1. Everyone knew Clovis First was wrong decades ago. 2. Probable point of entry was 40-60 thousand years ago, based on genetics (Mitochondrial DNA) and language drift. Unfortunately, the best sites are off the coast now.
@@joeanonimous1105 Did not stop humans from migrating to Australia. And if you look at the globe, only 50 miles separates Siberia and Alaska with a couple of islands in between. If I recall correctly, before the start of the Cold War and the Iron Curtain, Arctic people did travel freely between the two until the Russian and American governments put a stop to that. Not only that but the Aleutian Islands stretch almost to the Japanese ones, and that, combined with the ocean current, could have provided a convenient island-hopping chain. I'll say it again, if people could cross the ocean from Southeast Asia to Australia, they most certainly could cross to North America using that route. They weren't going directly across the ocean like Columbus and Magellan and other later explorers. Furthermore, Thor Heyerdahl proved that it was possible to sail across both the Atlantic and Pacific using nothing more than a reed boat (Atlantic) and a balsa raft (Pacific). Didn't mean that people actually did do that, but it was possible. You also forget that the two continents were once connected by a land bridge and if horses and mammoths could get out and populate the Eurasian steppes, people could get in. So yes, I do believe that people could have been living here long before Clovis.
@@theresemalmberg955 - It's pretty clear that humans were living in the Americas well before Clovis. But if they practiced coastline-hopping travel, there ought to be lots more evidence of their presence along the Pacific Coast than has been found to date, not just footprints hundreds of miles inland and thousands of miles south of the Bering Sea. 23,000 years ago at this site implies a MUCH earlier crossing by land or coastline hopping starting in modern-day Alaska.
I used to manage scientists. I should write a book about the experience but I'm still too furious about the memories of something akin to cult-like religion. That was in the MEDICAL realm, which anyone would think holds the most benevolent of people. I also love archeology and see the same narrow-mindedness that has prevailed here too. Many brilliant scientists have been shunned completely out of the industry only because they found flaws in the "standard narrative." -- However, I do think this is getting better in the archeology world. There are now So Many young people going into the field that they're overwhelming the rigid aristocrats who had ruled their world.
Suggestion: don't hard caption videos, because (1) some of us would rather turn them off, and (2) it means any transcription errors are baked in permanently.
And why exactly should we start believing you now. The only people that are being confused about our history are the “experts” who constantly feel the need to justify their self righteous claims.
10,000 years? That's a blink of an eye. If some human walked through that area 10,000 years earlier, so what? Other than their footprints, they left nothing. And they might have even died out before later migrants came. This is a huge nothingburger.
Not true. Human arrival in North & South America was thought to have occurred 10,000 years later and via a route that would not have been available 23,000 years ago.
@@joeanonimous1105 The point is that this person didn't leave anything except his footprints. So what if he came 10,000 years before anyone thought? All we know about him is that he left some footprints. It changes nothing of any importance whatsoever.
@@CCoburn3 - I don't think you get it. These footprints were left 10,000 years before we thought there was anyone here to leave any footprints. That is HUGE in our understanding of human presence in the Americas. Understanding the travels of our human ancestors and their time of arrival in various parts of the world is CENTRAL to the study of archaeology and anthropology.
@@joeanonimous1105 If we find more than footprints, then maybe we can say these are significant. But as it is, we know nothing except whoever it was left prints. We know how many toes the person had and probably can tell approximately how tall he was and whether he had flat feet. But we don't know anything else about him. Sure, it's data. But without more, it doesn't tell us much of anything. A person was here at about a particular time. We don't know how he got here. We don't know anything about his culture. And we don't even know if he was alone. For all we know, he was washed up on shore clinging to a log during a storm and was the only human on the continent. (It's unlikely, but since we only have a few footprints, we cannot say for sure.) Until we get more data, this is not a huge discovery.
1. Everyone knew Clovis First was wrong decades ago.
2. Probable point of entry was 40-60 thousand years ago, based on genetics (Mitochondrial DNA) and language drift.
Unfortunately, the best sites are off the coast now.
Well, if people settled Australia 50,000 years ago, why couldn't they also have settled the Americas at that time?
Because oceans.
@@joeanonimous1105 Thor Heyerdahl: "Oceans are meaningless! Watch me cross them with primitive gear. even if it doesn't prove anything!"
