First Nations athletes reach Ironman Australia goals, inspiring others to take on the challenge 8-)

Brian Ross wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 1:19pm:

First Nations athletes reach Ironman Australia goals, inspiring others to take on the challenge 8-)

The Great White Hope: Top 10 White Athletes of Today  8-)

Brian Ross wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 1:19pm:

First Nations athletes reach Ironman Australia goals, inspiring others to take on the challenge 8-)

;D Nearly all white fellas ... you old dolt.

Aboriginalism is an Anti-Australian Racism.
Aboriginalism is an Anti-Multi-Culturalism.

After the millennia of practice walking every day and running away from enemies, they should be naturals at it.

How wonderful they are - they reached Ironman Australia level!  Hand out the medals for participation again....

Jasin wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 7:49pm:

Aboriginalism is an Anti-Australian Racism. Aboriginalism is an Anti-Multi-Culturalism.

I advocate a Two State Solution...... Ausrael and Abestine - let's see which one prospers and which falls into degeneracy....

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 1:00am:

Jasin wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 7:49pm: Aboriginalism is an Anti-Australian Racism. Aboriginalism is an Anti-Multi-Culturalism. I advocate a Two State Solution...... Ausrael and Abestine - let's see which one prospers and which falls into degeneracy....

Aboriginalism is an Anti-Globalism & Anti-Internationalism.

Well this thread is a great meeting of the minds, isn't it.

mothra wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 6:37am:

Well this thread is a great meeting of the minds, isn't it.

Yes .. it was lifted to greatness when you arrived .. yes?  ;D

Gnads wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 7:33am:

mothra wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 6:37am: Well this thread is a great meeting of the minds, isn't it. Yes .. it was lifted to greatness when you arrived .. yes?  ;D

Hardly. I chose to forgo imparting any words of wisdom.

sometimes, it;s just not worth it, y'know? All that remains is whether you walk away or poke a stick at it.

mothra wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 7:39am:

Gnads wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 7:33am: mothra wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 6:37am: Well this thread is a great meeting of the minds, isn't it. Yes .. it was lifted to greatness when you arrived .. yes?  ;D Hardly. I chose to forgo imparting any words of wisdom. sometimes, it;s just not worth it, y'know? All that remains is whether you walk away or poke a stick at it.

Yeah... yeah ... we understand ... it's OK ...

**enter mothra - stage left - swinging an ideological axe at the imaginary forest**

Gnads wrote on May 12^th, 2024 at 5:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 1:19pm: First Nations athletes reach Ironman Australia goals, inspiring others to take on the challenge 8-) ;D Nearly all white fellas ... you old dolt.

They are biracial athletes. That does not make them "white".

mothra wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 6:37am:

Well this thread is a great meeting of the minds, isn't it.

youre pretty good at tearing things down.

got anything positive to say?

nope

hence why hateful nihilistic emotionally frustrated leftie intellectuals should never be let anywthere near aborigines lest they infect them with negativity

good to see these aborigines flourishing , though it wrecks people like mothras victim narrative and makes it harder for people like mothra to grift

UnSubRocky wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 3:32pm:

Gnads wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 5:59pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 1:19pm: First Nations athletes reach Ironman Australia goals, inspiring others to take on the challenge 8-) ;D Nearly all white fellas ... you old dolt. They are biracial athletes. That does not make them "white".

Nor does it make them Abestinian .... I'm Indigenous..... you likely are... let us put these words in their proper place....

There's Whites etc, Indigenous Whites and Blacks etc, and Abestinians bound for Abestine once it is established under the Two State Solution, or who remain as assimilated Australians.....  sorry .. Ausraelis....

If the enlightened ones are going to play the race card, let's get our form guides sorted out ..... I want to leap out of bed with a plan for furture Ausreal ....not sleep on it for a thousand years ....

The Two State Solution has its attractions.... better than having a tiny group in every Phar Ken town with the 'right' to stop everything at whim .... will somehow rise up out of the sidewalks like BLM* or some kid in a teenage fantasy novel to 'oppose tyranny' etc - while actually imposing tyranny......... the New Nazis are all on the 'left', much as the Nazis were national Socialists.... they're just too dumb and uneducated to know the difference between words and actual behaviour.

*  had to apply a hydraulic jack to my jaw after one BLeMish said they just rose out of the footpaths etc whenever the Neo-Nazis staged a demonstration... absolute fantasy ... those who opposed BLM came along after their staged nonsense was announced and stood quietly...  maybe South Australia has something in this idea of chopping kids under 14 out of social media.... and carefully vetting the kind of stupidity that goes into 'teenage novels' ....

What this shows at the end of the day is how very borderline all this nonsense is making children - pure fantasy every which way...  8-)

UnSubRocky wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 3:32pm:

Gnads wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 5:59pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 1:19pm: First Nations athletes reach Ironman Australia goals, inspiring others to take on the challenge 8-) ;D Nearly all white fellas ... you old dolt. They are biracial athletes. That does not make them "white".

they did say "nearly", can you not read

JC Denton wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 4:09pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 3:32pm: Gnads wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 5:59pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 1:19pm: First Nations athletes reach Ironman Australia goals, inspiring others to take on the challenge 8-) ;D Nearly all white fellas ... you old dolt. They are biracial athletes. That does not make them "white". they did say "nearly", can you not read

I read quite well. The problem is that someone wrote "nearly all white fellas" instead of "almost white fellas". "Nearly all white" gives the impression that they are white athletes except for one of them.

mothra wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 7:39am:

Gnads wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 7:33am: mothra wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 6:37am: Well this thread is a great meeting of the minds, isn't it. Yes .. it was lifted to greatness when you arrived .. yes?  ;D Hardly. I chose to forgo imparting any words of wisdom. sometimes, it;s just not worth it, y'know? All that remains is whether you walk away or poke a stick at it.

Don't need to poke a stick at you.  ;D ;D

UnSubRocky wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 3:32pm:

Gnads wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 5:59pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 1:19pm: First Nations athletes reach Ironman Australia goals, inspiring others to take on the challenge 8-) ;D Nearly all white fellas ... you old dolt. They are biracial athletes. That does not make them "white".

Equally it doesn't make them black.

Iron Mob? ;D ;D ;D

---

UnSubRocky wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 8:10pm:

JC Denton wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 4:09pm: UnSubRocky wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 3:32pm: Gnads wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 5:59pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 1:19pm: First Nations athletes reach Ironman Australia goals, inspiring others to take on the challenge 8-) ;D Nearly all white fellas ... you old dolt. They are biracial athletes. That does not make them "white". they did say "nearly", can you not read I read quite well. ;D The problem is that someone wrote "nearly all white fellas" instead of "almost white fellas". "Nearly all white" gives the impression that they are white athletes except for one of them.

