Out of Pod Experience

Yep. That's right, your text books are feeding you bullshit. Here is the current evolutionary model of modern man and their migration across the world to North America. Now take it and wipe your ass with it, because it is not worth the paper that it is printed on. Like the "old food pyramid" that talked up grains and talked down meats, leading to an obese human population, diabetes, heart disease and everything else that comes with a high carb diet, low in protein and good fats, your idea of how YOU came into being is... wrong.



Lets Take A Look At The Current Evolutionary Theory (From Wikipedia)


1. Primates diverge from other mammals about 85 million years ago
2. Gorilla's and Chimpanzees diverge around 4-5 million years ago
3. Homo Habilis evolved around 2.3 million years ago (first positive evidence of stone tool usage)
4. Homo Erectus leaves Africa and reaches Europe and Asia about 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago
5. The forerunners of modern humans evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago

According to our most modern theories, the dawn of modern homo sapiens occured in Africa between 60,000 to 80,000 years ago. Man's migration out of Africa has been "documented" at about 50,000 years for central Asia and 40,000 years for Europe.

The Last Ice Age occurred about 10-,000 to 22,000 years ago, and presumably created a land bridge between Alaska and Russia, allowing man to reach North America.




Well... Lets Examine Some New Evidence


Evidence of man in North America +50,000 years ago
Evidence of man in North America up to 250,000 to 300,000 years ago (Full Documentary 'Youtube')
...ignore the UFO moto...it actually is an excellent documentary the youtube poster is just an idiot.




Your School Books Were Wrong


There is now enough little known (and even suppressed) evidence to STRONGLY suggest that mankind did NOT cross the land bridge to North America during the last Ice age, but during some PREVIOUS ice age long before our last one 10,000- 20,000 years ago. There is evidence suggesting that mankind, or some version of mankind, were making fire and using stone tools in north America tens of thousands of years ago and long prior to when your text books said that they were supposed to be.

The current theory, at present, appears to be completely incorrect. It is not official yet because scientists like to act like the same spoiled children that populate these forums. But the evidence is there and the evidence is STRONG.




Lets Look At How This New Evidence Effects The Current Theory


If mankind was in north America 50,000 years ago, they would have had to arrive in North America during one of the previous ice ages and at a time when modern humans were "supposedly" just arriving in Europe. They would have also been making fire and using tools, in North America, only 10,000 years or so AFTER they evolved in Africa.


If Mankind was in North America as far back as 250,000 years ago (which some evidence strongly suggests) then they would have had to cross a land bridge from Asia to Alaska in an even MORE DISTANT Ice age. People, making fire and stone tools, in North America, a quarter of a million years ago during a time when, we are told, that the forerunners of mankind were just beginning to turn into us in Africa.



The evidence that is beginning to turn up at the turn of this new century strongly contradicts what you thought was true about how you came into being. Human beings could be far older then anyone has yet to realize, and that means there could be a massive forgotten history that we have no record of. The consequences of which could be immense.

The whole Evolutionary Model is just theory, not just the part about human evolution.

For now it's the best we've got, so we just have to make do with it.
Either that or believe in a metaphysical Supreme Being, or proginator Aliens seeding the planet ..
or whatever other rational/irrational system you feel comfortable with.

Neandetals were already in Europe when the 'modern humans' arrived, and there are claims that we did and did not crossbreed
There was an early sub-species already in the far east/orient when they got there, noone is saying anything about breeding habits there.
And there are newer theories suggesting a 3rd earlier sub-species in the pacific islands region that modern humans 'bred' with

In 400 years people will laugh at the concept we have for Evolution and say "They believed that !! What were they smoking??"

The hell we didn't... I present as evidence the seedy depths the internet goes to that says everything about what we will or will not stick our dicks into

That's not an evolutionary model for the emergence of anatomically modern humans, that's a dispersion model for human populations.
Those are very different, even if somewhat related things.
Nothing about the core ideas regarding actual evolution itself is under debate in here as far as I can see.
Please adjust terminology to avoid confusion.

So what's the big deal anyway ? That we maybe got the dates pretty darn wrong ? Or that maybe the evolutionary tree of modern man is not necessarily only branching but possibly also re-merging ?
That's not completely revolutionizing anything, it's just clarifying the details.
Important and interesting details, but details nevertheless, and most vitally, NOT SUFFICIENTLY TESTED alternative explanations of those particular details and/or evidence they're based on.

In fact, confirming the authenticity of new evidence and ruling out alternative explanations for them in case they appear to be genuine and contradicting established theories first is just good sense before going ahead half-cocked and rewriting the currently generally accepted theories. There's too many cranks and too much falsified evidence to afford to do otherwise.
It's not like there's a giant conspiracy to make people believe "XYZZY" when in fact "XYZZX" happened, it's just that there's not yet sufficient proof that went through the usual channels for long enough to be considered worthy of teaching instead of what we're pretty sure is fairly close to what happened.

