Transcription
All right, mass peace. So now this segment, this is based on some scientific findings in regards to paleontology. Now paleontology is basically the study of fossils. They found some remains in America that they state prove that human beings have been in America for more than a 100,000 years. Uh, we're going to go through this story. I'm going to chime in as they go along.
A major archaeological dig in Southern California could rewrite the history books. Until recently, researchers believed humans reached North America 15,000 years ago. But new findings published in the journal Nature suggest there was human activity 130,000 years ago. Scientists believe these primitive beings came between Neanderthals and archaic Homo sapiens.
Now, you know, the interesting thing is that, um, the, uh, so-called scientific intelligencia, they're constantly changing their time frames for humankind. They're constantly changing their time frames for, uh, the existence of the various creatures of the earth. The what they call the epics, the epochs, which is basically a fancy way of saying the eras in which creatures lived, which basically shows you that they don't know.
Now, when you pay attention to how they depict ancient man, they always depict him as a Caucasian carrying a spear. That's a, that is a subconscious and subliminal illusion to their own history. All right? So-called Neanderthal man is, is, uh, that's just the so-called white man talking about where he comes from. That's not where all man comes from. All right? They will never show a so-called, a so-called black man as the original ancient man. Even though the Caucasian man himself tells you that the original man was so-called black, but they will never show you the ancient man as so-called black because the, uh, the theory of evolution is race-based. But we're going to go through that as we go through this story. Let's see what they, let's see what they're talking about here.
Sapiens Maria Vel is at the San Diego Natural History Museum. Maria, good morning.
Well, good morning. It took more than 20 years to put together this very complicated puzzle. But in the end, their findings, including this very large tusk right here, could rewrite and reshape how we feel about human evolution. Human evolution. You know what they've done is they've made people believe that theories are actually fact-based. The theory of evolution was something that was completely concocted out of thin air by a man named Charles Darwin. I mean, I'm, I'm sure most of you are familiar with his name, but, uh, what conventional education wants people to think is that the theory of evolution is scientifically based. It was something that was concocted in the early 1800s. Uh, far beyond, far before any time where they could empirically justify this theory, but they still carry it on because of, like I said, this society is based in narrative. It's not based in fact. All right.
So, uh, Charles Darwin, for many of you who don't know, he was a so-called, he was a so-called illuminist, a, uh, a Mason. And a lot of people don't know, a lot of, a lot of the scientific aspect of his research was taught, was, uh, shown to him by a so-called black man named, uh, I believe his name was Redminston. Redmondstone, if I remember correctly. John Edmonstone. Edmondstone, that's his name. John Edmonstone. He was a black man who basically, uh, instructed Charles Darwin on taxidermy and animal preservation. I mean, if you ever read up on John Edmonstone, it'll tell you that he, uh, you know, that he was a former slave. I doubt if he was a slave. He was most likely just a freed, a, uh, a regular so-called black man living in Britain. But whenever you read about so-called black men during that time period, they will always tell you that he was the descendant of slaves. But John Edmonstone was the person who, uh, you know, who taught Darwin about taxidermy and he was the one who influenced him to go to South America and investigate the various animal species there. All right.
But it was, it was actually Charles Darwin's grandfather, uh, a man named, uh, Erasmus Darwin, if I, if I remember correctly, who was the one who concocted the, the theory on evolution totally without any empirical data or proof. It was just something that he came up with on his own. He also was an illuminist and a so-called Mason. And, uh, he got a lot of his thoughts from a philosophy at the time known as associationalism, which basically was, okay, this looks like that, so they must be related. No, it was based on the premise that everything must be related. All right. I'm trying to remember where socialism came from. I'm, I believe it was a man named John Hartley. All right. But you brothers could look that up. It's, it's called associationalism. That was a major philosophy during that time period that the Caucasian was dealing with in the 1700s when they were illuminists or, or as they called them at that time period, enlightenment thinkers. All right. But that's just a, a, uh, a cleaned-up way of saying an illuminist. Somebody who, who thinks that they can rationalize everything. All right. There are a lot of so-called black illuminists today. They, they just don't know what they are. All right. These cats who think that they can explain everything on their own.
Highways are an everyday part of life in Southern California, but it turns out humans may have traveled here long before anyone could have imagined. As a paleontologist, so it's, it's really amazing to have discovered a site of such importance in our own backyard. This archaeological shocker began in 1992 when scientists from the San Diego Natural History Museum uncovered the bones of a mastodon 10 ft under a highway construction site. Yeah.
Now, if you ever read anything about, uh, paleontology or archaeology, basically what they, what they do is they try to, they try to date fossils based on what geological column they find the fossil in, meaning the, a layer in the earth. And then they try to date it by something called radiocarbon dating. All right? Which is fundamentally flawed. And it proves that without a shadow of a doubt, the earth cannot be much older than 20 to a little over 20 to 30,000 years old for the simple fact that they cannot date, they cannot date anything beyond 20,000 years old. All right? If you actually studied. And, and this is why, you know, a lot of you brothers who are so deeply into, um, the sciences and stuff, a lot of y'all are not as deep as you think that you are because if you really were to delve into these sciences, you'd know that a lot of them are based off of pretense and not any real science. All right? But, you know, we, we'll go more into that as this, as this segment goes along.
