Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Extinction
Message-ID: <1802@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 16:58:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1802
Posted: Wed Sep 18 16:58:44 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 10:37:55 EDT
References: <390@imsvax.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 158

> 
> 
> 
>      In  an  article  now  on  the  net  entitled "Powerlifting and the
> Ultrasaur", I  present  an  outright  mathematical  and  physical proof
> that  at  least  one  species  of  sauropod could not possibly exist or
> function in our gravity.  The conclusion regarding the ultrasaur was:
> 
I heard about a mathematical proof that the may beatle cannot fly.
The only problem is that it is not extinct, and everyone may see these
beatles flying.

>      I don't particularly  like  being  involved  in  an  argument over
> whether  or  not  man  could  have  caused the extinction of any or all
> of  the  planet's  megafauna.   The  notion  seems  preposterous  to me
> and, frankly, it was not what I expected as a retort when I first wrote
> one or  two articles  on catastrophic  evolution and  extinction on the
> net.   I  actually  had  replies  ready for several more sensible kinds
> of retorts which I expected, but  which never  materialized.  But let's
> talk about  reality for  awhile.  Let's  take a hard look at this whole
> notion of stampeding animals over a cliff.
> 
>      What  would  I  want  for  an  ideal  victim  for  such  a hunting
> technique,  assuming  I  intended  to  practice  it?   Several  things,
> actually.  These would include:
> 
>      1.   I would want the prey to be as  stupid as  possible.  Cattle,
>           deer, or bison obviously qualify.  Elephants are a bad choice
>           from this angle.

This suggests the method you prove a disonaur could not move : you knew
better than the guy how it should move.  More comments below.
> 
>      2.   I would want the prey to  be  fairly  short  i.e. have  a low
>           eye-view of  the world  so the lead animals would not see the
>           edge of the cliff  untill too  late.  Giraffes  and elephants
>           are  the  two  worst  choices  on the planet from this angle.
>           Again, bison might be a reasonable choice.
> 
>      3.   I would want the prey to  travel in  large herds  so that the
>           animals in the rear of the stampede would push those in front
>           over the cliff without  hearing  any  cries  of  warning etc.
>           Elephants  travel  in  small  groups (females and calves) and
>           singly (bulls);  again, not the right choice.
> 
>      4.   I would want the prey to be big enough to justify the effort,
>           but not big enough to pose any ridiculous danger to me and my
>           companions.  Again,  elephants are  the wrong  choice;  bison
>           would be more like it.
> 
> 
>      I  can't  believe  that  writers  on  net.origins keep refering to
> mammoths as  HERD  ANIMALS.   New  York  city  street  gangs  travel in
> something like  the same  numbers as elephant groups; that doesn't make
> them herd animals.  I  have to  believe that  attempting to  stampede a
> group  of  elephants  over  a  cliff  would be about like attempting to
> stampede one of these street gangs over a 40 story roof top or the high
> point  of  the  G.W. bridge.   I  would expect either group to turn and
> fight to the death before going over the edge.  In any scene  of actual
> human inflicted  carnage amongst mammoths in the vacinity of a cliff, I
> would expect to find the mammoths AT THE  TOP OF  THE CLIFF,  DEAD FROM
> SPEAR WOUNDS, along with many human skeletons.  
> 
I read about Pigmies hunting elephants.  A little hunter can incapacitate
a big elephant by himself.  First, he spread shit of some animal on his
skin, so the elephant would not feel the human smell.  Then he walks
under the elephant and slits Achilles tendons.  Voila!  The giant cannot
walk anymore.  No skeletons of Pygmies at all!
You theorise, those people were doing this for living.  I would not
consult you how to hunt (if I would be a primitive tribesman) or how
to walk, if I would be a dinosaur.
> 
>      I am completely  turned  off  by  modern  science's  insistence on
> describing our  ancesters as  idiots at every opportunity.  Can anybody
> believe that our ancestors  were so  stupid as  to ALWAYS  go after the
> biggest and  most dangerous  and wretched  tasting game when there were
> always deer and cattle and buffalo and rabbits and ducks  nearby?  Such
> a disfunctional  mental trait  on the  part of our ancestors would have
> indeed caused the extermination  of at  least one  species I  can think
> of: OURS.   And with what?  Fire?
> 
What about Pygmies hunting elephants?  Also impossible?