@@joeanonimous1105 Did not stop humans from migrating to Australia. And if you look at the globe, only 50 miles separates Siberia and Alaska with a couple of islands in between. If I recall correctly, before the start of the Cold War and the Iron Curtain, Arctic people did travel freely between the two until the Russian and American governments put a stop to that. Not only that but the Aleutian Islands stretch almost to the Japanese ones, and that, combined with the ocean current, could have provided a convenient island-hopping chain. I'll say it again, if people could cross the ocean from Southeast Asia to Australia, they most certainly could cross to North America using that route. They weren't going directly across the ocean like Columbus and Magellan and other later explorers. Furthermore, Thor Heyerdahl proved that it was possible to sail across both the Atlantic and Pacific using nothing more than a reed boat (Atlantic) and a balsa raft (Pacific). Didn't mean that people actually did do that, but it was possible. You also forget that the two continents were once connected by a land bridge and if horses and mammoths could get out and populate the Eurasian steppes, people could get in. So yes, I do believe that people could have been living here long before Clovis.
@@theresemalmberg955 - It's pretty clear that humans were living in the Americas well before Clovis. But if they practiced coastline-hopping travel, there ought to be lots more evidence of their presence along the Pacific Coast than has been found to date, not just footprints hundreds of miles inland and thousands of miles south of the Bering Sea. 23,000 years ago at this site implies a MUCH earlier crossing by land or coastline hopping starting in modern-day Alaska.
People originated in South America, long before Africa!
Never mind about the ancient humans, I want to know more about the "extinct Ice Age megaphone "
Well, if they had a megaphone, 1:55, that truly rewites history.
He obviously said "megafauna." Sometimes these machine transcriptions are hilarious.
There is a real person behind the machine, and I confess, I forgot to check the captions
@@historica-sage Pays to do a dry run, or have someone else read the script.
I used to manage scientists. I should write a book about the experience but I'm still too furious about the memories of something akin to cult-like religion. That was in the MEDICAL realm, which anyone would think holds the most benevolent of people. I also love archeology and see the same narrow-mindedness that has prevailed here too. Many brilliant scientists have been shunned completely out of the industry only because they found flaws in the "standard narrative."
-- However, I do think this is getting better in the archeology world. There are now So Many young people going into the field that they're overwhelming the rigid aristocrats who had ruled their world.
Are you sure they are Human foot prints?... maybe they were the ancestors of BIG FOOT...
My goodness. He calls this a new discovery?
Time is meaningless to the AI voice.
One outstanding thing about humans: WE GOT/GET AROUND!
I'm not clear what this changed, though? Or is this some very old material?
@@stephenspackman5573 it's pretty much AI reading a Wikipedia article.
Suggestion: don't hard caption videos, because (1) some of us would rather turn them off, and (2) it means any transcription errors are baked in permanently.
So you are saying the Bering land bridge couldn't exist until the END of the last ice age? Buy a book!
And why exactly should we start believing you now. The only people that are being confused about our history are the “experts” who constantly feel the need to justify their self righteous claims.
Try citing a source. It might help you sound a tad credible.
10,000 years? That's a blink of an eye. If some human walked through that area 10,000 years earlier, so what? Other than their footprints, they left nothing. And they might have even died out before later migrants came. This is a huge nothingburger.
Not true. Human arrival in North & South America was thought to have occurred 10,000 years later and via a route that would not have been available 23,000 years ago.
@@joeanonimous1105 The point is that this person didn't leave anything except his footprints. So what if he came 10,000 years before anyone thought? All we know about him is that he left some footprints. It changes nothing of any importance whatsoever.
@@CCoburn3 - I don't think you get it. These footprints were left 10,000 years before we thought there was anyone here to leave any footprints. That is HUGE in our understanding of human presence in the Americas. Understanding the travels of our human ancestors and their time of arrival in various parts of the world is CENTRAL to the study of archaeology and anthropology.
I don't think he knows that you can't just walk across the Pacific Ocean. He probably got an American education.
@@joeanonimous1105 If we find more than footprints, then maybe we can say these are significant. But as it is, we know nothing except whoever it was left prints. We know how many toes the person had and probably can tell approximately how tall he was and whether he had flat feet. But we don't know anything else about him. Sure, it's data. But without more, it doesn't tell us much of anything. A person was here at about a particular time. We don't know how he got here. We don't know anything about his culture. And we don't even know if he was alone. For all we know, he was washed up on shore clinging to a log during a storm and was the only human on the continent. (It's unlikely, but since we only have a few footprints, we cannot say for sure.) Until we get more data, this is not a huge discovery.