Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are many signs of humans in the Americas that indicate a much earlier presence than the anthropology orthodoxy has presented, but those finds have always been denied as valid. That is now starting to change. There are sites in Mexico that were dated as earlier even than the footprints in NM, though in the same general period: within a few thousand years of the White Sands date.
No one doubts that dinosaurs were around a very long time ago. It's the dating of the presence of humans that has always been highly controversial, when any research claims a human presence prior to around 12,000-15,000 years ago. Anything significantly earlier, like a site in Chile that was occupied not only 13,000 years ago, but also had signs of human occupation dating to 30,000 y ago, was always treated dismissively, because it didn't fit the prevailing narrative.
That's why signs of human presence with credible dating to 20,000 years ago or earlier (there are locations that have been dated to MUCH earlier) are particularly big news.
That's why signs of human presence with credible dating to 20,000 years ago or earlier (there are locations that have been dated to MUCH earlier) are particularly big news.
I am well aware of those in the Clovis camp, now becoming an obsolete view, and those who are advocates of earlier humans. I have also attended a couple of Archaeological Conservancy talks/debates on the subject.
I guess my small attempt at humor was smaller than I expected.
So that's what it was... I thought it might have been an oversight, as in, many people don't fully read posts, but you are certainly not in that category.
I am well aware of those in the Clovis camp, now becoming an obsolete view, and those who are advocates of earlier humans. I have also attended a couple of Archaeological Conservancy talks/debates on the subject.
I guess my small attempt at humor was smaller than I expected.
Well, see, that's the potential pitfall on forums: sarcasm or humor need to be flagged in some way (for example--the eyeroll emoji for sarcasm, or /s at the end of the post). Sometimes will do for humor. I guess I don't know you as well as the OP does, so I wasn't aware of your background.
Often it isn’t funny even if you don’t say a thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought it might have been an oversight, as in, many people don't fully read posts, but you are certainly not in that category. 
