posted
''Sorry, but Underhill states that the ancestors of Europeans were living *in Europe* LONG PRIOR to 6000 BC, and that modern populations are directly descendant fromt these original populations of Europe, who were living right here......''
This is interesting. A recent study posted on this forum a few weeks ago says Europeans turned fair skin 12,000-6,000 bc. Yet the above explanation says these ancestors were already in place, presumably before 12,000 bc. So the original ancestors were white then turned dark again then back to white because they got sunburned? Or were they white all along?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is interesting. A recent study posted on this forum a few weeks ago says Europeans turned fair skin 12,000-6,000 bc.
^ If you read this thread, you will see that I've posted and article on this study, like 12 times.
Another problem with these run-on sentense threads is that new readers come along not having read it, and the conversation reverts back to items already addressed....
posted
Nice distraction bro. . . . . Threw me off there a bit with your spin.
Looking at the Diagram -- R1* is Black African. Therefore it makes sense that R1b and R1a is black Africans living in Europe ie Black Europeans. F….???
And this “isolation” Paleolithic European you are talking about has no basis other than the racist fool that speculated that Africans wouldn’t move south to get away from the cold.
As for leaving R1* markers in NW Africa - R1* is in the middle of Africa. It is the only logical place for the predecessors of R1b and R1a to come from.
Remember we are NOT talking about 400-500 years we are talking about the length of the LGM which lasted several thousand years. Africans were already living in NW Africa so what makes you think they would not venture into Europe - - -since there was NO sea to stop them.
Infact Mike111 made another valid point humanoids (Neanderthals) were also living there during the end of the LGM. Not sure about the interbreeding?? Why would the first modern man, Africans, not be in Europe, a stones throw from their home. They were half way around the world 50kybp, in Australia , with and without land bridge.
. . . . .bring it Rasol!!Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny You are in the wrong line of work.. . .crooked green lines. Don;t have the time to Autocad etc. But most people get my point.. . .start of the arrow. . .to the end of the arrow!!!!
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You know that this makes more sense . . . . . .
^ It's actually quite retarded. It implies that R1b has and ancestor from NorthWest Africa, when no such ancestor exists in the region. It also implies no relationship beyound coincidence for the precense of both R1b and R1a in Europe.
It also completely ignores the Ice Age refuges where European populations were constricted in the paleolithic.
That's why no geneticists advocates this.
[i]It does however confirm the poor photochop skills of whomever drew those crooked green lines[i/].
quote: than this . . . . . . .
^ All geneticists agree to this. This is accurate, whether you like it or not, is your problem. You clearly can't 'argue' with it because you don't understand genetics well enough to argue it.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:R1* is Black African. Therefore it makes sense that R1b and R1a is black Africans living in Europe ie Black Europeans. F….???
^ R1* is a 30+ thousand year old haplotype found primarily in Cameroon, and to lesser degree in Egypt, and parts of the Levantine.
It either originated in Africa and spread to Eurasia over 30 thousand years ago, and thence diveraging into the R1a and R1b, or derived in Eurasia from K or F, in the Levant and then migrated back into Africa 30+ kya.
Either way, it's completely irrelevant to your claims that modern Europeans are not descendant from Paleolithic Europeans.
The only one trying to create "distractions", is you.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And this “isolation” Paleolithic European you are talking about has no basis
Actually it has profound basis, in the Ice Age of Europe. Since there are specific glacial refuges in Europe that are habitable at this time, and it is from these 3 refuges that Europeans expanded from South to North as the Glaciers retreated.
Of course, you're completely ignorant of the Geography and climate history of Eurasia.
Because you are ignorant you completely ignore the Ice Age, and draw crooked lines on maps with complete obliviousness to the context of where human populations might actually live, how they might migrate, and at what time.
This is why Sforza, Underhill and *all other scholars reject* your ridiculous claims.
Your claims are simply rooted in stupidity and your failure to learn.
Specifically:
* failure to understand genetics. * failue to understand anthropology. * failure to understand geogrpahy. * failure to understand language. * failure to understand archeology.
^ and the manner in which all of the above are intertwined and document a reality that you fail to grasp.....
Ancient Europeans....
And their modern descendants.... Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Let's go with the premise. . . it originated in Africa as you said. My point. . . of the two premise, the one I cited is the only reasonable one that will account for the presence of both R1b predorminantly in West Europe and R1a in Eastern Europe. . . since there were no barriers.