>      Fire is  the only  thing which  comes close to making (a perverted
> kind of) sense.  But fire would be a  two edged  sword when  used as an
> offensive  weapon  against  animals.   Anyone  attempting  to  stampede
> elephants by fire in the swirling winds you  usually get  in areas with
> cliffs  nearby   would  likely  cook  themselves  while  the  elephants
> laughed.  There is another  problem as  well;   the humans,  torches in
> hand,  would  have  to  approach  the  animals  FROM UPWIND TO USE FIRE
> AGAINST THEM.  An elephant would smell  all of  that coming  from MILES
> and be  long gone.   Like I  have said,  one mammoth would feed a whole
> tribe for a hell of a long time, assuming the  tribe consisted entirely
> of masochists  willing to  eat elephant.   There was no need for any of
> this.  It would be far simpler  to pick  out a  straggler and  kill him
> with spears  or kill  one elephant  in a pit trap;  this would have the
> added advantage of not  destroying your  entire hunting  ground for the
> season.
> 
>      Oh,  man  killed  mammoths  here  and  there,  but that is not why
> mammoths are  extinct.  The  really big  mammoth kill  sites, in Alaska
> and  in  northern  Siberia  and  in  the islands off the north coast of
> Russia and  Siberia, show  no evidence  of man's  hand; only  that of a
> violent nature.   Velikovsky's book,  "Earth in Upheaval", gives a good
> account of several of these.   
> 
Mammoths are found in those plases because they got well preserved in the
permafrost.  Probably the drown in Arctic bogs and later were submerged
in the permafrost, like a lot of other creatures.  Because of those
marvelously preserved specimens we know that mammoth, unlike elephant,
was very hairy: a trait of a subarctic animal.
Actually, the population of mammoths had to be sparse: semiarid tundra
would not support them otherwise.  The huge amount of skeletons in 
some places resembles the elephant "graveyards".  The reason for their
extinction could be manifold and difficult to recreate.  For sure they
were multiplying very slowly, and because of that were very vunreable
as the species.
> 
> >(Note: neither does this method kill of all of a herd 
> >just a significant portion -- but that was enough at the time. 
> >these animals were in a highly stressed position at this time 
> >period.  All it took was a little of the wrong push to wipe them out.)
> 
>      Do you mean that of, say 100,000 mammoths alive at the time, after
> nature had killed 999,995 of them, man killed the other  five (for this
> is about  the real  ratio), and  this is  simply your definition of man
> having exterminated the mammoths?  I could almost buy  that.  Actually,
> just a slight problem with semantics which might could be overlooked. 
>  
If there were any diseases or other stresses on the population, 
several thousand kills a year could contribute decisevily to
a negative reproduction rate.
Besides, 100,000-5=99,995, not 999,995.  The result suggested by you
would be more appropriate fo rabbits.
> 
>      Generally, I can think of only one altogether right way  to go out
> after  super  bisons,  super-rhinos,  giant  cave  bears,  super-lions,
> sabre-tooths, wolf-bears, a  pteratorn,  or  any  of  the  other really
> dangerous animals which modern scientists apparently give our ancestors
> credit for killing.  That would be with a  375 H  & H  magnum or  a 460
> Weatherby  magnum  safari  rifle  in  my  hand  and  several companions
> similarly armed.  Anybody who would go out after one of these guys with
> a  spear,  with  or  without  an  atlatl, a zip-gun, chucks, a straight
> razor, a switch-blade knife or anything else like that would have to be
> out of  his mind.   Judging from what I read, I can believe that one or
> two of the ivory tower dwellers who contribute to net.origins  might be
> capable of  attempting such  a thing (about once), but I give Alley Oop
> credit for having had more sense than that.
> 
The problem is that YOU do not know how to hunt.  A Masai brave hunts
alone a lion with his spear and knife only.  Pigmies kill elephants.
Eskimo were killing whales with their stone-age tools.  Primitive
people were as intelligent as you, and they were spending generations
polishing their hunting technics.  Not the firepower but the cunning
tricks and deep knowledge on animal behavior were the effective
weapons.

Piotr Berman


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com