eastern hemisphere more specifically "Africa" and "Asia".
    Respectfully,

    You have as much proof of people immigrating here as I do that some people did not immigrate.

    YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I HAVE AND WHAT I DON'T HAVE. BECAUSE YOU LACK SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN THE NEXT PERSON LACKS SOMETHING. AGAIN, YOU'RE SPEAKING ON THINGS AS IF YOU KNOW WHEN YOU SIMPLY DON'T KNOW. YOU SPEAK AS THOUGH YOU'RE AN AUTHORITY DISMISSING THE ENTIRE VIDEO SERIES AND THEN ADMITTING THAT YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW....YOU ADMITTED THAT YOU CAN'T KNOW BECAUSE THAT HISTORY/KNOWLEDGE HAS BEEN DESTROYED.

    I think it would be best if we just left it at that.
    I wouldn't expect anything less. Peace.

  10. #25

    Default

    ....of the finds in southern California,southwstern Colorado, southern Arizone, the Texas Gulf coast, Punin and Paltacalo in ecuador, and Lagao Santa in eastern Brazil, Gladwin remarded that all deomonstrated....

    .....characteristics which link these various instnaces together and pont to their wide distribution and common ancestry with other Australoid peoples, as do also certain vestigal traces in some modern people, such as the Perieu of Lower California, the Seri on nearby Tiburon Island, and various tribes in Central and South America....People of Australoid type were once widely distributed and survivals of some their features customs and culture are still to be find in isolated localities.

    The Punin Skull, so-called for its discovery in small village by the same name in the Andean region of Ecuador is what Rashidi touts as "the most well documented single piece of evidence for the early presence of Australoids in the prehistoric Americas during the period of Gladwin's writing." Indeed, the skull, accompanied by the remains of an Andean horse, known to have been extinct for over 10,000 years, was heralded by the American Museum of Natural History of New York as the earliest evidence of humans in the Americas. At the same time, it was evidence of Australoid humans in America.

  11. #26

    Default

    The "dean of English anatomists" Sir Arthur Keith, noting the similarities between the skull and those of indigenous Australian women, declared: "The discovery at Punin does compel us to look in the possibility of a Pleistocene invasion of America by an Australoid people." On the other side of the Atlantic, Harvard anthropologist Earnest Hooton echoed Keith in stating that the skull was on "that any competent craniologist would identify as Australian in type." Yet he added much to the bigger picture by following: "It is easier to find Austraoloid-looking dolichocephals in the more ancient burials in the New World than anything in the way of a skull that resembles a Mongoloid." "It is most suggestive that the earliest human skulls found inthe Americas are practically exclusively "long-headed" or what anthropologist term Australoid-Melanesian (i.e. Pacific) in type," wrote Blair Moffett....

  12. #27

    Default

    An author in Pattaya, Thailand observed:

    When we speak of American Indians we have to specifiy whom, because they are even more divefrsified than the Europeans in language, race, and customs. the savants are nowadays mostly of the opinion that the first Americans must have been Negroid (not to be confused with Negroes) or Australoid. The latter were the intrepid travellers who millennia ago peopled the Melanesianislands inthe Pacific, the Australian continent as well as New Guinea and the eastern islands inthe Pacific the Australian continent as well as New Guinea and the eastern islands of Indonesia with among them Timor and Ambon. Remnants of these people can still be found in the south of Thailand where they are called "Sakai" and in Malaysia where they are Orang Asli or "the Original People."

  13. #28

    Default

    Another eminent Harvard anthropologist, Roland Dixon also discerned the Australoid characteristics of crania found throughout the prehistoric remains of the westernmost regions of North America but fearing the reprisal of the academic community, with which he would be put at odds by identifying a unambiguously Black presence there, opted instead to classify these peoples with the more cuphemistic term "Proto-Australoid." Thus the connectionto the dejected, but solidly Black, Aborigine population of Australia was much muted and the relation distorted. Still, Dixon asserted:

    It seems on the whole probable that the Proto-Austroloid must have been one of the earliest, if not the earliest type to spread into the North American continent. On the Pacific coast in California and Lower California it appears to constitute the oldest stratum characterizing as it does the crania from the lower layers of the shell-heaps from the islands of Santa Catalina and San Clemente off the coast and from the extinct Pericue, isolated int eh southern tip of the peninsula of Lower California. It is moreover, prominent among the ancient basket-weavers of northern Arizona who represent probably one of the ealriest peoples inthe whole area. In the northeast the type is of importance among the Iroquois and the southern Algonkian tribes, such as the Lenape.

  14. #29

    Default

    .....consistently refused to recognize the definite implications of the many references by physical anthropologist to such tribes as Australoid or Negroid in the makeup of various Indian tribes - even though veiled by such qualifications as Proto-Negroid or pseudo-Australoid. Terms such as these will be found only in technical papers on physical anthropology, but never in orthodox reconstructions of native American history. We have included them here because we think they cannot be fairly ignored and once you accept them as facts to be reckoned with they turn out to beessential for anunderstanding of the problem since they show that Mongoloid people could not have reached North America before the time of Christ.

    Gladwin makes quite a bold statement i nhis last sentence above, and it drives the question of origins. Not only the origins of the curernt "Mongoloid" face of Native America, but when exactly that transformation was made. As well the same must be known for the earliest migrations of Blacks, and these dates are all the more elusive for their greatr antiquity.

  15. #30
    Dinosaur Hunter Slippy The Pimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Shadowland
    Age
    36
    Posts
    7,517
    Rep Power
    43

    Default

    And these prove what?

    That some people migrated at different points in time.

    That is all. People have been moving around the world for years.

    Get real knowledge on the history of Native Americans. Not this biased BS everyone's been promoting.

    Native Americans that still practice their culture and customs make up less than 1% of American population.

    That translates even less to world population.

    Less than 1%.

    You're promoting oppression.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •