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.