;D In the context used they mean the same thing.

Don't make any pretense about your level of comprehension of the use of English. ::)


Quote:

Almost and nearly both mean `not completely' or `not quite'. They can be used in front of adjectives or noun phrases, or with verbs.

"He said he can see quite well" ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l-JA3pTceo&ab_channel=FredHollows

"Nearly all" usually means "nearly all of (subjects)". It would help if you had said "Near all" instead.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 1:31pm:

"Nearly all" usually means "nearly all of (subjects)". It would help if you had said "Near all" instead.

Are you serious?   ;D

Gnads wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 6:05pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on May 14th, 2024 at 1:31pm: "Nearly all" usually means "nearly all of (subjects)". It would help if you had said "Near all" instead. Are you serious?   ;D

"Nearly all white people" seems synonymous with saying "Nearly all of them are white people". If you wrote "all-white people", then it would be more apparent to me what you mean.

But, you know, this gets away from the fact that the athletes, featured in the photographs of the story, look genuinely indigenous.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 14^th, 2024 at 6:25pm:

Gnads wrote on May 14th, 2024 at 6:05pm: UnSubRocky wrote on May 14th, 2024 at 1:31pm: "Nearly all" usually means "nearly all of (subjects)". It would help if you had said "Near all" instead. Are you serious?   ;D "Nearly all white people" seems synonymous with saying "Nearly all of them are white people". If you wrote "all-white people", then it would be more apparent to me what you mean. But, you know, this gets away from the fact that the athletes, featured in the photographs of the story, look genuinely indigenous.

Genuinely part Aboriginal.


And that goes to the nub: which part of their inheritance do they relegate or ignore? And why?
If you are half white, half Aboriginal then you are as Aboriginal as you are white. Why not say that?

You would identify with whatever racial background serves you the best. Having had a part-aboriginal girlfriend who told me about her upbringing being difficult had it not been for her parents ticking the aboriginal box on forms, I bet she sees herself as indigenous to this day.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 15^th, 2024 at 2:31pm:

You would identify with whatever racial background serves you the best. Having had a part-aboriginal girlfriend who told me about her upbringing being difficult had it not been for her parents ticking the aboriginal box on forms, I bet she sees herself as indigenous to this day.

Well that can't be right according to the virtue signaler on here that reckon Aboriginals get it so bad in every way.

If that were true why would you identify only as Aboriginal?

You might have been rhetorical with that last question, Gnads.

How did they manage that?

UnSubRocky wrote on May 13^th, 2024 at 3:32pm:

Gnads wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 5:59pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 1:19pm: First Nations athletes reach Ironman Australia goals, inspiring others to take on the challenge 8-) ;D Nearly all white fellas ... you old dolt. They are biracial athletes. That does not make them "white".

Define ‘white’.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on May 16^th, 2024 at 3:14pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on May 13th, 2024 at 3:32pm: Gnads wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 5:59pm: Brian Ross wrote on May 12th, 2024 at 1:19pm: First Nations athletes reach Ironman Australia goals, inspiring others to take on the challenge 8-) ;D Nearly all white fellas ... you old dolt. They are biracial athletes. That does not make them "white". Define ‘white’.

;D That'll be too hard for ol matey.

I'm amazed that with their terrible diet and such and neglect they could even raise a trot....

;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on May 16^th, 2024 at 3:14pm:

Define ‘white’.

A person who has a European racial ancestry.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 16^th, 2024 at 8:02pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on May 16th, 2024 at 3:14pm: Define ‘white’. A person who has a European racial ancestry.

Well, they are all white by that definition.


Most urban and regional aborigines are white by that reckoning.

Frank wrote on May 16^th, 2024 at 9:32pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on May 16th, 2024 at 8:02pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on May 16th, 2024 at 3:14pm: Define ‘white’. A person who has a European racial ancestry. Well, they are all white by that definition. Most urban and regional aborigines are white by that reckoning.

They would also be aboriginal. As I use in examples, my daughter is multiracial. There is some caucasian ancestry going back to her great-grandparents on her mother's side. But, she has an Australasian background and the caucasian element inherited from me. The last I saw of her, she had dyed her hair blonde. So, even though she looks white, she does have Native Australasian features indicative of her mother's heritage. If she wants to claim that she is Asian, aboriginal, Maori, Islander or caucasian, she can do that. But, she claims to be Australian. And I think that is the point of the debate here. We should not have been focusing on the indigenous heritage of indigenous athletes.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 7:18pm:

Frank wrote on May 16th, 2024 at 9:32pm: UnSubRocky wrote on May 16th, 2024 at 8:02pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on May 16th, 2024 at 3:14pm: Define ‘white’. A person who has a European racial ancestry. Well, they are all white by that definition. Most urban and regional aborigines are white by that reckoning. They would also be aboriginal. As I use in examples, my daughter is multiracial. There is some caucasian ancestry going back to her great-grandparents on her mother's side. But, she has an Australasian background and the caucasian element inherited from me. The last I saw of her, she had dyed her hair blonde. So, even though she looks white, she does have Native Australasian features indicative of her mother's heritage. If she wants to claim that she is Asian, aboriginal, Maori, Islander or caucasian, she can do that. But, she claims to be Australian. And I think that is the point of the debate here. We should not have been focusing on the indigenous heritage of indigenous athletes.

I think race/cultural mixing puts a terrible burden on the offspring. 
It was groovy and exotic when it was rare. But when it is everywhere all the multitudes of permutations want to carve out their own identity and 'uniqueness' that is simply not there.

Most young people understand nothing of their own Western inheritance. What they understand of it is tainted by a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of their non-western sides.  It is not their making but it is the bind they are thrust into.

Boong, semi-boong and semi-demi boong and so forth?

I was always of the view that the 'boong' thing came from the way they could jump so well off their feet ... boong!!  Like a kangaroo ...

Frank wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 7:57pm:

I think race/cultural mixing puts a terrible burden on the offspring.  It was groovy and exotic when it was rare. But when it is everywhere all the multitudes of permutations want to carve out their own identity and 'uniqueness' that is simply not there. Most young people understand nothing of their own Western inheritance. What they understand of it is tainted by a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of their non-western sides.  It is not their making but it is the bind they are thrust into.

That is difficult for people to say that they do not know of their Western inheritance. Western influence is all around them. From the language they speak. The foods that they eat. The games that they play.