I agree there doesn't seesm to be any "trail" in NW Africa.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now who is getting emotional . . . . . and being cute!!!!
Rasol said - - -
Your claims are simply rooted in stupidity and your failure to learn.
Specifically:
* failure to understand genetics. * failue to understand anthropology. * failure to understand geogrpahy. * failure to understand language. * failure to understand archeology.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Africans were already living in NW Africa so what makes you think they would not venture into Europe
^ NorthWest Africa has no R1* and no R1b* and only late derived European lineages that come from historic incursions of Europeans [post Carthage] into North Africa.
No geneticist claims that R1b originates in NorthWest Africa.
You argue things no educated person believes because you don't know any better.
You need to learn 1st, then argue.
ie ->
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Now who is getting emotional . . . . . and being cute!!!!
Rasol said - - -
Your claims are simply rooted in stupidity and your failure to learn.
Specifically:
* failure to understand genetics. * failure to understand anthropology. * failure to understand geogrpahy. * failure to understand language. * failure to understand archeology.
^ No emotion, and no cuteness. Just statement of facts.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's go with the premise. . . it originated in Africa as you said.
^ R1* originates in the Upper Paleolithic as I said.
All lineages ultimately originate or have precursors in the African Upper Paleolithic.
All humans descend from Upper Paleolithic Africans.
quote: My point. . . of the two premise, the one I cited is the only reasonable one that will account for the presence of both R1b predorminantly in West Europe and R1a in Eastern Europe.
Incorrect.
It is accounted for by geneticist by the migration to Europe from Central Asia over 30 thousand years ago, these populations would have have carried R1x.
The specific sorting into R1a and R1b is product of the genetic bottleneck that occured when Europeans were largely concentrated in 3 glacial refuges.
They spread northward from these refuges as the glaciers retreated and their genetic history, carried in their blood, reflects this reality.
Want to see and active animation of how this lineage spread to Europe from a geneticist?
posted
''If you read this thread, you will see that I've posted and article on this study, like 12 times.''
My thang. I keep wanting to put white people in Europe from the beginning... before they turned brown of course; 40,000 thousand years ago or 12,000-6,000 years ago.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: My thang. I keep wanting to put white people in Europe from the beginning...
Why? Black precedes white.
quote:before they turned brown of course; 40,000 thousand years ago or 12,000-6,000 years ago.
^ In other words you want to reverse reality.
Again I ask....why?
The ancestors of Europeans were Africans.
The ancestors of whites were Black.
Dark skin evolved pari passu [in conjunction] with the loss of body hair and was the original state for the genus Homo. - Nina Jablonski
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Rasol. You are quite well versed with the arguments of people you dispute as you attempt to counter them. So when you later claim a person said something contrary to what they wrote in print, you write untruths.
In the near future, I will make a post showing times you appear to deliberately lie accusing someone of saying something they did in order to add confusion and bolster your claims.
And as I've asked before, produce two or three countries, and support this with archeological evidence in the form of cranium or sculptures, to show where whites have been at or prior to 1000 BC. You've failed to do this showing you have nothing more than hot air.
Archeological evidence of phenotypic whites doesn’t predate 1000 BC. If you produce evidence by way of skull types, figurine or sculpture, I will accept that evidence and date. No one has produced such evidence; produced nothing more than words on this point.
RESTATED THREAD PURPOSE: European nations established only from Medieval times - whites (AS A PHENOTYPE) are very new to Europe.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
More mis-direction by Rasol -??? Are we talking about this?
_------------------------------- All lineages ultimately originate or have precursors in the African Upper Paleolithic.Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Dark skin evolved pari passu [in conjunction] with the loss of body hair and was the original state for the genus Homo. - Nina Jablonski''
Rasol, with those responses from you be advised that I haven't changed my position on how I want to know how Blacks morphed into whites, or anyone else for that matter, via Nina's smoke and mirrors explanation. My initial comments were sarcastic. I'm not interested in Jablonski offering information masquerading as proof. You can tell me evolution/God, whomever, created all three major phenotype people on the African continent and they all separated from there before you can say population movement northward away from the equator changed everything. I have seen nothing persuasive from anything I've read that any scientist can put their money on the line to say latitude is the sole explanation for humanity's outside appearances and the books are closed on this one and that it can be said, take it to the bank. I'm not buyin'it.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rasol, with those responses from you be advised that I haven't changed my position on how I want to know how Blacks morphed into whites, or anyone else for that matter,
Sarcasm only works -after- you demonstrate that you know what you're talking about. Someday in the future, when you've learned something, your past sarcasm may actually seem funny.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can tell me evolution/God whomever, created all three major phenotype people on the African continent and they all separated from there before you can say population movement northward away from the equator changed everything.
