I also don’t believe these R1b guys developed agriculture themselves, so do I see them as stupid?
For every Eurasian culture, it all traces back to the Middle East. Why should the Amerindians be any different? What made them emerge out of hunter-gatherers, as they had been for a great deal of time, roughly at the same time (roughly in a very broad sense, but in the grand scheme of human history, the agricultural revolution is relatively recent) as the ENF?
This is just not true, nor is it a historically sound argument. You need to demonstrate that it must have happened, not that it "could've happened" this way. Unless you have at least a modicum of evidence that there was Eurasian-American contacts, let alone in South America and not in North America (which is much closer to Asia), this kind of argument is based on a complete phallacy which is basically "if something was true for one continent (Eurasia is just one landmass) then it must be true for the entire world".
Also, you're wrong that in Eurasia it all traces back to the Middle East. The East Asian Neolithic was, until any strong amount of contrary evidences are found, developed independently and based on different plant domesticates and techniques. Not even in Eurasia, which is one easily interconnected mass, does agriculture seem to have been created just once. In West Africa and in Papua New Guinea, there are also significant evidences that agriculture may have been developed from scratch, independently, with different domestication and cultivation processes, even though we can't be sure that they hadn't learned about the existence of some peoples who lived as farmers and emulated them. And that's in the Old World, easily linked to the Middle East.
And you want us to assume that both agriculture AND metallurgy (you know those two inventions in the Americas appeared thousands of years apart from each, right?) came with the same group of Near Eastern explorers? How on earth would they have done that feat if we all know that agriculture started in the Americas in Peru, in the Pacific Coast, and spread initially along the Andean region and the adjacent coast, so the Canary Current couldn't have played absolutely no role in that development for the obvious fact that that region can't be reached at all by the Atlantic ocean? There are so many holes in your "story" that it's even tiresome to address all of them.
Besides, for very obvious reasons that I won't bother discussing exactly because of their being self-evident, there is no way the American Neolithic would've been triggered at circa 5000 BC by an expansion that supposedly was just beginning around that time or even later (as per your hypothesis focused on Halaf/Hassuna-Samarra) in the Middle East itself, but that's not even my main point, which is: how the heck would agriculture be spread in South America by a Middle Eastern population, yet they brought absolutely no domesticated plant to the Americas, and agriculture there had nothing to do with the food staples and techniques used in the Middle East and instead was completely based on local plants that had to be domesticated and even artificially developed from scratch (e.g. potato, maize)? Did Native Americans depend on an "idea", that can obviously happen, along thousands of years, in any sufficiently complex and dense tribal population, brought to them by foreigners who somehow made no direct economic impact at all, instead relying entirely on plants that they didn't even know and had been known and gathered by the American natives for milennia? That's just nonsense.
Oh, and it's not just that. Did you notice that, apart from those still very controversial and highly inconclusive samples of Chincohorro mummies, there is absolutely no sign of European-like or more broadly West Eurasian-like ancestry at all in any part of the Americas, much less so in South America, among ancient Pre-Columbian samples and full-blooded Amerindians these days? Of course you did, but the Chinchorro mummies somehow (maybe because they're supposedly oh so European) seem to matter much more than hundreds and thousands of other data. We are now led to believe that somehow the Chinchorro mummies represent this "original" farmer and metal-working population, they just vanished from history elsewhere and later, and curiously enough all the great civilizations of the Americas were created by 100% native hunter-gatherer ancestry. Funny, those explorers were apparently very unsucessful there.
So, let's recap everything that was speculated in this thread about the Americas: R1b explorers came from West Asia to South America along the Canary currents, but nonetheless they miraculously arrived in the Pacific coast, spread agriculture AND metallurgy from there (two highly advanced technologies for the Amerindian natives that would've given these explorers and their allies an extremely important competitive advantage) and left some European DNA in a few Chincorro mummies... and, well, and they basically, unlike any other pioneer farmer and metal-working population, vanished without a trace in South America or North America and were completely replaced by those primitive hunter-gatherers to whom they so kindly taught agriculture and metallurgy. Is that even remotely believable?
Since you like to make comparisons about Eurasia and the Americas as if the dynamics were necessarily the same everywhere, let's just investigate this basic thing: where in Eurasia did a population that brought farming AND metallurgy to some region fail to expand, spread ther genes and leave some long-term genetic influence in the regional population, instead being completely engulfed by the earlier hunter-gatherer population to the point that they had virtually zero genetic impact in the very region where they were so advanced, and their males apparently had no advantage at all over the hunter-gatherer aboriginals, leaving virtually no sign of R1b in Pre-Columbian South America and North America (R1b, instead, is found among tribal Native Americans only in the northeastern part of North America). Honestly, it sounds completely unrealistic - and to say that there is a "mountain of evidence" based on one myth and a few mummies that haven't even had any conclusive study by a reknown professional lab of paleogenetics (sorry, Genetiker) is, frankly, just wishful thinking.
You ask if metallurgy and agriculture could've spread in the Americas except by influence of other people. Of course it couldn't. The problem is that you seem to be forgetting that an indigenous American population could well have been and most probably was that "other people" who influenced others and spread those innovations that actually were developed more than once in the history of humankind because they're in fact not as "unbelievable" and impossible to be conceived as you seem to think. Unless you demonstrate to me not only that long-distance navigation between the Middle East and PACIFIC (yes, that's where agriculture and later metallurgy appeared and spread from here in the Americas) South/Meso America, but that and how it is conceivable that an advanced foreign civilization left a huge cultural/ideological impact but somehow brought no Middle Eastern food staples and had no big genetic expanion in the continent, it all sounds like a very wild speculation, even more so than the other points you claim.
As for Ramesses II and his red hair, well, honestly I do not see any reason to suppose that there would still be any significant correlation between R1b-majority tribes (they wouldn't even exist anymore, not in heavily unmixed form, by the Late Bronze Age) and having red hair by the time Ramesses II lived. So I think his red hair is actually a quite irrelevant issue, especially if you end up being correct about your Halaf/Hassuna-Samarra hypothesis, since that would mean that the bulk of that R1b "ginger" expansion would have happened around 3000-4000 years before Ramesses II lived and would have meant a wide dispersal of those peoples and eventually thousands of years of gradual mixing with the natives they conquered. Besides, there were of course later expansions in the same region (Uruk, Semites, Hurrians), diluting that earlier R1b genetic impact in the region. Ramesses II lived in a time when any such relation, if it ever existed, would be masked by milennia of mixing, population displacements, migrations, with the genes fo red hair spreading to other populations, being perhaps subject to local selective sweeps and becoming unconnected with just one specific R1b-dominant population. In other words, that is to say that if Ramesses II was red-haired that of course does not mean he has anything to do with that supposed R1b expansion of a long time before he was born.
