Who really discovered America?

I've vaguely read somewhere he was actually Genghis Khan's grandfather, though most of Genghis's bios I've read don't mention such. The Khan himself was pagan/agnostic, legend is he asked the Pope to send him missionaries but got none and I'm not sure how and if the Mongols became Muslims, since a grandson of Genghis, Hulagu, tore Iraq up so bad it's still not recovered.

I also heard Prester John's Kingdom was the remnant of the Nestorians left either in Central Asia/India or the Copts left in Ethiopia.

In any case it would make a good alt. hist. story if he had been real and how would the world look today. Does anyone know of any?

 

Shrug.

What do I care what a bunch of losers think of Columbus?

Losers are always bitching and moaning.

 

Was Jimi Hendrix a loser?
What they lost, was stolen.

 

Does United States of America have a national holiday for Native Americans, what did Lenape or the Sioux ever get from Thanksgiving, smallpox?

 

Don't even get me started on Canada...

Everybody's welcome, unless you're native, **** that melting pot.
Young native girls go missing all the time in Canada, it's disgusting imo.

 

Did Jimi Hendrix hate Columbus?

I am quite happy it was stolen. Aren't you?

And speaking of Hendrix, here is Zappa's cover of Purple Haze

 

Wrong. The actual discovery was made in about 1992, but was never released to the press because the discoverer wanted to make sure his interpretation of the bones was valid & backed up by further research. That research took more than 25 years, but all the followup researchers agreed with the original discoverer's interpretation. These markings were man-made.

 

Rich Hall on British TV

 

Like any good legend, it is a conglomeration of many stories, and many other stories "bought into" the legend and got attached to it. One of which is Toghrul, uncle to Genghis. Many connect him to being Prester John as well, or his legend is tied into it.

 

Then you had better provide a verifyable reference to that fact, because the Cerutti site was only discovered in 2017. And the claim it is a human site is almost universally dismissed.

https://www.sdnhm.org/blog/blog_details/the-cerutti-mastodon-site-one-year-later/96/

 

I read most of the article you posted a link to, & found most of it focuses on the established scientific community's reluctance to give the discovery the time or energy confirming it actually demands or deserves. It has been tremendously disappointing to me in recent years, to see the incredible resistance establishment scientists have toward discoveries in many fields of study that challenge long established conclusions or beliefs in those fields of study. Science is supposed to be consistently open to new ideas & discoveries that offer an ever widening explanation for the realities we see around us. That's really what makes science exciting. But in recent decades, science seems to have gradually become more concerned over protecting dogmas than opening new areas of scientific knowledge. It's almost like our current scientific leaders have become as dogmatic as the legendary Bishops of the Catholic Church were in 1610, against Galileo. That's unsettling.

Your link fails to establish any serious studies discrediting the Cerutti discovery or its interpretation. Plus, your statement that the discovery was in 2017, is wrong. The discovery was made in 1992, & your link article says so in the text just under the photo.

 

In other words, it does not pay attention to junk science, therefore you reject it.

And I notice the lack of a verifiable reference. Just as you reject mainstream science, I reject junk science.

 

When an assumption is used as a basis for rejecting ANY effort at checking the validity of a serious find, then scientific DOGMA becomes the controlling factor. Science should NEVER become the victim of such dogmas. But today, it is. And this discovery isn't the only one being treated with such biased dismissal. The question for you must be, are you going to be part of the problem (by supporting this dogmatic bias) or part of the solution (by supporting followup studies to either confirm or reject the original research thru valid scientific post studies). I support the latter.

 

This is basically what David Wolf says all the time.

Like whenever he whines because nobody believes him that gravity is toxic. And that immunizations are poison. And that rubbing oils on your body and taking apricot pits cures cancer.

The whine of the junk scientist, thinking that they are making some kind of valid point and that nobody is taking them seriously.

Oh, I took the concept seriously, then dismissed it. Whining is not discourse, it is just whining.

 

No one is "whining" about the Cerutti discovery except those who oppose it for dogmatic reasons. Do the scientific research & let it determine the outcome--NOT pre-existing prejudice.