^ Non sequitur, there is no proof that humans now or ever were divided into so-called major phenotypes, so there is no theory meant or needed to explain such.
There is a logical theory to explain differences in skin color, which was at issue until you digressed.
Whether you accept this or any other theory is immaterial, since you don't understand it. Actually you shouldn't accept what you don't understand. But neither can you -debate- what you don't understand.
quote:I've read nothing persuasive that any scientist can put their money on the line to say latitude is the sole explanation for humanity's outside appearances
^ No scientists says this, so you only persuade to the effect that you don't know what you're talking about.
Science doesn't exist to persuade the lazy, but is rather a tool that active minds can utilise to learn.
Lazy folks are usually persuaded by cult leaders like Jim Jones to drink poison kool-aid.
posted
I said: ''Rasol, with those responses from you be advised that I haven't changed my position on how I want to know how Blacks morphed into whites, or anyone else for that matter,''
You said: ''That isn't a position. That's a question.''
Nonsense on your ''That's a question''. Position had already been established. Read it again.
I wrote: ''I'm not interested in Jablonski offering information masquerading as proof.''
You responded with: ''Could be worse. She could have no information and be talking but saying nothing....like you.''
I say information, which is not proof, you say information which you believe to be proof. Your posted link offers no such proof, just information. But you did say information.
My comments: ''You can tell me evolution/God whomever, created all three major phenotype people on the African continent and they all separated from therebefore you can say population movement northward away from the equator changed everything.
Rasol says: ''Non sequitur, there is no proof that humans now or ever were divided into so-called major phenotypes, so there is no theory meant or needed to explain such.''
...yet you fell for it enough, when you shouildn't have, to say I was offering this non sequitur as proof when no such thing was offered as proof. Slow down.
Rasol says: ''There is a logical theory to explain differences in skin color, which was at issue until you digressed.''
But I thought you were offering it as proof not a theory. Not sure now are you?
Further: ''Whether you accept this or any other theory is immaterial, since you don't understand it. Actually you shouldn't accept what you don't understand.But neither can you -debate- what you don't understand.''
My italics inserted asks me this: Can I conclude you no longer (at this point) subscribe to Jablonski's theory as proof and instead say it seems like a good idea?
From me: I've read nothing persuasive that any scientist can put their money on the line to say latitude is the sole explanation for humanity's outside appearances.''
Rasol wrote: ''No scientists says this, so you only persuade to the effect that you don't know what you're talking about.''
Then why are you propping up Jablonski, et al?
Rasol says: ''Science doesn't exist to persuade the lazy, but is rather a tool that active minds can utilise to learn.''
Thank you very much.
In a final rhetorical flourish: ''Lazy folks are usually persuaded by cult leaders like Jim Jones to drink poison kool-aid.''
No, not lazy... just ordinary folks willing to believe anything in an appalling unawareness of common sense.
''Everyone has to find their own level. To each his own.''
Then why are you dogmatic on this particular isssue. Something else is eating at you. White boys and girls got you on the run, is that it?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Rasol says: ''Non sequitur, there is no proof that humans now or ever were divided into so-called major phenotypes, so there is no theory meant or needed to explain such.''
Your whole reply - is garbage:
quote:Gremlin writes: ...yet you fell for it
You wish:
Ancient Europeans....
And their modern descendants....
The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective - Peter Underhill.
Rasol. You are quite well versed with the arguments of people you dispute as you attempt to counter them. So when you later claim a person said something contrary to what they wrote in print, you write untruths.
In the near future, I will make a post showing times you appear to deliberately lie accusing someone of saying something they did in order to add confusion and bolster your claims.
And as I've asked before, produce two or three countries, and support this with archeological evidence in the form of cranium or sculptures, to show where whites have been at or prior to 1000 BC. You've failed to do this showing you have nothing more than hot air.
Archeological evidence of phenotypic whites doesn’t predate 1000 BC. If you produce evidence by way of skull types, figurine or sculpture, I will accept that evidence and date. No one has produced such evidence; produced nothing more than words on this point.