I may be from a regional town. However, I know people of many different backgrounds that speak with an Australian accent and act according to the culture of mainstream Australia. If they want to adopt a different culture, that is up to them. But, I bet they would try to identify with mainstream Australia for most of their time.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 8:39pm:

Frank wrote on May 19th, 2024 at 7:57pm: I think race/cultural mixing puts a terrible burden on the offspring.  It was groovy and exotic when it was rare. But when it is everywhere all the multitudes of permutations want to carve out their own identity and 'uniqueness' that is simply not there. Most young people understand nothing of their own Western inheritance. What they understand of it is tainted by a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of their non-western sides.  It is not their making but it is the bind they are thrust into. That is difficult for people to say that they do not know of their Western inheritance. Western influence is all around them. From the language they speak. The foods that they eat. The games that they play. I may be from a regional town. However, I know people of many different backgrounds that speak with an Australian accent and act according to the culture of mainstream Australia. If they want to adopt a different culture, that is up to them. But, I bet they would try to identify with mainstream Australia for most of their time.

The shopping mall is not the culture.

Culture goes deeper but I suspect most people are ignorant of their own culture, the education system being the disgrace it is. Most Westerners are ignorant of their history, literature, music, art etc.
Mixed race people are ignorant of all their inheritance. They are ignorant of their Western culture and they are ignorant of their non-western culture about which they know only from an ignorant Western perspective.

There is no Aboriginal, Islander, Maori culture, for example, that is not filtered and transmitted by a Western medium: they are all illiterate cultures and you know about them only through Western literacy and transcription and translation.


There is a terrible mania for primitive cultures trying to stay primitive. If that mania afflicts an actual person, mostly mixed race, she is doomed.

The shopping mall might well be representative of materialism. Therefore, it is part of the culture. Eating out might well be representative of socialising in public. Therefore, it is part of the culture. Playing a certain code of sport may be relevant to the level of respect society puts towards toughness and skill. Therefore, sport is is part of the culture.

Most Westerners are well aware of their culture, as it is all around them. Imported cultures from outside Western nations just add to the diversity of Western culture. Even those non-Western cultures tend to adapt towards Western dominant culture.


Quote:

There is no Aboriginal, Islander, Maori culture, for example, that is not filtered and transmitted by a Western medium: they are all illiterate cultures and you know about them only through Western literacy and transcription and translation.

You are kidding, right? Aboriginal, Islander, and Maori culture is around to this day. Just because all groups have adopted mainly Western culture, that does not mean that those groups are completely ignoring their traditional cultures. And the fact that you only mainly see these cultures in the media is generally the result of a person's lack of travelling to see cultural events take place. The culture is still practised just that there is no overwhelming presence of the culture being performed everywhere.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 2:09am:

The shopping mall might well be representative of materialism. Therefore, it is part of the culture. Eating out might well be representative of socialising in public. Therefore, it is part of the culture. Playing a certain code of sport may be relevant to the level of respect society puts towards toughness and skill. Therefore, sport is is part of the culture. Most Westerners are well aware of their culture, as it is all around them. Imported cultures from outside Western nations just add to the diversity of Western culture. Even those non-Western cultures tend to adapt towards Western dominant culture. Quote: There is no Aboriginal, Islander, Maori culture, for example, that is not filtered and transmitted by a Western medium: they are all illiterate cultures and you know about them only through Western literacy and transcription and translation. You are kidding, right? Aboriginal, Islander, and Maori culture is around to this day. Just because all groups have adopted mainly Western culture, that does not mean that those groups are completely ignoring their traditional cultures. And the fact that you only mainly see these cultures in the media is generally the result of a person's lack of travelling to see cultural events take place. The culture is still practised just that there is no overwhelming presence of the culture being performed everywhere.

And do you actually know how precisely traditional it is? 

Much has been lost ... language and traditions....

and in an effort to keep things supposedly traditional in many areas where that has happened ..... it's making a re-emergence by making it up/re-inventing it.

And none of that can happen without massive western influence via literacy, transcription and translation .... as Frank has stated.

One of the supposed elders here(She's at least 10 yrs younger than me) that went on a "teach" the local language in our paper a few years ago .....went to Darwin to learn the language???????

How that would be relevant to her learning her traditional east coast language I don't know, because there's 2,700 klm separating the locations and no language/dialect similarities in the Darwin/Arnhem Land tribal areas.

Traditional culture changes over time, anyway. I bet the British in the year 1900 have a different culture to that of 1800 or 1700 or 1600. And I bet there is no argument that the British culture of 2024 is much different to that of the year 1924.

My own culture has changed over the last 30 years. It had a more rural/regional township culture. Now it is post modern culture.

No culture is stagnant.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 6:09pm:

Traditional culture changes over time, anyway. I bet the British in the year 1900 have a different culture to that of 1800 or 1700 or 1600. And I bet there is no argument that the British culture of 2024 is much different to that of the year 1924. My own culture has changed over the last 30 years. It had a more rural/regional township culture. Now it is post modern culture. No culture is stagnant.

Except Aboriginal culture. That is its unique  claim to distiction: it was exactly the same on January 25, 20,000 BC and 25 January 1788. No difference.

Frank wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 6:46pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 6:09pm: Traditional culture changes over time, anyway. I bet the British in the year 1900 have a different culture to that of 1800 or 1700 or 1600. And I bet there is no argument that the British culture of 2024 is much different to that of the year 1924. My own culture has changed over the last 30 years. It had a more rural/regional township culture. Now it is post modern culture. No culture is stagnant. Except Aboriginal culture. That is its unique  claim to distiction: it was exactly the same on January 25, 20,000 BC and 25 January 1788. No difference.

That is a big call to say that the culture of aboriginal Australians is the same 250 years ago as it was 22,024 years ago. Are you taking into account the climactic variations compared to today? The megafauna that they hunted to extinction? The cave paintings that they made to map an area?

Indigenous Australian culture is very Stone Age compared to 1788 British explorers. But to say that the indigenous Australians did not evolve their culture in 20,000 years is ridiculous. I bet the Melanesians that boated their way south from Papua could only survive in the Equatorial and tropical north of Australian before they figured out how to live in the interior and then into the cold southern regions.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 10:45pm:

Frank wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 6:46pm: UnSubRocky wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 6:09pm: Traditional culture changes over time, anyway. I bet the British in the year 1900 have a different culture to that of 1800 or 1700 or 1600. And I bet there is no argument that the British culture of 2024 is much different to that of the year 1924. My own culture has changed over the last 30 years. It had a more rural/regional township culture. Now it is post modern culture. No culture is stagnant. Except Aboriginal culture. That is its unique  claim to distiction: it was exactly the same on January 25, 20,000 BC and 25 January 1788. No difference. That is a big call to say that the culture of aboriginal Australians is the same 250 years ago as it was 22,024 years ago. Are you taking into account the climactic variations compared to today? The megafauna that they hunted to extinction? The cave paintings that they made to map an area? Indigenous Australian culture is very Stone Age compared to 1788 British explorers. But to say that the indigenous Australians did not evolve their culture in 20,000 years is ridiculous. I bet the Melanesians that boated their way south from Papua could only survive in the Equatorial and tropical north of Australian before they figured out how to live in the interior and then into the cold southern regions.

