(urth) interview questions

[David Stockhoff]

On 1/7/2011 1:56 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> From: "David Stockhoff" <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
>> On 1/7/2011 11:31 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
>>> Of course, in 5HoC, Wolfe has Marsch refer to the paleolithic 
>>> pygmies known as the 'Good People' who, he says, are known to have 
>>> survived in Ireland and Scandinavia until the end of the Eighteenth 
>>> Century.
>
>> Since you are Irish, I bow to your knowledge of your native land. But 
>> I'd love to see a link or two. I eat that stuff up, true or not.
>
> Unfortunately I don't have access to all the anthropological texts 
> available to Dr. Marsch, especially those with a publication date 
> later than the beginning of the twenty first century.  I suspect it is 
> in those more modern texts that this information is documented.
Which would be counterintuitive, because you'd think evidence for them 
would decrease with time. Passages like that made me feel that I was 
reading about a parallel universe in which 19th-century scientific fads 
have been proven true. Almost steampunky.
>
>
>>> It's a theme he has used a lot.
>>> Here, Marsch is trying to explain the absence of abo fossils.  By my 
>>> reading it is a wrong hypothesis.  Those who think the 
>>> human/humanoid abos have lived on Sainte Anne for millenia could use 
>>> it as support against the fossil argument.  If the humanoid abos are 
>>> new, no explanation is needed for the absence of fossils.
>
>> I am not sure exactly what hypothesis you mean, but surely abos would 
>> have to have been on St Anne quite a ways back to produce fossils. 
>> Human time on Earth is measured in hundreds if not tens of chiliads, 
>> and as I understand it we have more fossils of human precursors than 
>> actual humans (as opposed to bones). Old wave or new, an Earth origin 
>> for primate-evolved abos (post-Gondwanaland, as someone noted) would 
>> explain the absence of fossils; it need not be a new origin.
>>
>> Geologically speaking, fossilization may not take long, but there are 
>> other factors. A longer record means more fossils might be present, 
>> but they may only be exposed if they are old enough for mountains to 
>> shift and expose them. Younger fossils might still be deeply buried.
>
> I said fossils, but the words Marsch used were "[the native Annese] 
> who have left almost no physical traces (as far as anyone knows) and 
> some highly embroidered legends."
Ah. The word makes a difference. If the most permanent thing the Annese 
leave behind is groves of trees, then they could be millions of years 
old. Unless someone has done a fossil survey, there is no way to know.
>
> Of course past humans have left an amplitude of physical traces on Earth.
But we build.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 110107-0, 01/07/2011
Tested on: 1/7/2011 3:24:20 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com