In a way, it's, this is like a, a paleo crime scene. Paleontologist Tom DeRose was one of the first to arrive and almost instantly knew they'd uncovered something special. The important fractures are these fractures here. See how smooth and curved that is? This is the kind of fracture that's produced from impact. The team believes the heavy femur bones could only be broken by a human using a two-handed tool, possibly to extract marrow for food. By replicating the breaking patterns and using state-of-the-art dating methods, the group concluded human state-of-the-art dating methods, they're bullshitting. All right? There wasn't any humans here no 130,000 years ago. You know, it, it's amazing to me that with all the advancements that mankind has consistently made over the last 4,000 years, people actually think that men were just walking around a 100,000 years, 200,000 years, 300,000 years before that, and never made any advancements. All right? All of a sudden, man just started making advancements in the last 4,000 years. All right? The bones that they find in these areas belong to the people who lived in the Americas in the land that we know today as the Americas in that region before the flood. All right? A lot of the animals that they find are the animals that were wiped out by the flood. All right?
Brothers have to understand something. You cannot accurately date fossils that survive through an ice age. All right? Because the water will throw off the carbon date readings. All right? For those, you know, carbon dating in a nutshell is based off of the premise that the sun's rays hit the atmosphere and they change nitrogen into something called carbon 14. All right? Now, carbon 14, uh, is taken in by plants as carbon dioxide. Right? When, when, uh, when plant-eating animals eat the plants, and when humans eat those animals that eat the plants, we get carbon 14 into our system. Right? When we die and we go back into the earth, the carbon 14, which is radioactive, it systematically leaves our bodies and that is, uh, hypothetically, or that is, you know, according to the premise, how they're able to date fossils. So they say that a half-life of carbon 14 expires every 5,730 years. So based off of that premise, that's how they try to date these fossils. But what refutes that premise that, that, um, that the dating and the aging is consistent is that they find items in different geological, in different geological columns that are supposed to be, like, hypothetically speaking, 300,000 years old, 400,000 years old, which means that you should not even be able to date them, and they still find carbon 14 in them. So obviously the carbon 14 emissions are not consistent. You understand what I'm saying? They change based off of the atmosphere. And the atmosphere is constantly changing. And the effect of the cosmic rays in converting nitrogen to carbon to carbon 14 is affected by water, right? You have things like potassium. If potassium affects the fossils, you cannot get a proper reading. So basically, to make a long story short, you cannot accurately date fossils, fossils past 20,000 years. All right, brothers. So, a lot of this science that tells you that, that they found fossils that's 130,000 years old and a million years old, it's all [ __ ]. All right? It's [ __ ].
Humans first reached the Americas over 130,000 years ago, not 15,000 years ago as previous research has suggested. Now, notice they said at first that it was 15,000 years ago that man was here, but now it's 130,000 years ago. Isn't that kind of a large gap? Like they don't even make the gap sound reasonable. They, they jump from 15,000 to 130,000. Like, give me a break. There's room for skepticism, uh, for sure. But USC associate professor Dr. Christian Carlson wants more evidence. One instance is fascinating, but I think we need to find another site or two before we begin to accept this. Who cares whether how many sites you find? Y'all just going to make up [ __ ] anyway. All you're gonna do is make up a bunch of [ __ ]. All you got to do is have a pink face and blue eyes and people gonna believe the [ __ ] that you, that you're talking about. I was a strong critic when I first looked at this and I said, "Well, I, I can't believe this is really here, but, but this is science." Archaeologist Steven Holland has spent most of his career researching prehistoric human existence and is ready to face critics who aren't yet ready to rewrite history.
Well, well, explain to me about your radiocarbon dating issues, man. Break that down for me. All right. Break down for me why the, uh, the, the evolutionary chart by Darwin shows an ape turning into a white man. Right. For those of you so-called black people out there who, who, who have trouble understanding what I just said, the evolutionary chart shows an ape turning into a black man. I mean, pardon me, an ape turning into a so-called white man. All right. So then who is the ape actually talking about on that chart? If the so-called white man knows that he comes from the so-called black man, but his chart shows an ape turning into a so-called white man. Who is the ape actually representing? All right, think about that.
We're expecting pushback. We expect people to be critical. We want people to be critical. What makes you so sure that something else didn't break it over time? People have been doing these experiments for years and say that only humans with hammerstones can produce these kinds of features. She didn't ask you that. Basically, what she's asking you is how, how do you know that these items are as old as you say? That's what she's saying. She ain't say that it wasn't broken by a damn hammer. All right.
You guys have to understand something. These scientists, they get paid through their discoveries. Basically, they get grants from, um, uh, uh, institutions like the Smithsonian, right? So when they make these type of quote-unquote discoveries, if they can justify them or validate them, they get grants where when they get grants, they get to write books and essays and they get to speak at universities. That's how they get paid. All right? So there's a lot invested in them being able to validate these so-called discoveries. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not. When they go to these archaeological digs, they find items all the time that refute the historical narrative. They take those items and they put them in one box, and they take the items that they can use to push their narrative and they put it in another box. All right? Everything is about narrative. It's not about truth. Like I said, they cannot accurately carbon date anything beyond 20,000 years ago. They just cannot do it. And anything that has been that has been submerged in water, they cannot accurately date. So if it, if it was a fossil that went beyond an ice age, all they can do is make something up. That's all they can do.
While there are still a lot of unanswered questions, the president of the museum joked yesterday that this is just proof that even early humans wanted to live here in San Diego. Gail. Yes. And those early humans were so-called black. You know, for those of you who don't know, the first people in the Americas were so-called black people. All right. They were so-called black people that were here, and, uh, the testimony of every person, every dis- so-called discovery that came here verifies that. But anyway, peace.