I was going to make this post, but the computer froze up and I had to force a reboot.
The Siberianlandbrdige (Beringian) hypothesis for settlement of the America's is, within the community, holy writ, to be disputed at one's peril.
Looking at he following factors alone is enough to dispute the hypothesis.
The vast distance and obstacles to migration, and survival, from the edge of the glacial maximum to the Amazonian jungles, Tiahuanco, Bolivia and Perus. If nothing else there is the Darien Gap in Panama, which until modern times was uninhabited by native peoples.
The age of radio carbon dating of textiles and artifacts in the Guitarrero Cave in Peru:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6062471_Chronology_of_Guitarrero_Cave_Peru
The further south one goes, (Peru and Chile are in mind) the more advanced the engineering and architecture. Including hydrauglic engineering. And in particular Sacsayhuaman and Banddurriahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandurria,_Peru see also: ttp://www.ancientpages.com/2016/05/17/10-great-ancient-mysteries-of-peru/ and there is Tiwanaku and Puma Punka in Bolivia (a site that was obviously industrial, and constructed with so uniform and meticulous tolerance that they had to be machined
Moving north you encounter newer examples of advanced engineering, especially in Guatemala, Honduras and the YucatanPeninsula. However the further south,the more advanced the engineering.
The Aztec's were a tribe that was driven down from the north, possibly, because of climate changes. A hungry, more vital and needy peoples than the Maya who they displaced or replaced, they simply built their city upon the technology and culture, of the peoples they replaced.
As regards the Aztec's it is theorized that they came from New Mexico (Chaco Canyon), Arizona ( driven out by a prolonged drought that occured about 900 years ago. There is also this of a spotty migration of Maya into Northern Georgia .
https://www.rawstory.com/2011/12/1100-year-old-mayan-ruins-found-in-north-georgia/
When you arrive in North America, the most advanced engineering you can find is that of the "Mound" peoples of the Mississippi valley i.e. Cahokia and Poverty Point, LA.
The natives of North America were clustered along the Pacific, the Mississippi Valley and the East Coast. In that regard the Leni Lenape or Delawares (means Grandfather people), left a written record of their peoples The Red Record
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Record-David-McCutchen/dp/0895295253 . A book you will certainly enjoy.
It tells the story of meeting and defeating the Mound culture peoples, and arriving on the East Coast in time to see John Cabot arrive in Chesapeake Bay, (his 2nd Voyage in which he disappeared)
This book will intrigue you: Terra IncognitaThe naming of America:
https://www.uhmc.sunysb.edu/surgery/broome.html a compelling argument that it was named for Richard Amerike (ap Meric(a Welsh name anglicized to Amerike) who was a major financier of John Cabot's voyage.
Back to the population of the America's. A fisherman in the Chesapeake bay pulled up Mammoth bones with a stone tool embedded, this stone tool is identical to the Solutrean cultures tools found in Spain and France,and otherSolutrean tools have been found in the area.
Then there is thee nigmatic remains and artifacts found near Cape Canaveral, the Windover bog people" and amazingly the finest example of textiles ever found in the ancient world, as tightly woven as a T shirt.
http://spacecoastdaily.com/2017/03/windovers-ancient-bog-people-made-history/
But we are left with the Siberianlandbridge hypothesis as "the popular truth", mention of other possibilities are sub rosa, and ridiculed.
And why not, way too many professional reputations, credentials, jobs and incomes are dependent on the reigning paradigm.
You might have heard the cliche: Extradorinary Hypothesis require extraordinary evidence" supposedly first uttered by Carl Sagan, but actually said by Carl Popper.
Carl Popper when a young scientist trying to make his mark on the world, had the audacity to question the theory of mass gravity. Well his budding career came to a halt and he was ridiculued, because mass gravity underpine so much of science, and a threat to it is perceived as a threat to the people who persue the occupation.
So Carl knelt on the proverbial hassock, confessed eror and begged forgiveness, but in the fashion of Gallileo, who after likewise begging forgiveness said "yet it moves", said, "Extraordinary theories require extra ordinary evidence"
And in that regard I mention that the largest creature that can fly, under it'sown power, weighs 30 lbs, beyond that the earth'satmosphere is not thick enough for them to fly., yet the pterodactyl flew.
Jurasaic park may have been a blockbuster movie, and I adore Avatar so much I bought the DVD and watch it time and again.
But the idea that humans will grow to 10 feet in a reduced environment or that the Brontosaurus and Tyrannasours Rex could grow so large in the current gravitational field of earth flies in the face of known and established facts.
Bone density depends on stress, the more stress the thicker and bigger the bones. Ask a dentist, Pull a persons teeth and the jawbones shrink. NASA knows that there is bone loss in space because of reduced stress.
We could never colonize Mars, there isn't enough gravitational pull to hold water, much less atmosphere to the surface, and that raises the question of what happened to the water that was on Mars? I have an answer, but later, same thing with the moon which also once had water, as water still exists at the poles of the moon and Mars, not to mention subterranean water.
But children born on Mars, because of reduced gravity, could never visit earth except in special suits, and over time the new Martians would look like the"gray aliens" so much a part of |UFO lore, large heads, thin limbs and small statures.
Same with the Navi of Pandora, instead of being10ft tall they would be 4ft tall because of the reduced gravity hence reduced stress on their bones.
If gravity is not caused by mass (a circular argument: mass>gravity>mass>gravity, etc ad nauseum), then what causes it.
The answer is that it is a current force produced by a current process, which as the source of the process cools, results in a diminished force.
Where do we find such a process. Answer: in the earth's core is a miniature sun, that is losing power and cooling over time.
Thus the gravitational pull of the earth is steadily diminishing, and as a consequence living things on it are growing smaller over the aeons.
That the moon has a gravitational force means that the moon also has a miniature sun. Asteroids do not have even a micro gravity.
If mass caused gravity, then liquid droplets and small objects would not float free in the space lab, they would be pulled towards a human body or the walls of space lab.
We recognize that the earth has an electro magnetic core, but stop short of adding gravity to that equation (although static electricity is in itself evidence of a relationship between gravity and electricity) and the reason that we don't, is because thetheory of mass gravity proposed by Isaac Newton has become holy writ, and anyone who questions it is called a crank, a nut and if a scientist laughed out of the business and ruined.
As happened to Taylor/Wegener with their continental drift theory. They have since been "rehabilitated" after death, but sans acknowledgement. I believe the theory of plate tectonics appeared whole cloth, a new, as if continental drift never happened.
Discussing any of this with a "self styled" scientist, or someone fed the pablum of Junior and High school science will meet with guffaws and ridicule as well, but they will not and cannot answer or even debate the questions. Only attack the heretic.
