Donald Yates is not an archaeologist, nor is he a geneticist. No mainstream scholars in the appropriate fields of study agree with Yates. In other words, he is a nutcase. And Mr. Yates is not credible in his DNA claims about who is Cherokee. http://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/news ... 92c5a.html
Dave, do you plan on answering my question? Why did you present a fake tribe to me, a group that has absolutely no members who have Cherokee or any other American Indian ancestors? Why did you pull a stunt like that with me? The Central Band of Cherokee ARE NOT Cherokee, they ARE NOT even American Indians.
Donald Yates is not an archaeologist, nor is he a geneticist. No mainstream scholars in the appropriate fields of study agree with Yates. In other words, he is a nutcase. And Mr. Yates is not credible in his DNA claims about who is Cherokee. http://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/news ... 92c5a.html
Dave, do you plan on answering my question? Why did you present a fake tribe to me, a group that has absolutely no members who have Cherokee or any other American Indian ancestors? Why did you pull a stunt like that with me? The Central Band of Cherokee ARE NOT Cherokee, they ARE NOT even American Indians.
Disprove Dr Yates findings. If you think that the central band of Cherokee are fake let them know your true feelings and tell the history channel that they got fooled.
bomgeography wrote: Disprove Dr Yates findings. If you think that the central band of Cherokee let them no you true feelings and tell the history channel that they got fooled.
Donald Yates had been disproved already. He is a flake. Now why would I have a need to contact the fake Indians known as the Central Band of Cherokee? The United States Bureau of Indian Affairs already made the determination that they are not real, and told them so. And why would I nave a need to contact the history channel about an old episode that is now outdated and obsolete with the BIA determination about those fake wannabes?
Once again Dave, this is between you and I. You presented me with a fake group of pretenders. Why would you do that to me?
Will you ever come to a point where you can admit that you are wrong? Will you ever be able to say "sorry tapirrider, I didn't research that enough. Thank you for the information and I will stop using that source." What do you think Dave, can you ever get to that point?
bomgeography wrote: Disprove Dr Yates findings. If you think that the central band of Cherokee let them no you true feelings and tell the history channel that they got fooled.
Donald Yates had been disproved already. He is a flake. Now why would I have a need to contact the fake Indians known as the Central Band of Cherokee? The United States Bureau of Indian Affairs already made the determination that they are not real, and told them so. And why would I nave a need to contact the history channel about an old episode that is now outdated and obsolete with the BIA determination about those fake wannabes?
Once again Dave, this is between you and I. You presented me with a fake group of pretenders. Why would you do that to me?
Will you ever come to a point where you can admit that you are wrong? Will you ever be able to say "sorry tapirrider, I didn't research that enough. Thank you for the information and I will stop using that source." What do you think Dave, can you ever get to that point?
It's becoming very apparent that bomgeography is either very young or an older person stuck in adolescence. I wonder which it is.
How old are you, bomgeography?
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
bomgeography wrote: Disprove Dr Yates findings. If you think that the central band of Cherokee let them no you true feelings and tell the history channel that they got fooled.
Donald Yates had been disproved already. He is a flake. Now why would I have a need to contact the fake Indians known as the Central Band of Cherokee? The United States Bureau of Indian Affairs already made the determination that they are not real, and told them so. And why would I nave a need to contact the history channel about an old episode that is now outdated and obsolete with the BIA determination about those fake wannabes?
Once again Dave, this is between you and I. You presented me with a fake group of pretenders. Why would you do that to me?
Will you ever come to a point where you can admit that you are wrong? Will you ever be able to say "sorry tapirrider, I didn't research that enough. Thank you for the information and I will stop using that source." What do you think Dave, can you ever get to that point?
If Yates was proven false post the source. As far as using that history channel episode I have not done any research on that particular tribe. Before I decide whether to use or not to depends upon what their argument and proof but as stated in my comments it's not being used in my research and my interest in it from a scale between 1-10. Is about a 1.
bomgeography wrote:As far as using that history channel episode I have not done any research on that particular tribe. Before I decide whether to use or not to depends upon what their argument and proof but as stated in my comments it's not being used in my research and my interest in it from a scale between 1-10. Is about a 1.
David, I don't care what you did or didn't use in your research, I'm not talking about that and you know it. I am talking about what you said to me.
Now you are telling me that you have an interest in it of 1 on a scale of 1-10. Why are you being dishonest with me now? You had enough interest in the fraudulent Central Band of Cherokee (who are neither Cherokee nor are they an Indian tribe) to try to tell me about them in an attempt prop up your so-called "research". Why did you do that? Why did you present me with a fake tribe? How about just answering my question. Or do you just spout off things that you don't even care about and then try to blow off any challenge to your nonsense?
bomgeography wrote:As far as using that history channel episode I have not done any research on that particular tribe. Before I decide whether to use or not to depends upon what their argument and proof but as stated in my comments it's not being used in my research and my interest in it from a scale between 1-10. Is about a 1.
David, I don't care what you did or didn't use in your research, I'm not talking about that and you know it. I am talking about what you said to me.
Now you are telling me that you have an interest in it of 1 on a scale of 1-10. Why are you being dishonest with me now? You had enough interest in the fraudulent Central Band of Cherokee (who are neither Cherokee nor are they an Indian tribe) to try to tell me about them in an attempt prop up your so-called "research". Why did you do that? Why did you present me with a fake tribe? How about just answering my question. Or do you just spout off things that you don't even care about and then try to blow off any challenge to your nonsense?
For your sake I will look more in to it according to them they had people on the trail of tears.
bomgeography wrote: I believe the earth is billions of years old and that Noah flood was local not world wide.
I will assume unless you correct me that you believe humans have been living all over the world for 10's of thousands years. What I am wondering is what is your scientific reasons for rejecting the dating methods of DNA?
bomgeography wrote:For your sake I will look more in to it according to them they had people on the trail of tears.
What? Are you trying to tell me that the Central Band of Cherokee had people on the trail of tears? And you will look into it for my sake? Good grief David, read the Bureau of Indian Affairs report. I provided the link to it for you already.
Now please answer my question. Why did you present me with that fake tribe? According to you, your interest in them is 1 on a scale of 1-10. So why did you do it?
You have continued to call them Cherokee when the fact is that they are not. You have ignored the facts that the CBC themselves provided to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, facts which proved they are not Indians. And now all you can say, instead of answering my question, is that you will look into it but they had people on the Trail of Tears. OMG David. Get a grip and just answer my question.
One more little tiny detail. You tried to tell me they had ancestors on the trail of tears. Do you even have a clue what you are talking about? The common claim of these fake Cherokee groups is that they somehow were able to evade and avoid the trail of tears. http://www.cherokeephoenix.org/Article/index/6113