The New History of Mankind: Who Are we? What are we? How did we get here?


The Living Force

"The New History of Mankind: Who Are we? What are we? How did we get here?"​

Doesn't this question presume some kind of homogenous or unified "mankind"? (which may not actually exist)

Isn't all the implantation of souls into primates, subsequent migration, hybridized races of varying genetic strains inserted into far flung corners of the earth, OP's, imported off-worlders all randomly breeding implying a VERY mixed bag where each individual has a distinct background and history; where certain groups have both more and less in common with the various other groups? IOW, A vast pot of soup where the ingredients are not well-mixed or congealed into anything resembling a bisque or a puree? (a unified equivalent history?)

(and what may be the only unifying item that all the groups have in common is that they are all being jacked around by the same hyperdimensional group of A-holians)
Last edited:


FOTCM Member
Who ruled the Americas before Columbus? For years we’ve been taught that the Americas were sparsely populated by primitive peoples who lived in such harmony with nature that they were nearly invisible. Then Europeans came with their guns, destroying both nature, Native Americans, and Native American culture. New evidence from a surprising source shows this stereotype to be wrong. The source? Mainstream archaeology. (with Ken Ham and Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson)

One interesting thing he says is that Neanderthals were survivors of ancient cataclysms.

Here's part two, FWIW:

He explains complex genetic studies in simple terms, so people can understand the significance of all these mainstream studies. For me, the most interesting concept is that flat lines in the genetic family tree are the smoking guy of massive die-offs of people. It's not like the world's population have been growing steadily. It's just that at specific points there was a massive die-off and this shows as a flattened line in the global genetic family tree. He illustrates that the Amerindians were dying massively for already 200 years prior to Columbus arrival in the late 1400s. Prior to that, Amerindians were steadily growing after 500 AD. He gives the example of encountering survivors in a concentration camp in Germany in WWII and thinking that they're primitive people. Actually, it's more like they're only survivors. Studies show that the Ecuadorian rain forest is relatively new. Before Columbus arrival, it was all cultivated land for maize.

He's trying to extrapolate this smoking gun to understand the world's history:

I got his book to see if there are more clues that can be surmised:

Watched part 10 and 11. It was interesting how Jeanson develops the family tree (note - with a creationist backdrop) while referencing the flatline and how that graphs out. That part was well done. He has it that that the genetics (Native Americans) originated - or were replaced by DBA signature groups from the south, and my mind was on that land bridge in the north. Had forgotten what the C's had said that the Native American's were transferred from the north, it was not a walkabout migration over the bridge 15,000 years ago as per current thinking:

The timing was "7200 years ago" also said by the C's. Of course, Jeanson could not possibly factor in the "Recued. Transferred" part, although his DNA sampling seems not to touch on Asia as understood, or it does and he can't make that connection for unknown reasons - or two groups separated came together and interbreed, with the latter washed out the generational DNA signal. He does sort of get close on the connected ladder of the DNA tree to the Eskimos, if remembered, yet they are on opposite sides from the connected south people on the DNA tree.

Will check out Jeanson's other videos as what he says is interesting and may add to what was missed.

Have a question related to million year-old dated comet strikes that could be moved 'way up' in time. Has this ever been been mentioned by the C's (i.e., such and such is more recent)? Searched and did not find a reference and may have not found it. Have an impact candidate for this that has not been well surveyed, not mentioned in the forum - some drilling has provided a date, yet wonder if this date is in fact correct. It is just a working hypothesis presently that might explain the rescue and some other details, it may come to not, too.
I will soon start to watch the second part. Looks like Nathaniel Jeanson is a young earth creationist. So it seems to me that he might be quite biased in how he views, selects and interprets the data… So it seems to me that we should be careful and engage in weeding out.
Top Bottom