The Story of The Bering Land Bridge Theory and What We Thought Before Pt 1

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 and Caucussus Mts. to battle Huns & Mongols.

1040AD: Federated States of America replaces Odin's Cobblestone Court in DC (West Wing to Franciscan Bay)

1054AD: The Great Schism (Vitruvian Man replaces Herculean form)

1066AD: Viking Age ends (Skraelingr and Stave Uprising in Vineland)

1201AD: St. Clare Expedition (Franciscan Movement)

1255AD: St. Clair Expedition (Irish Orion Armistice, Heads & Tails Accord, Confederate States)

1362AD: Sinclair Expeditions (Scots to Mountain of Rushmoor, start of Aztec & Inca)

@IndigenousHistoryNow at minute 4:13. 2: Strongest genetic and linguistic relation to northeastern Siberian populuation. While this is true, we didn't descend from them, they descended from us. You need to reverse the arrow. You went over the linguistic part and not considered the research done in the 1960's that proved linguistic track migration went from east to west, influencing the polynesian and sub-asian cultures and starting in south america. There was even evidence that there were 3 track migrations, one of the west coast, 2 meso-american, 3 pre-culture incan. Althoug h you make strides to amend the apparent racism in theory, you fail to realize or forget the direction of the arrow of migration is a part of the racial bias against our people to begin with. We are continously savages that never created anything, spawned anything, and whats more, are just import asians. Nah… there's no way that indigenous people are the genesis. I would encourage you to reverse the arrow, and look at the evidence again.

The Mormon religion is entirely based on this two race theory. Joseph Smith supposedly transcribed The Book of Mormon from "golden plates" that he discovered in a mound, and these plates, that he conveniently lost, were the written histories of the Nephites. These Nephites were ostensibly the "whitesome and delightsome" descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel; a righteous people who somehow made their way to America, developed a great culture and built great cities. The Lamanites were a savage and evil race with red skin who came to the Americas later and eventually eradicated the Nephites in a war that ended around the year 400 CE. The Native Americans were the descendants of these evil and savage Lamanites. To this day BYU archeologist are searching for evidence to substantiate this story.

Donnelly, clown of the fucking millennia.

( ^-^)ノ∠※。.:*:・'°☆

All man come from Eve it has been tested… Not Adam

I'm eager to watch episode 2 of this. – Also 66th comment, hell yeah.

I love your videos. Very glad to find you. Your vast knowledge is amazing.
I've been saying for a long time, divided we fall.

Human Rights…ahhh, another one of those evol whyte supreme pizzas inventions. Hmmm maybe "not all" were these evol suprem….. Nevermind that's not a popular thing to say these days. instead we'll jus hop on the antiwhyte bandwagon and say ALL krackrrrs are and always have been nuttin but thiev'n ray'cists. There we go, now I'm n step w the true theme of this video, the natives r just a side topic.

(33:00)

This is a tremendous work of reconstructive critical theory of science building, as told from a radically anti-colonial perspective! Congratulations! It's worthy of the best historical epistemology out there, on par with Imre Lakatos' Proofs and Refutations and Ian Hacking's many works. A remarkable work by Paulette F. C. Steeves, The INDIGENOUS PALEOLITHIC of the WESTERN HEMISPHERE (2021) has to be recommended and explicitly named. Not only is she an archeologist, she is Indigenous (Cree and Metis). Her story and research should stand as both an addendum and confirmation of your analysis.

As a behavioral ecologist, one of the things that always baffled me about the Overkill Hypothesis is the weird assumption that it's entirely caused by humans. For one thing, humans never migrated alone; before domesticating dogs, we followed our prey species out of Africa, and since domestication, we always brought dogs with us, and dogs are just as capable of overkilling as humans are (though we tend to call it "surplus killing" when non-human animals do it). We also have circumstantial evidence in the fossil record for minor extinction events occurring whenever animals are able to move into new environments, such as the Great American Interchange, which caused the extinction of many endemic South American mammals when the Panama Isthmus finally connected North and South America. We see this over and over again, whenever isolated continents or islands get connected to other landmasses. Yes, humans – no matter the culture – can and do cause extinctions, and we do have evidence of some extinctions caused by the first peoples of the Americas. However, they did not come into the Americas alone, and, for example, were unlikely to have caused the extinction of dire wolves (current thinking is that competition with the newly arrived grey wolf was the main contributing factor to the extinction of dire wolves). Beringia helped a lot with moving animals and plants between Eurasian and the Americas long before humans even made it to the area, for example, mammoths and wolves migrated into North America, and horses and camels migrated into Eurasia. PBS Eons has a lot of really great videos exploring extinctions of various animals due to biotic interchanges, like terror birds and dire wolves.

What follows is an ecologist's burbling about predator-prey behaviors and how non-human animals can – without the "help" from humans – cause extinctions. Because, let's be real, other animals have been the primary cause of more extinctions than humans have, just based on the simple fact that Kingdom Animalia have been killing each other for millions of years before we humans ever evolved. Which isn't to say that human-caused extinctions isn't a very real and very devastating problem, just that we're not the undisputed masters of life and death.

But back to our canid friends, areas with noticeable feral, stray, or owned-but-outdoor-living dog populations have really high mortality rates for other domestic animals (particularly sheep and cows (in Minnesota during 2015, more cows were killed by domestic dogs than all wild predators – including wolves – combined)) as well as decreasing wild animal populations, such as deer. And we see similar trends with invasive species – we always talk about how a handful of invasive animals (particularly rats) can utterly devastate an ecosystem. Herbivores are really good at eating as much edible plant life as they can and reproducing, and predators are very good at killing. Furthermore, killing is emotionally rewarding to predators – it feels good, it gives them a natural high. Evolution had to find a way to convince predators to kill instead of simply scavenge already dead animals, and they way it settled on this was to make killing emotionally rewarding. Otherwise, predators like wolves would not risk getting kicked in the skull or gored by bison. The less of a high a species gets from killing, the less carnivorous they are. Omnivores like black bears are much more sensitive to pain and don't get as intense a high from killing as wolves and cougars do, and thus they're quite content to scavenge the kills of others and attack easy prey, like newborn fawns or calves that don't kick back. On the other hand, cougars are hypercarnivores, rarely eat rotten meat from scavenged kills (spoiled meat is more likely to make cougars get sick and die, whereas bears and wolves are usually able to consume rotting meat with little ill effect), take more risks when hunting, and have a higher pain tolerance. Another thing a lot of people get wrong is that if you hunt when you're actually hungry, you're not going to have enough energy to find, chase, and kill your prey. You have to hunt when you have enough energy, which tends to mean opportunistically hunting when you happen upon prey, whether or not you're actually hungry, and then caching leftover food.

Carnivores are more likely to kill more animals than they can eat in one sitting if the opportunity presents itself, and sometimes – but not always – cache the extra food for eating later. The most famous yearly surplus killing in my neck of the woods are the Pacific Northwest fall salmon runs, a huge favorite amongst nature documentaries because so many charismatic megafauna – grizzlies, wolves, cougars, bald eagles – gather together and fish for salmon, frequently eating only the fatty brains before returning to the waters to catch more. Less popular are the surplus killings that target newborn fawns and calves, but most herbivores have adapted to this by developing what's called "birth synchrony"; that is, a short birthing season means that there will be more neonates born/hatched than can be killed by all the local predators. The shorter the window, the more the more the local ecosystem is "flooded" with neonates. Predators will often time their own birthing season to their prey's birthing season, as the influx of easy-to-kill prey neonates will help feed their own newborns. However, it also means that this window of easy killing is short, as the newborns quickly grow out of the easy-to-kill stage and become more savvy to their native predators, and then the death ratios flip – young predators begin starving to death as it becomes harder to catch the now larger and stronger juvenile prey animals.

When you add new, invasive predators to these otherwise relatively stable systems, the effectiveness of birth synchrony can deteriorate and cause greater stresses to both the native predators and the native prey species. Add new, invasive prey species as well, and things break down even further – now more native prey species are starving to death, meaning their population decreases. Their birthing synchrony means all the neonates of their now decimated population are being born at the same time, and now the larger-than-normal predator populations (boosted by the new invasive predators) are able to kill even more neonates than the prey population can handle. This rarely results in immediate, species-wide extinction, but it can accumulate to quasi-extinction levels, followed by ecological extinction, followed by actual extinction. Typically, species can adjust and adapt to one or two accumulative effects, but the greater the changes in a short amount of time, the greater the chances for extinction.

It's wild to me that whatever insane supremacist group you find seems to have some equally absurd brain gymnastics that would put their race in North America as some kind of virginal original people, to be swept away by whatever racist folk devil they need for their political time.