So, yeah, a few details in science books are wrong.
Big surprise and big whoop.
We already knew that (well, most of us did).
What's in there is "our nearly current best guess based on previously trusted data", it's not "what really actually happened".
There's a metric buttload of things we got wrong earlier for every thing we got a bit righter more recently, and that's no secret.
A lot of the things we take as fact today might very well be proven not quite correct later on, and that's no secret either.
That's just how science works.

After all, science is not a monolithic unchangeable thing, that's the job of religion - science constantly alters to fit the evidence EVENTUALLY.
Sometimes it feels like it's taking its gorram sweet time to do so, but it always eventually does.
And science text books take even longer to get updated, while most of them by design having to SOUND as if they tout the absolute truth (as opposed to a slightly older best guess).
After all, those are learning tools, you can't just datadump everything we think we know in full detail on a learning mind, you have to build a knowledge skeleton based on generally unlikely to be incorrect data (while not sounding insecure about it) then portion out the meat on it slowly, so it can gradually build up, while you also start explaining that those are not stone tablets carved by a supernatural force containing the ultimate truths of the universe.
THEN you can finally introduce the uncertain details. Not sooner.

So... did man only go out of Africa 100k-50k years ago, or did some get out a lot earlier, or something else entirely ?
Truth is, we just don't know with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, but most of the evidence so far points towards the former.
If eventually the evidence for any of the latter is not otherwise explained away (which might as well be), science WILL HAVE TO adjust to explain it, and the path towards that new explanation will be a fun one to be on, if you're a researcher.
IF the current explanation is wrong, we will keep making discoveries that contradict it, very little at first, but more and more with subsequent genuine discoveries. A single discovery could be a fake, or incorrectly analyzed, or any other number of things, but if there's something that's sure is that if the truth is different, there's more than just a handful of pieces of evidence to be found, and some of them will be beyond alternate interpretation, evidence which will eventually get found in increasing numbers as time goes on.
Meanwhile, until that happens, we go with our previous best approximate guess, out of pragmatism if nothing else.

We got here using the highly advanced technology of wooden oval shaped bowls powered by cloth.

Since what we know about that time could fill a thimble maybe they came here by boats that are now decomposed and moved inland. Native Americans had a pretty big civilization that was destroyed by disease before we got here and a very poor verbal based historical record from my limited understanding pre-colonial North America.

Would it be a stretch if they came here the same way the vikings did but much earlier.

One of the lost episodes from the first doctor covered this.

He once had about 100 companions with him that crashed on some unknown planet. turns out it was EARTH! *Dr who theme*

The last few times that Akita and Eternum crossed paths it led to some epic debates (read:discussion, not the standard bicker model of GD).

Gentlemen, ready your popcorn machines.

TLDR; If the theory did change it most likely wouldnt change the world. This is aimed mostly at Civilisation not the out of Africa theory or migration.

I hate to break it to you, but the idea that this will somehow change the world is pretty moot. It will change how scientific communities think, after the older Anthropologists, Archaeologists and others die off and the younger more open minded ones replace them only to become as attached to the "current" established theories as possible. (It all goes round and round)

150 years ago every scientist knew, just knew that history went like this:

Europe > Rome > Greece / Persia > Egypt / Babylon > The Beginning Of The World.

130 years ago it looked like this:

Europe > Rome > Greece / Persia > Egypt / Babylon > Sumeria > The Beginning Of The World.

Today it's pretty much the same.

Europe > Rome > Greece / Persia > Egypt / Babylon > Sumeria > Proto civilisations in the Indus Valley and South Asia > The Ice Age > ????? > Profit.

Did these changes change the world? Not much. People are people, we adapt. Discovering new history wont pay the rent or put dinner on the table.

The current model is based on fossils, we cant theorise what we can't find. (Well you can, but then it gets a bit daft).

I actually had blazing rows with my lecturers and very nearly got kicked out of the Oxford Union in 2006 for my ideas on Pre Historic history as they are "wild eyed and far fetched."

A popular theory I subscribe to as did a lot of my peers in uni and shared by a fair number of Anthropologists who actually know what a bloody farm works is pretty simple. Where do most people live today? The sea coast. Why? Because most of the prime farm land can be found there or nearby due to it recently being underwater and fertilised by tens of thousands of years of fish dying. This means we can get lots of food so we can create division of labour and before you know it you have us.

