How We Left the Bering Land Bridge Theory and What We Think Now Pt 2

Or… Alexandria Egypt got together with the Ethiopian Atlantean trek to the Gold Coast and sailed to Bravalla Moor at the mouth of the Amazon River to Machu Picchu (Jormungandr Dragon). Took the Mississippi north (Midgaard Serpent). Minnesota River to Hudson Bay (Templar from Corpus Christi) and St. Lawrence River to Vineland (Vikings) and returned to European tribes. Irish moved into Europe as Tartars. Toltecs, Aztecs, Incans moved into Baltic Sea to Volga River to battle Huns & Mongols. It reversed in 1201AD to St. Lawrence.

There was a war on the west coast and the redheaded giants were killed and also chased back up the Amur River and their trade depots burned, shuttingdown the fur trade. It takes decent technology to run those guys home against the wind and tides, kinda like the Thunderbird vs Killer Whales war of legend but at any rate the Amur River and Bay of Amore it runs into are nowhere near the Aleutians yet that's where they were chased. And the redheads there had left their Tarim Basin Ket Gaelic as the root language of most of the PNW and central Indian tribes. The Navajo say they had "brought their own Mongols". Those things shed a lot of light on my westcoast history. And the DNA supports the story.

😮so nice to hear truth being told 😮

Consider: Rand Flemeth Pole Major Geologic Chages, as Well as Hopi Global Migrations 4 Times Now in 5th Change

in Other Words Govt Modern Education Lies, Who Refuse to See people were Trading Globally Over 100,000 BC

i think indians from asia have been here way longer than is understood, and native americans have a claim to the land, however my research into the x chromosome says the x in central asia is not ancestral to x2a either, and the x haplogroup in central asia is also a more recent migration than that found in Europe. i'd love any sources you could cite for this ancestral asian group

1 thing that really bugs me. If you're going to discuss science understand the basic lingo. If one doesn't know the diff between theory and hypothesis, one can't discuss science. A theory is proven w data: theory of relativity, gravity, etc. A hypothesis is a possible explanation that is not yet proven by data. Most laypeople use the word theory when they mean the other.

There appears to be a pattern of science being dictated by a prescribed policy (similar to the pandemic). Following the "science" you uncover the policies that dictate the predetermined outcome. In academia, if you want the cushion of tenure, don't think for yourself and remember the equation = Policy > Evidence

Are the parent-families of Europa indigenous or invasive? What is "original?"

Could the racist commenters please explain what racism they are referring to since Solutreans were black.

Clovis entering S America via Panama was highly unlikely, due to the nearly-impossible through Darien Gap near the Columbian frontier. Maps that show that paleoindians walked that route need to prove it. If they didn;t come that way, how DID they go to SA?

Science is in a constant state of the equivalent of the Clovis First Hypothesis, as in firmly gripping to a theory and refuting any and all evidence to the contrary. And the worst is they can't see it due to the incintives of the peer review university and funding system. You must tow the line to get funded work.

This is why alt science is so important. Not they they are right, but they provide a more creative and intuitive system of discovery, away from the rigid scientific system.

Seems like someone owes the "egoistical Clovis-first maniacs' (read "typical conservative scientists") a rather large "thank you", for giving them such a strong incentive to 'prove' the original idea wrong..

Of course,, the 'original' idea, 'Clovis first', wasn't the first; a careful scientist 'believes' nothing, but relies on what is observed— and stands ready to have his observations corrected.

Alas, all scientists have one thing in common. They're all human…

Clovis was Europeans

Your trippin on this justice,white man needs indian atracities to tell! Absolute lefty mouth grope it is! Otherwise a good job! Damn shame though

Since haplogroup b is only found in native Americans, it suggest to me they could've been here all along, with migrations from Asia contributing a c and d later on

It persists because it's interesting, and because fascinating clues were found, not because of Eurocentric obsessions. We people who have spent a lot of time in various sized boats at sea, and are familiar with Eskimo/Inuit lifestyles, would say that your characterization of travel along the North Atlantic Ice is absurd. Generally, this is a fairly informative video (except where you titter and giggle and find yourself so witty), but I really think you're wrong in thinking it's about racist Europeans Americans! There's plenty of them, sadly, but I'm afraid Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley are not among them, nor are at least most people who find the Solutrean Hypothesis fascinating. The diatribe at the end of the video could have been edited out to beneficial effect. For my favorite paleo lithic mystery, look into the Clovis point found and a relict beach in Vermont, made of Ramah Bay chert from Northern Labrador, available only by sea. Seaworthy boats were a thing for a very long time.