Why is it a big call? That's the claim they make.

If it were Stone Age in 1788 how is that a culture that evolved from the culture 22,024 years prior?

Anyways here are some Stone Age Indigenous surfers from QLD. ;D

---

Gnads wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 8:52am:

Why is it a big call? That's the claim they make. If it were Stone Age in 1788 how is that a culture that evolved from the culture 22,024 years prior?

I did post about how the climate changed in the Australasian region. Added to that fact is the idea indigenous Australian ancestors arrived in Northern Australia aided by lower sea levels. 65,000 years ago, the north of the country would have been the most habitable place for the tropically-inclined Melanesian people. As they moved south, there would have been a need to figure out ways to cope with 3 months of winter. And living in fertile areas of NSW and Victoria would have been great for expanding their numbers. But, they still needed to amend their ways to survive the cold.

Megafauna being hunted to extinction might well have been part of an oral tradition for a while until it passed out of history as a result of irrelevancy to new generations of hunters. And having to hunt Australia's unique wildlife and gather unique types of foods would have influenced when, where and how the hunter-gatherer tribes behaved. For example, you might be able to feed yourself daily in a single location of Papua New Guinea in 63,000 BC. But, you would have a hell of a time at parts of the year in Australia getting fed from hunting or gathering, unless you knew where to roam for food.

The culture of 65,000 years ago compared to 250 years ago for indigenous people of Australia would have been immense. But, it would have been little by little changes every year. From 1788 to the 1930s, indigenous culture changed by being forced to adapt to modern society.

I'm surprised they made it that far - they can't run or anything, after all...

Startling headline:-  "White athletes reach Ironman Australia goal" ...

https://i.gifer.com/13Qe.gif

UnSubRocky wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 3:28pm:

Gnads wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 8:52am: Why is it a big call? That's the claim they make. If it were Stone Age in 1788 how is that a culture that evolved from the culture 22,024 years prior? I did post about how the climate changed in the Australasian region. Added to that fact is the idea indigenous Australian ancestors arrived in Northern Australia aided by lower sea levels. 65,000 years ago, the north of the country would have been the most habitable place for the tropically-inclined Melanesian people. As they moved south, there would have been a need to figure out ways to cope with 3 months of winter. And living in fertile areas of NSW and Victoria would have been great for expanding their numbers. But, they still needed to amend their ways to survive the cold. Megafauna being hunted to extinction might well have been part of an oral tradition for a while until it passed out of history as a result of irrelevancy to new generations of hunters. And having to hunt Australia's unique wildlife and gather unique types of foods would have influenced when, where and how the hunter-gatherer tribes behaved. For example, you might be able to feed yourself daily in a single location of Papua New Guinea in 63,000 BC. But, you would have a hell of a time at parts of the year in Australia getting fed from hunting or gathering, unless you knew where to roam for food. The culture of 65,000 years ago compared to 250 years ago for indigenous people of Australia would have been immense. But, it would have been little by little changes every year. From 1788 to the 1930s, indigenous culture changed by being forced to adapt to modern society.

Bullshyte ..... what immense advancements did they make in that time?

Any climate change had SFA to do with cultural advancement.

You're just making an assumption.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 3:28pm:

Gnads wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 8:52am: Why is it a big call? That's the claim they make. If it were Stone Age in 1788 how is that a culture that evolved from the culture 22,024 years prior? I did post about how the climate changed in the Australasian region. Added to that fact is the idea indigenous Australian ancestors arrived in Northern Australia aided by lower sea levels. 65,000 years ago, the north of the country would have been the most habitable place for the tropically-inclined Melanesian people. As they moved south, there would have been a need to figure out ways to cope with 3 months of winter. And living in fertile areas of NSW and Victoria would have been great for expanding their numbers. But, they still needed to amend their ways to survive the cold. Megafauna being hunted to extinction might well have been part of an oral tradition for a while until it passed out of history as a result of irrelevancy to new generations of hunters. And having to hunt Australia's unique wildlife and gather unique types of foods would have influenced when, where and how the hunter-gatherer tribes behaved. For example, you might be able to feed yourself daily in a single location of Papua New Guinea in 63,000 BC. But, you would have a hell of a time at parts of the year in Australia getting fed from hunting or gathering, unless you knew where to roam for food. The culture of 65,000 years ago compared to 250 years ago for indigenous people of Australia would have been immense. But, it would have been little by little changes every year. From 1788 to the 1930s, indigenous culture changed by being forced to adapt to modern society.

The fertility of NSW & Victoria is relevant how?

They were Hunter Gatherers not Agriculturalists.

And you may want to have a rethink about causing the extinction of the mega fauna.


Quote:

Queensland Museum palaeontologist Dr Scott Hocknull, who led the study, said there was still more research to come out of the site, “The megafauna at South Walker Creek were uniquely tropical, dominated by huge reptilian carnivores and mega-herbivores that went extinct around 40,000 years ago, well after humans arrived onto mainland Australia,” Dr Hocknull said. “We cannot place humans at this 40,000-year-old crime scene, we have no firm evidence. Therefore, we find no role for humans in the extinction of these species of megafauna. “Instead, we do find that their extinction is coincident with major climatic and environmental deterioration both locally and regionally, including increased fire, reduction in grasslands and loss of freshwater. Together, these sustained changes were simply too much for the largest of Australia’s animals to cope with.” Professor Dosseto, founder of the Wollongong Isotope Geochronology Laboratory, said the findings challenged the theory that human hunting largely drove the extinction of Australian megafauna. “Our study shows that Australia megafauna was alive and well in Queensland later than previously thought,” he said. “At this time, humans have been in the area for thousands of years. Our new ages for extinction also show it’s a time of major environmental change and increased aridity. “No doubt humans would have hunted megafauna and had it for dinner. But these new results show that humans alone didn’t drive megafauna to extinction; climate and environmental change was also a big driver.”

https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2020/fossil-discoveries-reveal-the-cause-of-megafauna-extinction.php#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20megafauna%20at%20South%20Walker,Australia%2C%E2%80%9D%20Dr%20Hocknull%20said.

Gnads wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 11:20am:

Bullshyte ..... what immense advancements did they make in that time? Any climate change had SFA to do with cultural advancement. You're just making an assumption.

Are you phucking serious??? Our very way of life today is the result of Europeans having been raised over tens of thousands of years in a cold climate. They had to plan when to grow crops and how to store food and all manner of technological advancements that related to the way the weather changed from warm summers to bitterly cold winters.

I could imagine that the indigenous Australians living in southern parts of Australia had to adapt to survive cold winters. I had just spent some time writing about how they would have had to move around based on the seasonal changes to gather food to survive. I bet that would have been a vast difference altering their culture compared to their Papuan ancestors. If you have been to Papua New Guinea, is there much of a change in weather patterns there?