In the Ice Age, where was the sea coast? Much further down hill. Why? Because the water was locked up in ice and the land was just as fertile due to the reasons above. (Things do love that yummy, yummy silt. Egypt still works on this principle funnily enough.) What happened when the ice melted? The water went up and the people had to flee to higher ground. (Behold your flood myths and so forth) But it's logical to believe these people benefited like us and split labour and so on.

Why can't we find the ruins? Because getting universities / trusts / private individuals to pay money for submersibles and massive research ships and trained drivers costs a bloody fortune / they're buried under possibly hundreds of feet of silt (Just look how buried Roman ruins are, sea ruins are a hell of a lot worse than this and the great age of discovery of the 19th / early 20th century was the high point.... unless you can find another Troy good luck. Try Dinosaur's they're a bigger crowd puller.

A lot of people forget that humans today haven't changed much from our ancestors thousands or tens of thousands of years ago. Our cranial capacity is pretty much the same so we have the same kind of minds. A master sculptor or master craftsman today didn't become a master because of modern technology, he refined his skills using his hands, his eyes and his brain. Shouldn't we be putting Da Vinci and the other Renaissance painters to shame? But their art is still regarded as some of the best ever. A lot of Anthropologists and Archaeologists wouldn't know a hard days labour if you beat them with a shovel let alone being good with their hands.

People will use the tools they have, there's nothing dramatic about arrow heads, take a child and teach him how to make one, and give him 20-25 years and he'll be making damn fine arrow heads.

Largely it comes down to arrogance. We are arrogant, we live in the "now". In 100 years they will think they're the best because they live in the "now" and that we are stupid. It's human nature. We like to think its amazing that our stupid. cave dwelling ancestors could do this. But they had the same (or roughly the same) minds as us. If we dumped you in a forest and had to survive, they'd do a lot better than we would. So who is the stupid one?

So to sum it up, a lot of Anthropologists and Archaeologists, especially now given the interest in pre history are looking at this. But humans dont fossilise well so "fact" is bloody difficult to come buy. But who knows, that's the fun in the digging / theorising / looking.

Now who wants to give me $100mil and 50 skilled divers and a research vessel? I want to go excavate the ruins found off the coast of India after the South Asia Tsunami back in 06. They've been underwater for roughly 8-10,000 years!

Edit: Von Daniken bits removed because I cant read and misread a line.

Why ancient people built pyramids?

Because they could, they figured how to, and because they're COOL.

I would build a pyramid if I could. It's like having your own pocket-size mountain, they're even made of the same stone as mountains!

Pyramids are as tough and high as a giant d*** and somehow look like a giant breast too (specially the Central American ones with that nipple-temples on top). They're masculine and feminine all in one and the vistas are great from the top.

Pyramids are cool. So why should ancient people NOT build pyramids if they could and they figured how to?

Edit: Actually after a second reread of the 2nd post I realised I did make a mistake and misread a line about not aliens. I apologise for this. My original post has been edited to reflect this.

This became popular with Von Danikens works (it makes up a big part of Chariots of the Gods and other works of his). Before him this was pretty niche and the realm of Biblical scholars and some really crazy people in Cambridge who thought the ancients could speak to God.

I know you didn't mention him, but I draw the conclusion that you were drawing influence from his works. If not then I apologise. I just get irked when people even think about linking aliens in with human evolution and "Gods" have become the new aliens in pseudo science circles. I try and stay away from mythology as much as I can. Biblical studies are ok, but when it starts talking about Gods I draw a line.

I did watch the video and read your post. And as I said I'm not commenting on the out of Africa theory or early human migrations, I never studied this and it's pretty much held together with duct tape. There used to be a really nice all rounded theory that people came from East Asia and that somehow black people were "other" like how aborigines were until the 60s. I much prefered Simon Bearders work on the Aquatic Ape theory which is wonderful and much more fun.

Honestly, I agree with the connection links. I suggest you read Atlantis : The antediluvian world by Donnelly. Fascinating book if hard to read and there is some fact in there. Donnelly goes on a lot about old Greek myths and so on, but once again the Atlantis hunters have turned it into pseudo science so any real research is bloody impossible to do now.

There's a wonderful article published in the journal anthropology back in 07 if you have the paid subscription about testing an ancient Egyptian boat found in Alexandria harbour. (Obviously a replica) They managed to sale it all the way to Spain and back so if it can cross the Med it "could" have cross from Africa to South America. And the boats the Polynesians used were way more rickety compared to that thing. It was something to do with the hull, it was much more balanced and used holds full of water to prevent capsizing.

All I was saying is don't get too excited about ground break discoveries. Nothing we've found yet has excited people enough to keep it from becoming fish and chip wrappers the next day.

Yes, I have become very cynical