What about the South American origin of Polynesian crops such as yams?

The distribution of Clovis sites and dates literally disproves any theory that they came from Asia. Not to mention northern Asian people had no stone technology. They used bones, not stones

It is weird how you are ignoring the Atlantic.

I like first 2/3's of what you presented without too much emotionalism and it seemed objective taking the time to consider all of the evidence.
The last part which I stopped at 53 minutes, I wonder about. I do not think you are completely wrong, but there seem to be things that you did not discuss. You seem to be on such a moral high horse to oppose white inspired racism that you did not even bother look at what peoples were inhabiting western europe in prehistoric times. The aboriginal populations were according the limited genetic evidence that we have were not light skinned and were genetically different from those of descended from Anatolian farming derived folk or the later Indo-Europeans. Infact before some of these lighter skin folk came there were also likely a lot of Sammi type folk that migrated there first, but the sammi may not have been the same as the original hunter gathers.
Richard Thornton, a creek native american, claims to have found northwest European bronze age artifacts in the southern eastern USA. He thinks that they are Sammi in origin. My own most limited reading suggests that people on the shores of northwest europe did have boats. Those of Doggerland certainly had boats. But if anyone came this way from there, they were not nordic white types until much later in perhaps the late bronze age or early iron age.
I see no mention of the pelagic hunting red paint people of the new england and canadian coasts. Is it possible that these native americans might have sailed to europe or was it was going both ways.
I am not the archeologist here, but have enough experience to know when I am not getting a well reasoned presentation. I strongly dislike self righteous attitudes and they have no good place in science. I dislike racists of any stripe or hue.

Maybe I will just continue to believe the stories of my ancestors: that we have always been here. Or maybe I'll see evidence that ancestors of mine, a very long time ago came here from Siberia. One thing I know is that we are all here now, and as humans, we are overpopulating the planet, and that almost all of our problems arise from that. What are we to do about it? Perhaps we should have fewer kids, while trying to find legitimate ways of living more harmoniously in our surroundings. I do not have faith that we will do any of that. We make electric cars so that we will not have to rely so much on fossil fuels, but we aren't really using less fossil fuels. We still have to burn coal and oil to make the electricity, and we still have to mine the lithium to make the batteries, so we are just removing the damage from our sight. We are like babies that way. If you hide something from a baby, in that baby's mind, it doesn't exist any more. If you don't have to pump the fossil fuel into your car anymore, In your mind it does not exist anymore, even though we have to use more fossil fuel to make the electricity tor you to use on demand. Now you don't have to accept any of the guilt yourself. You can just blame the damn electric company for using fossil fuel. What's the option? Nuclear and the eternal storage of the radio active waste from there? Solar, which wouldn't generate enough electricity to meet demand even if you plastered the whole country with solar cells, not to mention the environmental damage of mining the materials and getting rid of the unbelievably caustic chemicals required to etch them? Hydroelectric, which drowns large areas of land and kills off native fishes, and ultimately will have to be taken down when their serviceable life is over, leaving vast quantities of silt which can't be planted and which blows around causing breathing problems and death for animals and humans alike? The only sure cure for our environmental problems is the reduction of our population over time, and a time of austerity until we reduce our number to a sustainable level. No one is going to agree with this approach, and our population, which is the real problem, will keep growing and growing and growing until we grow ourselves into extinction. That is what will happen with the human species, no matter how you think we got to the places we live or what race we are. Our brains are just not evolved enough for us to do what we must if we are to survive as long as we have as a species, and with that, all study of where we came from will be rendered irrelevant, as will all other human endevour.

So basically nobody really knows.

Have you read the Indigenous Paleolithic by Dr. Paulette Steeves through the University of Nebraska Press?

I ask because I'm simply not convinced American archeology is functioning on anything more than racist bias and literally fanatic belief in the thoroughly disproven Clovis timelines. I cannot see any reason that the older sites are still considered suspicious beyond the initial assumption they could not have been around very long due to the "simplicity" of the culture, habitual minimization of indigenous histories, and racist disregard for oral histories that have literally been proven accurate.

The only indigenous timeframes that I have been able to source- one of which is Dr. Steeves' – theorize multiple waves of migration as early as 60,000-130,000 years ago, estimates which are supported by oral histories of extinct animals found at the described site and by the linguistic diversity found in the Americas, which takes time to develop.

I'm not an archeologist. But I have not heard a single reason that people could not have been here before 30,000 years ago besides the suspicions of racists and the assumptions of a racist pedagogy.