Gnads wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 11:31am:

The fertility of NSW & Victoria is relevant how? They were Hunter Gatherers not Agriculturalists. And you may want to have a rethink about causing the extinction of the mega fauna.

Maybe it is my association with living in a regional area where livestock of cattle are dependent on fertile soils and plentiful rainfall are reported quite often. But, if you live in a fertile region of the country with plentiful rainfall, you are likely to see more animals about and plants and trees growing. Can you imagine then that the indigenous would have had better chance of survival with hunting and gathering food? So, more indigenous Australians would have lived in those regions than in any other part of the country (other than northern Australia).

As for mega fauna extinction, I could imagine that the early indigenous people would have targeted the largest animals as a food source first. Therefore, that would have been a primary reason why the mega fauna would have gone extinct. However, whatever the reason for the extinction of mega fauna simply ignores a point that the oral traditions of folklore among aborigines would have changed over time to have forgotten about speaking of such mega fauna existing.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 12:45pm:

Gnads wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 11:20am: Bullshyte ..... what immense advancements did they make in that time? Any climate change had SFA to do with cultural advancement. You're just making an assumption. Are you phucking serious??? Our very way of life today is the result of Europeans having been raised over tens of thousands of years in a cold climate. They had to plan when to grow crops and how to store food and all manner of technological advancements that related to the way the weather changed from warm summers to bitterly cold winters. I could imagine that the indigenous Australians living in southern parts of Australia had to adapt to survive cold winters. I had just spent some time writing about how they would have had to move around based on the seasonal changes to gather food to survive. I bet that would have been a vast difference altering their culture compared to their Papuan ancestors. If you have been to Papua New Guinea, is there much of a change in weather patterns there?

Agriculture developed in Mesopotamia, not Europe.

Women used to do the hunting and were very successful: they talked their prey to death. When the megafauna of Eurasia went extinct, the women spent what used to be hunting time at home. The men, to escape, went out and invented agriculture.

Aboriginal men responded differently. They just beat the women into silence.
"I was seized with a strong propensity to learn whether the attractions of Gooreedeeana were sufficiently powerful to secure her from the brutal violence with which the women are treated,and as I found my question either ill understood or reluctantly answered, I proceeded to examine her head, the part on which the husband's vengeance generally alights. With grief I found it covered by contusions and mangled by scars. The poor creature, grown by this time more confident from perceiving that I pitied her, pointed out a wound just above her left knee which she told me was received from a spear, thrown at her by a man who had lately dragged her by force from her home to gratify his lust. I afterwards observed that this wound had caused a slight lameness and that she limped in walking."

I have to laugh at all attempts to pin the extinction of the Mega-Fauna on Indigenous Australians while at the same time claiming they were only hunter-gathers, without much in the way of technology.  There is no evidence of predation of Indigenous Australians on the Mega-Fauna.  None.  None in any midden heaps, none in any caves, none.  The Mega-Fauna died out because of a changing climate - the drying out of the Australian continent.  They existed on the continent for thousands of years after the arrival of Indigenous Australians,  Yes, the Indigenous Australians may have tried to hunt them but spears and bows and arrows were totally inadequate for the task.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

... affirmative action winners ....

Frank wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 2:07pm:

Agriculture developed in Mesopotamia, not Europe.

Given that it has been 30 years since I did any study on where agriculture developed *first*, I find the concept of where it originated to be irrelevant to the topic. The topic is where agriculture was used in the world and at what extent. Agriculture was used in Europe, Asia, and parts of Africa. Agriculture is used in Australia. Whether agriculture was used in Australia by the indigenous Australians before the arrival of Europeans, I would not know. But, my best estimate of what went on was that the tribes would hunt and gather in one part of the region at one time of the year. Then the food might run out or the animals might migrate out of the area. So, the tribes would move to the next territory. As for fishing and farming, I would assume that the tribes might overfish certain areas, and then have enough smarts to move to a different fishing area. Gathering nuts and berries might be a matter of allowing the bushes and trees to grow sufficiently for a while so that they can regather the food from there.

Best guess. They would hunt for wild animals every day or so. If they ran out, they would fish. Gathering berries and nuts from the flora would be an everyday thing. If they ran out due to the weather changing, they moved on to new hunter-gatherer grounds.

Brian Ross wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 9:19pm:

I have to laugh at all attempts to pin the extinction of the Mega-Fauna on Indigenous Australians while at the same time claiming they were only hunter-gathers, without much in the way of technology.  There is no evidence of predation of Indigenous Australians on the Mega-Fauna.  None.  None in any midden heaps, none in any caves, none.  The Mega-Fauna died out because of a changing climate - the drying out of the Australian continent.  They existed on the continent for thousands of years after the arrival of Indigenous Australians,  Yes, the Indigenous Australians may have tried to hunt them but spears and bows and arrows were totally inadequate for the task.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Whilst I believe that changing climactic conditions could have been the main factor in the extinction of megafauna, 40,000 years ago, I think the indigenous people would have had enough skill and weaponry to hunt the megafauna first, before they went after other wildlife.

And simply because you don't see bones in midden heaps, that does not mean that the indigenous did not hunt them for food. Bones do eventually break done. People never saw dinosaur bones out in the open as evidence of them being in existence. People had discovered them during digs. I dare say that 40,000 years of physical weathering would have meant that those bones would have broken down. The discovery of the megafauna bones might have been preserved underground.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 12:45pm:

Gnads wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 11:20am: Bullshyte ..... what immense advancements did they make in that time? Any climate change had SFA to do with cultural advancement. You're just making an assumption. Are you phucking serious??? Our very way of life today is the result of Europeans having been raised over tens of thousands of years in a cold climate. They had to plan when to grow crops and how to store food and all manner of technological advancements that related to the way the weather changed from warm summers to bitterly cold winters. I could imagine that the indigenous Australians living in southern parts of Australia had to adapt to survive cold winters. I had just spent some time writing about how they would have had to move around based on the seasonal changes to gather food to survive. I bet that would have been a vast difference altering their culture compared to their Papuan ancestors. If you have been to Papua New Guinea, is there much of a change in weather patterns there?

Ask yourself that question you clown.

Forget climate change .... they used kangaroo and possum skins didn't they?

We're not talking about European advancement .... we're talking 65,000 years(that's the claim) of Stone Age Hunter Gatherer culture/ surviving in isolation until 1788.

What were their advancements????????

Your level of reading & comprehension needs some remedial attention.