RESTATED THREAD PURPOSE: European nations established only from Medieval times - whites (AS A PHENOTYPE) are very new to Europe.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
^ LOL. What you are doing is Re-VISING, not restating.
You essentially seek to 'hide' your false claim that modern Europeans are not descendant from the original paleolithic populations, but rather descend from alien invaders who genocided and replaced Europes original populations 4000 year ago.
Granted this is a crazy claim, easy to debunk and impossible to defend so I don't blame you for revising it.
What took you so long? This is page 22.
Indeed as you are withdrawing your original claim, and running away via revisionism, there seems little point in chasing after you.
Keep revising your purpose......
The facts will still be there, no matter where you run to....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the near future, I will make a post showing times you appear to deliberately lie accusing someone of saying something they did in order to add confusion and bolster your claims.
^ The only one confused about their claims...is you.
Your confusion stems from the fact that your claims have been decimated on so many fronts and by so many scholars [Underhill, Keita, Sforza, Jablonski], that you are lost as to how to sustain them [and this stupid thread] any further.
Your exploded claims:
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: I hope to provide more evidence for the fact that though there are those who cling to the idea that Europeans are indigenous to Europe, facts tell otherwise.
Facts have it that the Capsammochal were the original population of Europe and during the Migration Period in Early Medieval times, today's Europeans first entered the continent between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.
^ Keep revising...
Ancient Europeans....
And their modern descendants....
The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective - Peter Underhill.
Rasol. You are quite well versed with the arguments of people you dispute as you attempt to counter them. So when you later claim a person said something contrary to what they wrote in print, you write untruths.
In the near future, I will make a post showing times you appear to deliberately lie accusing someone of saying something they did in order to add confusion and bolster your claims.
And as I've asked before, produce two or three countries, and support this with archeological evidence in the form of cranium or sculptures, to show where whites have been at or prior to 1000 BC. You've failed to do this showing you have nothing more than hot air.
Archeological evidence of phenotypic whites doesn’t predate 1000 BC. If you produce evidence by way of skull types, figurine or sculpture, I will accept that evidence and date. No one has produced such evidence; produced nothing more than words on this point.
RESTATED THREAD PURPOSE: European nations established only from Medieval times - whites (AS A PHENOTYPE) are very new to Europe.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Rasol. In due time, I am going to be dealing with a number of issues connected with you in regards to the purpose of this thread. One thing I will begin to again keep a running record of are the number of times you use the following material:
As of the 7th page in this thread, you used the irrelevant European skin page some 13 times and the map some 17 times. I will go through every page and keep a running total. One point I will make is that you accused others in this thread of being redundant but for repeated pages, you probably have six times the number of repeated pages of anyone you accuse. That makes you quite a hypocrite. The remarkable thing is that you have nothing to say.
The second point I will introduce soon enough is that while you write of others such things as
You continue to FLUNK BASIC ANTHROPOLOGY.
I will be dealing with your hypocrisy and other matters related to this as well in your failure to use anthropology to prove your point while ignoring the archehological evidence used to demonstrate the presence of Africans and absence of white Europeans in the ancient archeological record.
Soon enough these pages will begin coming.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Consideration of the diversities and geographic distribution of these groups within Europe and the Middle East leads to the conclusion that ancestors of the great majority of modern, extant lineages entered Europe during the Upper Paleolithic. - Cavelli Sforza.
Ancient Europeans....
And their modern descendants.... Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Rasol. You are quite well versed with the arguments of people you dispute as you attempt to counter them. So when you later claim a person said something contrary to what they wrote in print, you write untruths.
In the near future, I will make a post showing times you appear to deliberately lie accusing someone of saying something they did in order to add confusion and bolster your claims.
And as I've asked before, produce two or three countries, and support this with archeological evidence in the form of cranium or sculptures, to show where whites have been at or prior to 1000 BC. You've failed to do this showing you have nothing more than hot air.
Archeological evidence of phenotypic whites doesn’t predate 1000 BC. If you produce evidence by way of skull types, figurine or sculpture, I will accept that evidence and date. No one has produced such evidence; produced nothing more than words on this point.
RESTATED THREAD PURPOSE: European nations established only from Medieval times - whites (AS A PHENOTYPE) are very new to Europe.
