Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Pyramid Builders

50 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

hmm, i don't remember specifically, but i'm sure he does, as unilinear evolution is the long-disproved theoretical assumption that underlies the sorts of claims his book debunks (the OP's premise is one of them.)

Very interesting. It makes alot of sense

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Non-Africans are more similar to each other than to Africans. Agree with you on that. I think there were other factors beside environment that caused such abrupt change in phenotype and morphology. Africans are a distinct race.

 

You never did answer me if Africans of Haplogroup L3 are real Africans or not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think the mistake you and black people make is trying to convince other race of your great cultural heritage while they thrive on denying those achievement.

Here is a little story for you. I was one day browsing one of those white nationalist website and they were talking about how to make their plight less radical and more appealing to a wider white audience. So users had their different inputs. Like how they shouldn't say that blacks are inferior or blacks should go back to Africa, etc. But, one topic that got my attention was the one about how they shouldn't try stealing other people's culture and claiming Ancient Egypt was white. Believe me, such mentality is not restricted to white nationalist. White people in general have a great obsession at being the best or around the best even if they're not fit to be. They want to be the biggest, fastest, and smartest race but unfortunately this great African race whose been on this planet more than four times longer than them will always be in their way and that's why they hate you so much. Even the ones who proclaim they're liberal and enlightened either envy you or hates you.

Because of their vast access to paperbacks and the media white people have been very successful at convincing other groups that the world is still square. But unbeknownst to them this is not a sprint, it's a marathon. In their mind the world is coming to an end so they're rushing to 'convince' the world of stupidity. Africans have been on this planet the entire 200K years of human existence. We understand the value of patience, they don't. Whites are in the 'neanderthal I'm going to go extinct so let's hurry up' clock. Africans know better.

They spent over 100 years trying to convince the world that those dark skinned depicted and morphologically African people civilization(Ancient Egypt) were built by wandering caucasians in the desert. It only took just a few years to embarrass themselves by finding out they were genetically African(Haplotype E1b1a). Yep! I can tell you're black, go do a DNA test. The great Ramesses III share the same haplotype as you. Funny thing is, they did their own research to prove themselves wrong.

The point I'm trying to make to you is, the more Black people try to convince other races of their great heritage the more they open the door for them to try to embarrass you by denying it. Just let them find out. Trust me, you have plenty of time. Remember, in the 1920s white people were the strongest and fastest race on this planet. Whites are the only race who would rather take a good perception any day over some reality.

Reality is Ancient Egypt and it's Sahara origin is genetically negroid(E1b1a). Perception is white people use to have black skin and mandibular prognathism 5K years ago. Perception can evoke laughter sometimes. Lol

This is about as ignorant as a lil Wayne song.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

multilinear evolution. you are suggesting ideas proposed by john tyler and louis henry morgan in the mid-19th century when this types of discussions and theories were propagated by antiquarians that literally sat around in armchairs and speculated about these things (suspiciously similar to internetites 200 years later)

glad you are still posting here. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

glad you are still posting here. :)

 

i took about a two-week break from doing any substantial posting in the tinderbox because the level of idiocy had gotten to be too much to take, but threads like this always somehow seem to draw me back.

 

also i'm doing a seminar on the origins of behaviorally-modern humans this semester - an area which i've been conspicuously weak in the past - so i'm looking forward to being able to contribute to genetics-based discussions from this point forward :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

multilinear evolution. you are suggesting ideas proposed by john tyler and louis henry morgan in the mid-19th century when this types of discussions and theories were propagated by antiquarians that literally sat around in armchairs and speculated about these things (suspiciously similar to internetites 200 years later)

sorry, I had to pick up my son from school and watch his soccer practice. but anyway,

 

No, I am actually suggesting ideas proposed Dr. Ivan van Sertima, Dr Walter Neves, Dr. Joel Freeman, as well as Anthony T. Browder among many others.  I know nothing of the work of Tyler or Morgan so I have no opinion of their work.

 

As I stated before, this is not about ALL cultures stemming from a single group. (That possibility is still open however, you just have to go back far enough)  I am talking about a specific behaviour, culture and religion being repeated thousands of miles apart. As well as visual representations of the people that correspond with each culture. 

 

You always come across as an educated person, you have to admit that you have not argued against the theory. Instead you have simply attacked the idea that it would even be possible for these cultures to have interacted. I can only assume your reasoning is because you feel that they were "primitive". That is a very closeminded point of view. Consider this, is it possible for a child raised completely outside of the modern education system if given enough time to do something like conceptualize a boat?  They would still have experiences in nature of logs floating in water. The movement of the waves.  The power of the wind.  The brain power of man 10's of thousands of years ago is no different than our own.  And they would have had the benefit culture and education systems to guide each generation.

 

So it is possible that they could have had the knowledge to cross the Atlantic. Now does the archaelogical evidence support the theory? I contend that the statues, culture, religion, and skeletal remains highly suggest that this is the case. This is not about all pyramids in every place in the world. This is also not about something as generic as bows and arrows.  This a specific religion, mastery of astronomy, focus on a specific constellation and a specific pyramid type. With your arrogant dismissal and disdain for the idea you sound not unlike many of the other, ill just say closeminded posters here.  You definitely dont sound very scientific.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

sorry, I had to pick up my son from school and watch his soccer practice. but anyway,

 

No, I am actually suggesting ideas proposed Dr. Ivan van Sertima, Dr Walter Neves, Dr. Joel Freeman, as well as Anthony T. Browder among many others.  I know nothing of the work of Tyler or Morgan so I have no opinion of their work.

 

As I stated before, this is not about ALL cultures stemming from a single group. (That possibility is still open however, you just have to go back far enough)  I am talking about a specific behaviour, culture and religion being repeated thousands of miles apart. As well as visual representations of the people that correspond with each culture. 

 

You always come across as an educated person, you have to admit that you have not argued against the theory. Instead you have simply attacked the idea that it would even be possible for these cultures to have interacted. I can only assume your reasoning is because you feel that they were "primitive". That is a very closeminded point of view. Consider this, is it possible for a child raised completely outside of the modern education system if given enough time to do something like conceptualize a boat?  They would still have experiences in nature of logs floating in water. The movement of the waves.  The power of the wind.  The brain power of man 10's of thousands of years ago is no different than our own.  And they would have had the benefit culture and education systems to guide each generation.

 

So it is possible that they could have had the knowledge to cross the Atlantic. Now does the archaelogical evidence support the theory? I contend that the statues, culture, religion, and skeletal remains highly suggest that this is the case. This is not about all pyramids in every place in the world. This is also not about something as generic as bows and arrows.  This a specific religion, mastery of astronomy, focus on a specific constellation and a specific pyramid type. With your arrogant dismissal and disdain for the idea you sound not unlike many of the other, ill just say closeminded posters here.  You definitely dont sound very scientific.

 

i hate saying something as generic as "read the book i suggested and then get back to me" but seriously... read the book i suggested and then get back to me.

 

also know that ivan van sertima's precolumbian contact theories have roundly been rejected by anyone that matters (as have gavin menzies's similar suggests regarding the chinese.) joel freeman has no viable experience in archaeology or anthropology unless i'm looking at the wrong guy, and anthony browder is roundly rejected as a crackpot because he insists on pushing crackpot archaeological heliocentrism. walter neves seems legit - especially since human diaspora in the americas is still being pieced together, especially in light of pre-clovis finds in north and south america - but i'd be interested in seeing what exactly it is he's supporting.

 

if you don't want your theory to be interpreted as ridiculous, don't cite crackpots in support of it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

i hate saying something as generic as "read the book i suggested and then get back to me" but seriously... read the book i suggested and then get back to me.

 

also know that ivan van sertima's precolumbian contact theories have roundly been rejected by anyone that matters (as have gavin menzies's similar suggests regarding the chinese.) joel freeman has no viable experience in archaeology or anthropology unless i'm looking at the wrong guy, and anthony browder is roundly rejected as a crackpot because he insists on pushing crackpot archaeological heliocentrism. walter neves seems legit - especially since human diaspora in the americas is still being pieced together, especially in light of pre-clovis finds in north and south america - but i'd be interested in seeing what exactly it is he's supporting.

 

if you don't want your theory to be interpreted as ridiculous, don't cite crackpots in support of it.

Soooo then you agree?

 

I know you spent the first few sentences stating that who I can only assume is "mainstream" (cough, eurocentric) archaeology has dismissed Dr. Sertima's and the others but since you have given Dr. Neves your all important blessing, I assume you are familiar with his study of skull nicknamed "Luzia" and her distinctly negroid features. He places her origins at pre 11,000 years ago which would coincide with the theory of Olmecs coming from Africa.  I am not trying to convince you.  It is no longer important to me if you agree, believe or whatever. You hold certain theories above others, even though you have constantly admitted that there is an eurocentric bias towards what is considered mainstream science. But if your only argument is

 

"guffaw, read the book!!!, cuz you dont know what I know"! 

 

then I am disappointed, I thought you better. Just remember that 100 years ago black holes "didn't exist"

And 10 years ago people found out that they can vomit.

 

I dont mean to equate physics with archaeology, I am simply stating that popular theories in science often bully other theories that are in fact correct.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Soooo then you agree?

 

I know you spent the first few sentences stating that who I can only assume is "mainstream" (cough, eurocentric) archaeology has dismissed Dr. Sertima's and the others but since you have given Dr. Neves your all important blessing, I assume you are familiar with his study of skull nicknamed "Luzia" and her distinctly negroid features. He places her origins at pre 11,000 years ago which would coincide with the theory of Olmecs coming from Africa.  I am not trying to convince you.  It is no longer important to me if you agree, believe or whatever. You hold certain theories above others, even though you have constantly admitted that there is an eurocentric bias towards what is considered mainstream science. But if your only argument is

 

"guffaw, read the book!!!, cuz you dont know what I know"! 

 

then I am disappointed, I thought you better. Just remember that 100 years ago black holes "didn't exist"

And 10 years ago people found out that they can vomit.

 

I dont mean to equate physics with archaeology, I am simply stating that popular theories in science often bully other theories that are in fact correct.

 

rofl these guys can't support their lunacy with anything other than speculation and cherry-picking of data so the dismiss everything else as eurocentric

 

you aren't engaging in a conversation here, you're arguing for a position in a field you know literally fuging nothing about because it appeals to you for whatever reason. you don't care about whether the facts support you, only the ability of a handful of people who profit off of people like you to quell your fears that the "mainstream eurocentric archaeologists" are right

 

do some actual research that doesn't involve ancient aliens and gavin menzies conspiracy theories and fuging kulturkreiss rebrands and get back to me

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

rofl these guys can't support their lunacy with anything other than speculation and cherry-picking of data so the dismiss everything else as eurocentric

 

you aren't engaging in a conversation here, you're arguing for a position in a field you know literally fuging nothing about because it appeals to you for whatever reason. you don't care about whether the facts support you, only the ability of a handful of people who profit off of people like you to quell your fears that the "mainstream eurocentric archaeologists" are right

 

do some actual research that doesn't involve ancient aliens and gavin menzies conspiracy theories and fuging kulturkreiss rebrands and get back to me

Seriously?

 

In your last post you agreed that "human diaspora" is as you put it "still being pieced together.  Lol yet the idea that there could be any AFRICAN influence is pissing you off. lol. I have to say I wouldn't have seen that coming from you.  THE REASON it is still being pieced together is because they are constantly finding evidence that disputes the Bering Strait theory.  These being things like human artifacts and remains that predate the ice age and the problem that in order for humans to have spread south only, there is a major problem crossing the mountains that "primitive hunter gatherers" would be hard pressed to accomplish. As well as the evidence of cultural mixing BEST explained by direct contact or influence, not random similarities. But you know all this.

 

YOU arent engaging in a conversation. You are doing what you always do. You swoop in to a topic throw some insults around using needlessly complex vocabulary no doubt to puff yourself up and garner compliments from people who literally have no idea what the fug you are talking about. But you rarely have any real point, and you instead arbitrarily combine pseudo-philosophy with useless rhetoric. All the while claiming intellectual high-ground with an arrogance unseen any where else in this forum.  If you want the conversation to be over stop insulting me and leave. Or we can continue throwing insults around. Its AALLL GOOD .

 

OR you can tell me specifically why it is not possible for Africans to have spread to across the Atlantic.  The idea that it 100 percent didn't happen is retarded and juvenile.  With all the traveling you claim and seminars you claim to spoke at you still werent there at the time. You take the research done by those you deem worthy, and cast aside the research of those you deem unworthy. Then you speculate as to what it all means. That is the science of Archaeology.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What evidence is there that Africans spread across the Atlantic?  Your OP seems mostly conjecture (which is what most of the Tbox is so I am not attempting to offend you)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.