I could know nothing but would still know 4 times what you pretend to know.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 12:54pm:

Gnads wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 11:31am: The fertility of NSW & Victoria is relevant how? They were Hunter Gatherers not Agriculturalists. And you may want to have a rethink about causing the extinction of the mega fauna. Maybe it is my association with living in a regional area where livestock of cattle are dependent on fertile soils and plentiful rainfall are reported quite often. But, if you live in a fertile region of the country with plentiful rainfall, you are likely to see more animals about and plants and trees growing. Can you imagine then that the indigenous would have had better chance of survival with hunting and gathering food? So, more indigenous Australians would have lived in those regions than in any other part of the country (other than northern Australia). As for mega fauna extinction, I could imagine that the early indigenous people would have targeted the largest animals as a food source first. Therefore, that would have been a primary reason why the mega fauna would have gone extinct. However, whatever the reason for the extinction of mega fauna simply ignores a point that the oral traditions of folklore among aborigines would have changed over time to have forgotten about speaking of such mega fauna existing.

I posted a link from from scientific research that refutes that claim.

You obviously didn't read it or the quote I made from it?

Stick to being a restaurant waiter ... and fetch my dinner.  ::)

UnSubRocky wrote on May 23^rd, 2024 at 12:49am:

Frank wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 2:07pm: Agriculture developed in Mesopotamia, not Europe. Given that it has been 30 years since I did any study on where agriculture developed *first*, I find the concept of where it originated to be irrelevant to the topic. The topic is where agriculture was used in the world and at what extent. Agriculture was used in Europe, Asia, and parts of Africa. Agriculture is used in Australia. Whether agriculture was used in Australia by the indigenous Australians before the arrival of Europeans, I would not know. But, my best estimate of what went on was that the tribes would hunt and gather in one part of the region at one time of the year. Then the food might run out or the animals might migrate out of the area. So, the tribes would move to the next territory. As for fishing and farming, I would assume that the tribes might overfish certain areas, and then have enough smarts to move to a different fishing area. Gathering nuts and berries might be a matter of allowing the bushes and trees to grow sufficiently for a while so that they can regather the food from there. Best guess. They would hunt for wild animals every day or so. If they ran out, they would fish. Gathering berries and nuts from the flora would be an everyday thing. If they ran out due to the weather changing, they moved on to new hunter-gatherer grounds.

But aboriginal sage and profesor Pascoe maintains that Aborigines used agriculture even before the Mezopotamians and Europeans, cer trainly independently from them.
They also had cities, before the Mezopotamians or Europeans.


Aboriginal are tribal, so every area is the territory of a tribe. There was no "moving to another area", or if ther ed was, primitive warfare ensued. And they had a lot of that.

Gnads wrote on May 23^rd, 2024 at 5:24am:

Ask yourself that question you clown. Forget climate change .... they used kangaroo and possum skins didn't they? We're not talking about European advancement .... we're talking 65,000 years(that's the claim) of Stone Age Hunter Gatherer culture/ surviving in isolation until 1788. What were their advancements???????? Your level of reading & comprehension needs some remedial attention. I could know nothing but would still know 4 times what you pretend to know.

In other words, you would claim to know just as much as I, in your own estimation. But, you are too stupid to realise your mistake. Advantage USR.

Let's be honest here. 1788-era indigenous people were probably Upper Paleolithic people that had not advanced much from the stone age. I would probably consider the Papuans even less advanced than 1788-era indigenous Australians. But, the indigenous people roaming the continent would have had to alter the way they dealt with the land as they explored further inland.

You might have heard of retired Major Les Hiddins aka "The Bush Tucker Man". He worked with indigenous people in helping establish which species of fruit and nut were edible. And the cataloguing and research on the nutritional value of the flora has been well known.

I would guess that there would have been a bit of trial and error in establishing which  foods were edible and which were not, during the last 40,000 years in Australia. Is that not enough that there would have been education as to which foods were to be collected/hunted and eaten, as part of indigenous Australian culture?

10,000 years ago, you could say that Europeans were on the verge of agricultural revolution. The Romans establishing places in Briton saw the native Britons as basically savages still living a Stone Ages lifestyle, not that dissimilar from indigenous Australians of 1788.

And yet, 234 years later, indigenous people are availing themselves to all manner of Australian life, in work, sport and entertainment. Yet, when a few indigenous people join a lifesaving/iron man competition, you need to call them "almost all white people" or whatever it was that you said a few pages back, just to downplay some position role models being establish among a certain demographic.

Please, keep telling people you know nothing and that everyone is as stupid as you 4 times over. Maybe you will have an aneurysm sufficient to the point that the blood flow to the rest of your brain cells will trigger a sense of shame in yourself.

Frank wrote on May 23^rd, 2024 at 8:02am:

But aboriginal sage and profesor Pascoe maintains that Aborigines used agriculture even before the Mezopotamians and Europeans, cer trainly independently from them. They also had cities, before the Mezopotamians or Europeans. Aboriginal are tribal, so every area is the territory of a tribe. There was no "moving to another area", or if ther ed was, primitive warfare ensued. And they had a lot of that.

I don't pay attention to much of what Bruce Pascoe has said. In fact, up until a few years ago, I had not even heard of Pascoe. So, there is a chance that I have never heard the guy speak.

I don't believe in the concept that indigenous Australians had farming land in terms of ploughing the Earth and planting seeds. I believe that the tribes saw sections of their tribal land with bushes and trees that grew fruits and types of nuts. The people may well have gathered a bunch of fruits from one plant and nuts from another plant. Then they would move on for the day. And whatever hunting they could get was the main source of food.

I am not going to bother reading up my textbooks on indigenous customs. That would be for later in the year. But, I have read enough over the years to accept that the hunting would have been done to a point where weather changes would push tribes to other hunting and gathering areas.

Gnads wrote on May 23^rd, 2024 at 5:28am:

I posted a link from from scientific research that refutes that claim. You obviously didn't read it or the quote I made from it? Stick to being a restaurant waiter ... and fetch my dinner.  ::)

Would you like extra mop with that?

I don't really care how most of the megafauna died out. I just believe that indigenous people hunting them would have led to insufficient numbers being able to breed back into survival.

Aboriginal Plant use and Technology

Were these things found in Papua?

UnSubRocky wrote on May 23^rd, 2024 at 12:55am:

Brian Ross wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 9:19pm: I have to laugh at all attempts to pin the extinction of the Mega-Fauna on Indigenous Australians while at the same time claiming they were only hunter-gathers, without much in the way of technology.  There is no evidence of predation of Indigenous Australians on the Mega-Fauna.  None.  None in any midden heaps, none in any caves, none.  The Mega-Fauna died out because of a changing climate - the drying out of the Australian continent.  They existed on the continent for thousands of years after the arrival of Indigenous Australians,  Yes, the Indigenous Australians may have tried to hunt them but spears and bows and arrows were totally inadequate for the task.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Whilst I believe that changing climactic conditions could have been the main factor in the extinction of megafauna, 40,000 years ago, I think the indigenous people would have had enough skill and weaponry to hunt the megafauna first, before they went after other wildlife. And simply because you don't see bones in midden heaps, that does not mean that the indigenous did not hunt them for food. Bones do eventually break done. People never saw dinosaur bones out in the open as evidence of them being in existence. People had discovered them during digs. I dare say that 40,000 years of physical weathering would have meant that those bones would have broken down. The discovery of the megafauna bones might have been preserved underground.