__________________
Rasol. In due time, I am going to be dealing with a number of issues connected with you in regards to the purpose of this thread. One thing I will begin to again keep a running record of are the number of times you use the following material:
As of the 7th page in this thread, you used the irrelevant European skin page some 13 times and the map some 17 times. I will go through every page and keep a running total. One point I will make is that you accused others in this thread of being redundant but for repeated pages, you probably have six times the number of repeated pages of anyone you accuse. That makes you quite a hypocrite. The remarkable thing is that you have nothing to say.
The second point I will introduce soon enough is that while you write of others such things as,
“You continue to FLUNK BASIC ANTHROPOLOGY”
[Marc writes] when you, Rasol, showing your racism, show maps devoid of the archeological evidence already posted on above maps showing these areas to be inhabited by Africans.
Why do you ignore the African presence? So an empty map can be imagined as being white. You show your aversion to Africans; you show your racism. And YOU FLUNK BASIC ARCHEOLOGY as you use no archeological evidence to prove the early existence of whites in Europe - as there seems to be none.
I will be dealing with your hypocrisy (e.g. accusing others of being redundant when you have shown the same map perhaps 70 times) and other matters related to this as well in your failure to use anthropology to prove your point while ignoring the archehological evidence used to demonstrate the presence of Africans and absence of white Europeans in the ancient archeological record.
Soon enough these pages will begin coming.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Marc wrote: "Today's Europeans first entered the continent between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries."
^ Thus spoke the clown.
Looking forward to your proving this, or...proving you never said this, soon enough, in the near future, in due time.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Meanwhile, back in the real world....
Consideration of the diversities and geographic distribution of these groups within Europe and the Middle East leads to the conclusion that ancestors of the great majority of modern, extant lineages entered Europe during the Upper Paleolithic. - Cavelli Sforza.
posted
On the next episode of Marc the Clown, hilarity ensues as Marc seeks redemption for his past embarrassing statements.... Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
^ Posted 23 September, 2007 11:50 by Marc Washington: "Today's Europeans first entered the continent between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries."
Marc pleads "In the near future I will prove that the above is true, and that I am not crazy.
Or in the near future, I will prove that I never said the above, and that I am not crazy"
^ REALITY CHECK: Consideration of the diversities and geographic distribution of these groups within Europe and the Middle East leads to the conclusion that ancestors of the great majority of modern, extant lineages entered Europe during the Upper Paleolithic. - Cavelli Sforza.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This haplogroup [R1b] dispersed from east to west, possibly 30 kya, along with the spread of the Aurignacian culture. - PA Underhill
You keep trying to ignore the fact that R1b is the predominent haplotype of current Western Europeans.
By defintion, this means they are *direct descendants* of Paleolithic Europeans from 30kya, which is the very point that Underhill is making.
This makes a looney lie out of your claim that they did not enter Europe until the '5th century'.
^ A claim -you- apparently find so ridiculous, that you refuse to even acknowledge having made it.
This is highly amusing, and appropriate, since we regard you as a clown anyway and really don't expect you to make sense... Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ lol@sore loser tantrums from a whiny baby.
quote:Marc wrote: I made a mistake and admitted it.
Your mistake is in continued attempts at dissembling as opposed to renouncing your false claims.
Claims which form the basis of this stupid thread, and which you are still trying to promote, regardless of your incoherent double-talking 'admissions of error'.
booooo.....
quote:Marc writes: My approach is sanctioned by Underhill.
quote:Underhill: [Modern Europeans] carrying R1b are believed to be the descendants of the first modern humans who entered Europe about 35,000-40,000 years ago . Those R1b3 forebearers were the people who painted the beautiful art in the caves in Spain and France.
quote:Marc wrote: [Europeans] first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.
Why don't you try admitting that this is a lie, and you know it.
Instead you claim that your lying approach is 'sanctioned' by Underhill?
posted
^ Mark, crying because Underhill refutes his claims.
quote:
Marc wrote: [Europeans] first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.
quote:Underhill: [Modern Europeans] carrying R1b are believed to be the descendants of the first modern humans who entered Europe about 35,000-40,000 years ago . Those forebearers were the people who painted the beautiful art in the caves in Spain and France.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Mark, crying because no one supports his crazy claims.
quote:
Marc wrote: [Europeans] first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.
quote:Underhill: [Modern Europeans] carrying R1b are believed to be the descendants of the first modern humans who entered Europe about 35,000-40,000 years ago . Those forebearers were the people who painted the beautiful art in the caves in Spain and France.
[Alive Box writes] quote:Marc wrote: [Europeans] first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.
