Debate settled? Oldest human footprints in North America really are 23,000 years old, study finds

Nov 28, 2022
10
3
35
Which indicates that we don't really know how far back humanity actually goes. What is also intriguing is the lack of fossilized records showing a transition between any species. The official narrative insists that evolution created everything. However, there's no record of that. There is a record of every single recent civilization saying that we were genetically altered and provided technology by other Beings. Might 'those who came from above' to create our latest upgrades still be in charge and directing our lives via secret societies, manipulation, and control over most everything?
Wouldn't it be interesting if it was really us who created all of this and intentionally forgotten that we did so; just so that we can enjoy the marvel of our abilities to continue creating, without knowing too much -in order to- keep us intrigued?
So far, so good... What an adventure!
 
Oct 7, 2023
5
1
30
Which indicates that we don't really know how far back humanity actually goes. What is also intriguing is the lack of fossilized records showing a transition between any species. The official narrative insists that evolution created everything. However, there's no record of that. There is a record of every single recent civilization saying that we were genetically altered and provided technology by other Beings. Might 'those who came from above' to create our latest upgrades still be in charge and directing our lives via secret societies, manipulation, and control over most everything?
Wouldn't it be interesting if it was really us who created all of this and intentionally forgotten that we did so; just so that we can enjoy the marvel of our abilities to continue creating, without knowing too much -in order to- keep us intrigued?
So far, so good... What an adventure!
In no way does it indicate any such thing. In fact, your entire post is bad fiction.
 
Oct 7, 2023
5
1
30
Much of the pushback comes from the fact that these pre-clovis people likely came from Europe rather than Aisa. Science is supposed to be open-minded but, sadly, scientists rarely are...
 
Nov 28, 2022
10
3
35
In no way does it indicate any such thing. In fact, your entire post is bad fiction.
Fiction it may be. Bad to you it may be.
However we don't really know where any of this came from, what we've got here, nor where it's going. To believe otherwise is ignorance and some people prefer to embrace that.
 
Jan 12, 2024
1
0
10
The site is fake. The tracks are unnatural. Next time you are at the beach look and see if anybody has toe prints like that. https://its-all-fake.com/2023/10/08...orld-heritage-tribute-to-the-new-world-order/
The tracks weren't made last week or even last year. They were made 23,000 years ago. It's not unreasonable to think that footprints would change in 23,000 years, especially since the development of hard shoes. When you put hard shoes on the feet of growing children their feet conform to the shape of the shoes. That alone is enough to explain the difference between footprints then and footprints now.
 
U.S. Geological SurveySummary:

New research reaffirms that human footprints found in White Sands National Park, NM, date to the Last Glacial Maximum, placing humans in North America thousands of years earlier than once thought. In September 2021, scientists announced that ancient human footprints discovered in White Sands National Park were between 21,000 and 23,000 years old. This discovery pushed the known date of human presence in North America back by thousands of years and implied that early inhabitants and megafauna co-existed for several millennia before the terminal Pleistocene extinction event. In a follow-up study, researchers used two new independent approaches to date the footprints, both of which resulted in the same age range as the original estimate.

"The immediate reaction in some circles of the archeological community was that the accuracy of our dating was insufficient to make the extraordinary claim that humans were present in North America during the Last Glacial Maximum. But our targeted methodology in this current research really paid off," said Jeff Pigati, USGS research geologist and co-lead author of a newly published study that confirms the age of the White Sands footprints.

The controversy centered on the accuracy of the original ages, which were obtained by radiocarbon dating. The age of the White Sands footprints was initially determined by dating seeds of the common aquatic plant Ruppia cirrhosa that were found in the fossilized impressions. But aquatic plants can acquire carbon from dissolved carbon atoms in the water rather than ambient air, which can potentially cause the measured ages to be too old.

"Even as the original work was being published, we were forging ahead to test our results with multiple lines of evidence," said Kathleen Springer, USGS research geologist and co-lead author on the current Science paper. "We were confident in our original ages, as well as the strong geologic, hydrologic, and stratigraphic evidence, but we knew that independent chronologic control was critical."

For their follow-up study, the researchers focused on radiocarbon dating of conifer pollen, because it comes from terrestrial plants and therefore avoids potential issues that arise when dating aquatic plants like Ruppia. The researchers used painstaking procedures to isolate approximately 75,000 pollen grains for each sample they dated. Importantly, the pollen samples were collected from the exact same layers as the original seeds, so a direct comparison could be made. In each case, the pollen age was statistically identical to the corresponding seed age.

"Pollen samples also helped us understand the broader environmental context at the time the footprints were made," said David Wahl, USGS research geographer and a co-author on the current Science article. "The pollen in the samples came from plants typically found in cold and wet glacial conditions, in stark contrast with pollen from the modern playa which reflects the desert vegetation found there today."

In addition to the pollen samples, the team used a different type of dating called optically stimulated luminescence, which dates the last time quartz grains were exposed to sunlight. Using this method, they found that quartz samples collected within the footprint-bearing layers had a minimum age of ~21,500 years, providing further support to the radiocarbon results.

With three separate lines of evidence pointing to the same approximate age, it is highly unlikely that they are all incorrect or biased and, taken together, provide strong support for the 21,000 to 23,000-year age range for the footprints.

The research team included scientists from the USGS, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the National Park Service, and academic institutions. Their continued studies at White Sands focus on the environmental conditions that allowed people to thrive in southern New Mexico during the Last Glacial Maximum and are supported by the Climate Research and Development Program | U.S. Geological Survey and USGS-NPS Natural Resources Protection Program

See: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/10/231005161809.htm

New research reaffirms that human footprints found in White Sands National Park, New Mexico, date to the Last Glacial Maximum, placing humans in North America thousands of years earlier than once thought.
Hartmann352