You are still missing the point - there is no evidence that predation occurred.  Why are shells and other bones still evident in midden mounds or in caves and not Mega-Fauna remains thousands of years after they were consumed?  You are basing your claims on supposition rather than evidence.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 23^rd, 2024 at 4:02pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on May 23rd, 2024 at 12:55am: Brian Ross wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 9:19pm: I have to laugh at all attempts to pin the extinction of the Mega-Fauna on Indigenous Australians while at the same time claiming they were only hunter-gathers, without much in the way of technology.  There is no evidence of predation of Indigenous Australians on the Mega-Fauna.  None.  None in any midden heaps, none in any caves, none.  The Mega-Fauna died out because of a changing climate - the drying out of the Australian continent.  They existed on the continent for thousands of years after the arrival of Indigenous Australians,  Yes, the Indigenous Australians may have tried to hunt them but spears and bows and arrows were totally inadequate for the task.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Whilst I believe that changing climactic conditions could have been the main factor in the extinction of megafauna, 40,000 years ago, I think the indigenous people would have had enough skill and weaponry to hunt the megafauna first, before they went after other wildlife. And simply because you don't see bones in midden heaps, that does not mean that the indigenous did not hunt them for food. Bones do eventually break done. People never saw dinosaur bones out in the open as evidence of them being in existence. People had discovered them during digs. I dare say that 40,000 years of physical weathering would have meant that those bones would have broken down. The discovery of the megafauna bones might have been preserved underground. You are still missing the point - there is no evidence that predation occurred.  Why are shells and other bones still evident in midden mounds or in caves and not Mega-Fauna remains thousands of years after they were consumed?  You are basing your claims on supposition rather than evidence.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Maybe aborigines havent been here for 30, 40, 60 70 thousand years.  :( :o :o

https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/the-spread-of-people-to-australia/

Brian Ross wrote on May 23^rd, 2024 at 4:02pm:

You are still missing the point - there is no evidence that predation occurred.  Why are shells and other bones still evident in midden mounds or in caves and not Mega-Fauna remains thousands of years after they were consumed?  You are basing your claims on supposition rather than evidence.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian, there is evidence that I eat fruit, vegetables and eggs. The remnants are found either in my scrap bin or in my compost bin. There is no evidence that I have eaten beef cattle, lamb, pigs, etc., even though I claim that I have eaten those types of animals. Why are the remains of the animal (the bones, the skin, etc) not in my bins as evidence that I have consumed such animals as the meat portion of my meals? Probably because the bones were discarded back at the butchers where I purchased the meat.

My estimate would be that the megafauna were so large that I could assume the meat was cut from the animal where it lay and then the remainder of the carcass was left to rot. The indigenous would not have discarded bones into the middens nearby their camp. Probably would have been too much work to drag heavy bones back to cook.

Frank wrote on May 23^rd, 2024 at 6:10pm:

Maybe aborigines havent been here for 30, 40, 60 70 thousand years.  :( :o :o https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/the-spread-of-people-to-australia/

I figure that the megafauna's extinction would have occurred as the arrival of people made their way into Australia. The remnants of the mega fauna would only have been known to the very few new arrivals.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 23^rd, 2024 at 8:54pm:

Brian Ross wrote on May 23rd, 2024 at 4:02pm: You are still missing the point - there is no evidence that predation occurred.  Why are shells and other bones still evident in midden mounds or in caves and not Mega-Fauna remains thousands of years after they were consumed?  You are basing your claims on supposition rather than evidence.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Brian, there is evidence that I eat fruit, vegetables and eggs. The remnants are found either in my scrap bin or in my compost bin. There is no evidence that I have eaten beef cattle, lamb, pigs, etc., even though I claim that I have eaten those types of animals. Why are the remains of the animal (the bones, the skin, etc) not in my bins as evidence that I have consumed such animals as the meat portion of my meals? Probably because the bones were discarded back at the butchers where I purchased the meat. My estimate would be that the megafauna were so large that I could assume the meat was cut from the animal where it lay and then the remainder of the carcass was left to rot. The indigenous would not have discarded bones into the middens nearby their camp. Probably would have been too much work to drag heavy bones back to cook.

As I keep pointing out there is no evidence, none that predation occurred on Mega-Fauna by Indigenous Australians.  Until you can find some, I will be forced to dismiss your suppositions as well, supposition, some made without evidence of any kind.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

You are comparing the bone remnants of a species of megafauna last in Australia 40,000 years ago to that of bone remnants found 150+ years ago. Did you remember the topic about pottery I think you started? Pieces of pottery that look like rocks. I could suggest that 40,000 year old bones found in middens would not resemble a bone structure of a large animal.

Like I said earlier... they did not find dinosaur bones sitting out in the open. They were preserved underground for millions of years. Any bones that sits out in the open for thousands of years would have broken down and become dust long before anyone would have given any thought of the possibility that the bones belonged to a large animal.

Why do we even know about the existence of Mega-Fauna then, UnSub?  Their remains have been found, none with signs of predation by Indigenous Australians on them.  None.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on May 24^th, 2024 at 2:00pm:

Why do we even know about the existence of Mega-Fauna then, UnSub?  Their remains have been found, none with signs of predation by Indigenous Australians on them.  None.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Do... I ... have... to... type.... slowly... for... you?

Dinosaur bones -- the type of bones that would have dated back 60+ million years ago, were preserved underground with minimal physical weathering. That is why you find archaeologists finding bones of large dinosaurs still preserved after all this time, instead of being worn away by the elements.

Megafauna bones -- the type of bones that would have dated back 40,000 years ago (according to the few readings online I have done). Had they been left out in the open (either sitting in middens or sitting where they lay dying), 40,000 years later, they would cease to exist as anything more than just dust particles that have blown away. Having been covered over by layers of dirt to prevent the elements of climate from wearing away the bones. The carcass itself would have decayed. The bones would have worn down over the years.

I take it that the idea of Egyptians mummifying the pharaohs would have been laughable to you in terms of preservation of the remains. According to your argument, the Egyptians could have left the deceased out in the open and we would still have evidence of a skeleton from 3000 years ago.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20646883/


Quote:

The structural breakdown of skeletal remains follows a lengthy decomposition process, progressing from the appearance of cracking along the bone to complete loss of shape and skeletal integrity, that can occur in as early as 6 years or as long as 30.

Online guides suggest that breakdowns can occur in as little as 6 years. Can you imagine how broken down a skeleton would be in 40,000 years?

Unless you take action to preserve a body in some preservation technique, your body, Brian, will not exist in 100 years.

Sounds to me, like your desperately attempting to prove your case, despite the complete lack of evidence to support it, UnSub.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Imagine what they could do if they left their eating habits and lifestyle choices out of it....

UnSubRocky wrote on May 23^rd, 2024 at 8:24am:

Gnads wrote on May 23rd, 2024 at 5:24am: Ask yourself that question you clown. Forget climate change .... they used kangaroo and possum skins didn't they? We're not talking about European advancement .... we're talking 65,000 years(that's the claim) of Stone Age Hunter Gatherer culture/ surviving in isolation until 1788. What were their advancements???????? Your level of reading & comprehension needs some remedial attention. I could know nothing but would still know 4 times what you pretend to know. In other words, you would claim to know just as much as I, in your own estimation. But, you are too stupid to realise your mistake. Advantage USR. Let's be honest here. 1788-era indigenous people were probably Upper Paleolithic people that had not advanced much from the stone age. I would probably consider the Papuans even less advanced than 1788-era indigenous Australians. But, the indigenous people roaming the continent would have had to alter the way they dealt with the land as they explored further inland. You might have heard of retired Major Les Hiddins aka "The Bush Tucker Man". He worked with indigenous people in helping establish which species of fruit and nut were edible. And the cataloguing and research on the nutritional value of the flora has been well known. I would guess that there would have been a bit of trial and error in establishing which  foods were edible and which were not, during the last 40,000 years in Australia. Is that not enough that there would have been education as to which foods were to be collected/hunted and eaten, as part of indigenous Australian culture? 10,000 years ago, you could say that Europeans were on the verge of agricultural revolution. The Romans establishing places in Briton saw the native Britons as basically savages still living a Stone Ages lifestyle, not that dissimilar from indigenous Australians of 1788. And yet, 234 years later, indigenous people are availing themselves to all manner of Australian life, in work, sport and entertainment. Yet, when a few indigenous people join a lifesaving/iron man competition, you need to call them "almost all white people" or whatever it was that you said a few pages back, just to downplay some position role models being establish among a certain demographic. Please, keep telling people you know nothing and that everyone is as stupid as you 4 times over. Maybe you will have an aneurysm sufficient to the point that the blood flow to the rest of your brain cells will trigger a sense of shame in yourself.

In your dreams ... making more bs assumptions.

I meant what I said. You're not in the hunt.

I don't need to call them anything ... it's painfully obvious they are of mixed race.

;D I didn't tell you or anyone else I know nothing... you can't comprehend the written word.

I said ... I'll say it again for your benefit ....

"If I knew nothing" .. that would be I'd still know 4 times more than you.

That means you know next to nothing, you just pretend that you do... 

As for wishing a stroke on someone that proves what a silly softcock you are. Shame on you.

UnSubRocky wrote on May 23^rd, 2024 at 8:35am:

Gnads wrote on May 23rd, 2024 at 5:28am: I posted a link from from scientific research that refutes that claim. You obviously didn't read it or the quote I made from it? Stick to being a restaurant waiter ... and fetch my dinner.  ::) Would you like extra mop with that? I don't really care how most of the megafauna died out. I just believe that indigenous people hunting them would have led to insufficient numbers being able to breed back into survival.

The article refutes that assumption saying the impact by  a small population of Aboriginal people on a few species was not a cause in the Mega faunas extinction. 

You said "I could know nothing but would still know 4 times what you pretend to know". In other words, if I pretended to know nothing, you would genuinely know nothing... but 4 times over. So, for all the times I act disingenuous, you are being delusional for 4 times that amount.

Dude, I have been drunk the last time I responded to this topic. And I still made more sense than you.

Are you seriously trying to say that early indigenous people (even in their tens of thousands) did not make an impact on the numbers of megafauna, 40,000 years ago that helped lead to the megafauna's extinction? I do agree that the climate change would have been the main reason for the extinction. But, with few megafauna in existence after a massive population drop, humans would have hunted the rest to extinction.

Brian Ross wrote on May 28^th, 2024 at 9:44pm:

Sounds to me, like your desperately attempting to prove your case, despite the complete lack of evidence to support it, UnSub.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

You are a moron, Bbwian.

Or to put it another way: Bbwian, you are a moron.

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, more of your more in-depth analysis, hey, Soren?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

UnSubRocky wrote on May 29^th, 2024 at 3:48pm:

You said "I could know nothing but would still know 4 times what you pretend to know". In other words, if I pretended to know nothing, you would genuinely know nothing... but 4 times over. So, for all the times I act disingenuous, you are being delusional for 4 times that amount. Dude, I have been drunk the last time I responded to this topic. And I still made more sense than you. Are you seriously trying to say that early indigenous people (even in their tens of thousands) did not make an impact on the numbers of megafauna, 40,000 years ago that helped lead to the megafauna's extinction? I do agree that the climate change would have been the main reason for the extinction. But, with few megafauna in existence after a massive population drop, humans would have hunted the rest to extinction.

You're dreaming.

Read the article/link I posted you idiot. ::)

You have no credibility in your assumptions about Aboriginal impacts on the extinction of megafauna.

Your Certificate 2 in dishwashing doesn't make the cut.

Bloody traitors to their own people - reaching some mythical standard set by Wharte Men to become an 'iron man' .... Wharte Man's way again.... cultural genocide that is...  should be a Black Iron Man comp - run up the bills... swim in a river of cash from royalties and such ... go ten rounds with the missus - run for the rest of your life..

Gnads wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2024 at 7:46am:

You're dreaming. Read the article/link I posted you idiot. ::) You have no credibility in your assumptions about Aboriginal impacts on the extinction of megafauna. Your Certificate 2 in dishwashing doesn't make the cut.

From the link you posted: Fossil discoveries reveal the cause of megafauna extinction


Quote:

“Instead, we do find that their extinction is coincident with major climatic and environmental deterioration both locally and regionally, including increased fire, reduction in grasslands and loss of freshwater. Together, these sustained changes were simply too much for the largest of Australia’s animals to cope with.”

Quote:

“No doubt humans would have hunted megafauna and had it for dinner. But these new results show that humans alone didn’t drive megafauna to extinction; climate and environmental change was also a big driver.”

What we have here is a concession that humans did have an impact on megafauna numbers. The megafauna were hunted by humans. There is also an issue about the use of fire that changed the regional topography. Indigenous people used fire to drive animals out of the forests to be hunted more accessibly. Estimations differ. But humans are thought to be accountable for 90% of all extinctions that have happened in Australia for all time.

It seems my education from my Certificate 2 in dishwashing has more credibility than your Bandwagon logical fallacies. Even your own link has supported my argument.