From where? And evidenced by what?
[Marc writes] The above is nothing more than another example of Rasol simply lying. If you check my writings then you'll see that over a dozen times I referred to the European Migration Period from 500 AD to 1500 AD during which time the bulk of today's Europeans entered the continent.
Ask Rasol where I say that whites came between the 5th and 10th century. He will ignore you and produce no reply. Why? I never said anything, not a word, about the 10th century as it wasn't the 10th it was the 15th. Ask him. I challenge you to ask him to produce the evidence and there is none as I didn't say that.
You guys haven't caught on to the fact that Rasol is a pathological liar. You haven't caught on to the fact that he treats this board as if they were a group of idiots who believe everything he says. For instance, the first three pictures on the page below I posted show whites in Europe long before the 5th (to 10th :-) ) century and the 2nd shows the BC. In the last five days, on maybe 10 occasions Rasol said I said whites "first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries." The page below shows evidence to the contrary:
For someone who is always talking about how ignorant others are about anthropology and what great failures they are in the field, he appears most ignorant of all. For instance. Since yesterday he has been blowing a trumpet of how Underhill wrote:
"[Modern Europeans] carrying R1b are believed to be the descendants of the first modern humans who entered Europe about 35,000-40,000 years ago . Those forebearers were the people who painted the beautiful art in the caves in Spain and France."
He hasn't recognized that these are the Aurignacian people and they were African and I've been showing this and he ignores the ANTHROPOLOGICAL evidence:
Not only that, but where the cave art of Spain is concerned, the 2nd tier below shows that the people Underhill is speaking of an Rasol is using as evidence of Paleolithic Europeans are African stick figures!! The page shows the whole population of Upper Paleolithic down through Iron Age Spain, in fact, had an African population. So, in Rasol trumpeting Underhill's comments on Spain, he is, in fact, unwittingly trumpeting its African heritage. (Thanks, Rasol!!!)
Given, he knows something about genetics (which he seems to misinterpret at important junctures) Rasol is a pathetically ignorant person with a big mouth and nothing better to do than harass people here at Egypt Search trying to learn something or share something. In addition to that, he acts like a spoiled child who has gotten everything he wants and needs things to go his way or he has temper tantrums.
In addition (and seriously) he has severe psychological problems, is a pathological li.. well, he is given to mistruths, and needs professional help. Dozens of times he has called others delusional but in all probability, he is projecting his inner reality on others.
He will squeal like a stuck pig when he reads this post and the diatribes will fly. One thing Rasol does is mimmick. Someone does or says something and he mimmicks them so watch, he will use the same words I use here saying I am these things. Why? Because he believes what he writes? No. Because he is a mimmick and gets power from mimmickry. Watch him copy the format, style, and vocabulary I used above. Watch him. (By the way, when he does these things, it shows no originality).
quote:Ask Rasol where I say that whites came between the 5th and 10th century.
Why would he ask me, when it's cut and pasted from page 1 post 1:
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: posted 23 September, 2007 11:50 PM [page 1 post 1] Whites first entered the continent between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries.
quote:. He will ignore you and produce no reply.
lol. Wrong again.
quote: Why? I never said anything, not a word
lol lol lol. Clearly you're nuts.
quote:It was the 15 century, not the 5th
That would still be a lie, so I don't see how changing your claim helps you here, however it's not what you wrote either -> " between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries" *is* what you wrote. It's cut and pasted from your insane babbblings.
It's a measure of how deeply disturbed you are, that you deny your words, even when they are cut and pasted and thrown back in your face.
You're both hilarious and pathetic.
It's always been clear that you are and obsessed loser with no idea of what he is talking about.
But you now make it crystal clear that you are so utterly demented as to have no idea of what you are writing from one post to the next.
So, what will do now, "admit to another mistake"?
And the time you waste turning your every stupid reply into photochop is a priceless bit of neurotic behavior.
Your "therapist" will eventually make a fortune off of you, if you don't drive yourself insane before *seeking the help* you so clearly need. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I stand corrected. I made a mistake and I admit it. And moreover, I apologize for having said that it was a lie when it was not.
I will say, however, that this was sloppy thinking on my part as the web page I had directly below that comment shows whites entering Italy at 900 BC red arrow. Italy is in Europe. I’d meant to say that the “bulk” of whites entered Western Europe between the 5th and 15th centuries AD.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic