The boneyard is of course related to the Alaska muck deposits that appear in Velikovsky’s ‘Earth in Upheaval‘ and used as evidence of a catastrophic event, or events, in the Pleistocene period. A succession of catastrophic events in fact. George Howard at https://cosmictusk.com … provided a link to a podcast of Joe Rogan. Interestingly, the catastrophic origin of the Alaskan muck deposits, as well as some of the stuff dredged up by Joe Rogan, are not to the liking of mainstream, in the 20th century as well as the 21st. In the podcast in question a guest of Rogan, one John Reeves, said that thousands of ancient bones were dumped in New York’s East River in 1940 – including whole mammoth tusks recovered from land he owned in Alaska. They were sent to the New York museum of natural history. One may wonder if most of these bones might be fractured and in bits as the muck appears, in places, to have been rolled by water, and the bones are mixed up with plant material, including tree branches etc. Currently, they hinder gold mining as the muck covers certain river valleys where gold has been found in river gravels. See https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/05/john-reeves-boneyard-alaska-graham-hancock-joe-rogan-cosmic-tusk/ … Reeves land in Alaska has been a hotbed for mammoth bones and those of dire wolves, short eared bears, and other extinct Ice Age fauna. The podcast went on to say that bones pulled out of melting permafrost, and muck deposits in general, suggest a potential sudden mass death event that washed hundreds of thousands of dead animals into the same deposit [or deposits]. If you liked Earth in Upheaval you will no doubt like the podcast but whether all the bones came from Reeves land is a moot question. Probably not. The Daily Caller spoke to George Howard of the Comet Research Group who says, he has mammoth tusks that came from the Fairbanks area – not far from the Reeves site. Joe Rogan podcasts are not regarded as factual by mainstream scientists, and as a journalist he no doubt can say things they cannot. However, one question might be, why were the bones dumped in the deep waters of the East River. One answer might be they were the bones that were broken and splintered and therefore not in a condition to show in the museum. There is actually a problem in museums with space to store finds. A single archaeological dig can produce enough material to fill most of the museum storage space and this affects museums everywhere. Most of them usually have subsidiary stores that can be miles away from the actual museum itself. The Natural History museum in New York, at the north end of Central Park, is huge, but they still had to dispose of a lot of material – but why did it happen in 1940? Were the bones considered embarrassing to uniformitarian thinking? Who knows. There is probably a perfectly good reason.
See also https://cosmictusk.com/comet-research-group-bonebed-paper-rogan-reeves/ … concerns the Alaskan muck and suggests they were caused by blast deposits from several episodes of air bursts in the Late Pleistocene period between 46,000 and 11,000BP.
Joe Rogan has also given Graham Hancock a hearing and was criticised in a letter for doing so, that regarded Hancock as pseudo scientific. Hancock is essentially a journalist and book writer and goes where archaeology is too nervous to tread. In fact, the response from Rogan and the Daily Caller [not sure who they are] was quite funny, displaying evidence of the bias of the letter writers [or those that added their signature]. See https://dailycaller.com/2022/12/08/society-for-american-archaeology-calls-for-police-netflix-graham-hancock-ancient-apocalypse/ … which was featured at a post on In the News last December. In fact, the sentiments expressed then are not a lot different from the Daily Caller. Graham Hancock has a bee in his bonnet about an Ice Age civilisation that was brought to an end by a cataclysm at the end of the Late Glacial Maximum. No physical evidence of such a civilisation has ever been found but there is plenty of evidence of an upheaval at the end of the LGM, and at the Younger Dryas boundary. This is usually ignored which is why Hancock is so successful. People can see things are not quite as they are portrayed by mainstream science. The funny thing about the diatribe by the Society for American Archaeology is they accused Hancock of racism, for making use of indigenous source material, but the Daily Caller points out that he is in a mixed race marraige and has mixed race children and grandchildren. Hancock acts as a sort of conduit for the views of non-western people, and their myth and tradition. Velikovsky did something similar and used material from people all over the world to support his claims. Whereas in the developed world most of the older myth and legend has been modified over time it is a fact that in some traditional societies, in the Brazilian rainforest or the arid regions of Australia, it has not been modified and is as near as pristine as we are likely to get. I don’t see a problem with this as it gives a voice to the undeveloped world that usually has none. It is the S of AA that is suppressing the voice of indigenous people – not Hancock, and not Velikovsky. Not only that, whether there was an advanced Ice Age civilisation is for readers to decide after reading his books. I expect most readers have an open mind. Why do these people wish to think for their lessers one might wonder. Do they think only themselves are capable of deciding what is garbage or what is worth taking onboard?