ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (10/22/85)
>You seem to have changed the topic. What I was referring to was that >several posters (including myself) have proved that lower gravity could >not have been brought about by having Venus or Saturn orbitting nearby >for several reasons. You seem to have accepted this, and are now >spouting theories about magnetic shell changes reducing the gravity of >the earth. Interesting, but no cigar because there is no connection >between gravitation and planetary magnetism. As other posters have >pointed out. My mistake. I was tired that night and the topic appeared to be "bullshit". The network was out in the DC area between Sept. 15 and Oct.; I never saw your "proof". Further, I don't really know what it means to "prove" something could not have happened when we have the testimony of the entire ancient world stating that it did. Simon Newcomb was the most eminent American mathematician of his day and "proved" that heavier than air flying machines were not possible. That was a source of much amusement to the Wrights, who used to claim that their "proof" FLEW better than Newcombs. In my opinion, the only thing about the archaic world which is "provable" is the fact that creatures walked and flew which were simply far too heavy to walk and fly now, but I would ask you to reserve judgement on the "Age of Kronos" until you've read my next couple of large articles, which will concern some of the historical evidence for it. >Now I don't personally I don't think that ancient man could have made a serious >dent in the populations of Mammoths etc. However, there are lots of other >things that could have done so. See my previous posting on climactic cycles. >Polar precession, which is a measureable and proven phenomenon is perfectly >adequate in explaining how the Mammoths died off in Siberia. A fluctuation >of 10C in the annual average temp. is perfectly capable of increasing the >winter snow depth to prevent Mammoths from feeding. Bullshit. The elephants simply vary their migration routes a few degrees South on average; no sweat. Besides, most people are claiming the mammoths died because it got "WARMER", not colder. Remember the fictitious "ice-age"? It was supposed to be ending. Haven't you been reading all the neat articles on net.origins describing how well adapted the mammoth was to living in ice and snow where there was no food for it? But I'm gratified to see that there's at least one other person besides myself in the UNIX world bright enough to realize that man had nothing to do with the extinction of the mammoths; most contributors to net.origins have been claiming exactly that: that man extermin- ated not only the mammoths, but all the rest of the earth's megafauna. Again, you had the right word for such a notion: BULLSHIT. > >>which I read about in various articles on evolution. This would come about >>due to the fact that it is too cold to ever take showers in Siberia; anyone >>who hunted that way THERE would never smell right again until the day of >>judgement, and St. Peter would probably laugh at him then. Now, I claim >>that this would result in a problem for these hunters when they sought >>wives for themselves. I mean, have you ever walked into a bar all covered >>with bullshit and tried to pick up women? I've never tried it but I have >>to believe it would be pretty near impossible. Thus, I claim that natural >>selection would have favored hunters who went out and killed deers and rabbits >>and ducks, and that those who smeared bullshit over themselves and went out >>after mammoths would have had no progeny. > >First of all, you show a complete lack of understanding what the climate of >Siberia is like. Certainly, winters are COLD (averaging around -40 to -50 >if I remember rightly), but the summers are quite warm (upper 70's) and are >several months long. They can grow crops up there during the summer. >Perfectly reasonable for having "showers". >I mentioned this in my previous posting. >Certainly, waiting 8 months or so for a shower isn't particularly nice. >However, read a little history - in Shakespeare's time, people only had one >bath per year, when it was time to cut off their winter clothing. Many >people wore the same clothes for several months. The people thought that >baths caused diseases. > >Further, many CURRENT cultures (as well as many ancient ones, including >17th century England) had different attitudes towards cleanliness and >the appropriate handling of feces. Many native tribes actually DO hunt >smeared with excrement EVEN NOW. >-- > Whew! That sounds almost as bad as living in Cambodia. But don't tell me I've been imagining reading these stories about mammoths being found preserved in the ice up there or that it doesn't stay colder than you'd want for showers or that there isn't a difference between Northern Siberia and the Liakhovs on the one hand and Southern Siberia on the other. I can believe they grow crops in Southern Siberia. I was simply trying to make the point that the "BULLSHIT" system of big-game hunting would not explain the extinction of mammoths in that part of Siberia, the Liakhovs, and Novo Sibirsk islands lying inside the arctic circle. One contributer was trying to claim that it did. Unbelieveable!