She disappeared when 8, and has lived in the Cambodian jungle for 19 years:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=429740&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

She disappeared when 8, and has lived in the Cambodian jungle for 19 years:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=429740&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

totally psyched out story...

She at least had 8 years of semi-civilization.

She managed to avoid the Vietnam war, Pol Pot AND the Vietnamese invasion in '79. Bizarre.

She managed to avoid the Vietnam war, Pol Pot AND the Vietnamese invasion in '79. Bizarre.

Um...she wasn't even born in '79.

Um...she wasn't even born in '79.:bugeye: oops! I thought she was old! I shoulda read the link...:rolleyes:

She at least had 8 years of semi-civilization.
Which should help her when they teach her how to talk and communicate again.

Interesting story I must admit.

Am I the only skeptic amongst the group?

I noticed also an interesting note in that article ....when she was only 8 years old, she was herding a bunch of buffalo through a remote jungle???? 8 years old? Herding water buffalo? Through a remote jungle?? Hmmmm?

Sorry, .....I'm just pretty damned skeptical of it all.

Baron Max

Am I the only skeptic amongst the group?

I noticed also an interesting note in that article ....when she was only 8 years old, she was herding a bunch of buffalo through a remote jungle???? 8 years old? Herding water buffalo? Through a remote jungle?? Hmmmm?

Sorry, .....I'm just pretty damned skeptical of it all.

Baron Max
I think you'd find that in countries like Cambodia, children as young as 7 or 8 being put to work on the land is not really that uncommon. And if the area has dense jungles, then getting the herd from one place to another would mean having to go through dense bushland. For all you know she could have been with more people and simply wandered off and got lost. Not that uncommon either for children to wander off in bushland or jungles and losing sight and sound of their accompanying adults and literally getting lost.

Tarjane.... fascinating.

-MT

quite often it is like max barren only know the inside of his 4 walls and what they tell him

to be skeptical is to not be foolish

I can't see an 8 year old surviving in a jungle by herself.

People are extremely easy prey without groups and tools. At 8, and alone she had neither.

All it takes is one contaminated mosquito, or sip of contaminated water. One bite from a spider.

It rains for days non-stop, could she build a shelter from the rain at 8?

There are just too many reasons to believe this is a bullshit article.

Living in a jungle is extremely difficult even for the seasoned experts, an 8 year old girl has the odds of a pig flying out of my ass.

Haven't feral children been found before?

This has happened more often than you guys think.


I can't see an 8 year old surviving in a jungle by herself.

A few examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_children

Also with pictures:

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php

This has happened more often than you guys think. ...A few examples: wikipedia

First, what the hell is "wikipedia"? And is it a reliable source of information? Who gathers the info? Who verifies the info?

Below is copied from your "wikipedia" link ....please not the my bolded addition:

Real-life cases

Kaspar HauserOf the approximately 100 cases often cited, few have been confirmed or well studied, many lack detail, and many may have been exaggerated and embellished. Here is a limited list:

"...few have been confirmed or well studied, many lack detail, and many may have been exaggerated and embellished..."

So .....???? What am I to think now?

Baron Max

First, what the hell is "wikipedia"? And is it a reliable source of information? Who gathers the info? Who verifies the info?

Below is copied from your "wikipedia" link ....please not the my bolded addition:

Real-life cases

Kaspar HauserOf the approximately 100 cases often cited, few have been confirmed or well studied, many lack detail, and many may have been exaggerated and embellished. Here is a limited list:

"...few have been confirmed or well studied, many lack detail, and many may have been exaggerated and embellished..."

So .....???? What am I to think now?

Baron Max


Look at stuff that's been peer reviewed:

http://bowland-files.lancs.ac.uk/chimp/langac/LECTURE4/4feral.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

as with any other source it always good to have it backed up by something else

First, what the hell is "wikipedia"?

You are REALLY old. And I guess and old dog doesn't learn new tricks. If you have been using the net in the last 3 years, you should have heard and used Wikipedia.

We can start a new thread on it, its sources and reliability if you wish. In my opinion it is way better than lexicons....

Kaspar Hauser.... What am I to think now?

Baron Max

I think you should google Kaspar's name and then you would get this:

http://kbs.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/me/notes/kaspar-hauser.html

You do know what google is, right??? :rolleyes:

Baron, wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to or edit. That should tell you everything you need to know about it.

...about both wikipedia and syzgys's, seeing as he considers it a reliable source of information.

ha look what I found

Identity Doubt

Many have begun to question Sal Lou's story. How, they ask, could a woman from the jungle have such smooth hands or soft feet. If she had been truly wild, why are her fingernails neatly trimmed and her hair not a matted tangle, they say. "I am doubtful that she went missing 19 years ago. I came here to see what she looked like, and she looks normal like us," said Dub Thol, who travelled from a neighbouring district to see the woman."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochom_P%27ngieng

I remember a story several years ago of a feral man found in the Philippine jungle. He was old, lived through WW2, Japanese occupation, the Muslim rebellions in the south and everything!

Wikipedia is a good source of information if you're just trying to learn something and it's not controversial. It's like SciForums, better for physics, linguistics and musicology than politics and tabloid news.

We are getting offtopic, but:


...about both wikipedia and syzgys's, seeing as he considers it a reliable source of information.

The point in using Wikipedia is, that you get a bunch of links (more than by using Google) and you can then decide for yourself if the info is credible.

Using "feral children" as an example, google feral children and you can see you get way more links but not necesserily more info then reading 1 Wiki article. Wiki is a good quick source, if you want more, follow the further links or google the topic....

Yes, and the internet in general has become the source of choice for information.
The result is that you know a little bit about a lot, and you know a lot about nothing.

Yes, and the internet in general has become the source of choice for information.
The result is that you know a little bit about a lot, and you know a lot about nothing.

I would say a little cumulative knowledge across many subjects is better than a lot of knowledge about a specific.

knowing a lot about math is good. But because I know a good amount about jungles, and the capabilities of man, about tribes that do live in the jungle, and that in 3rd world country there are always hoaxes like this trying to get fame - I know that this article is fake.

Yes, and the internet in general has become the source of choice for information.
The result is that you know a little bit about a lot, and you know a lot about nothing.

Yeah, the thing that bothers me is how someone can read a blurb on wiki or google or whatever, then come away with a badly slanted view on some subject .....only because they were too lazy to do any indepth study.

Like you say, they know a little bit (from some slanted viewpoint), so they feel as if they're perfectly knowledgeable on the subject! Scary, ain't it?

And even more scary is how I see now that videos are becoming the source of info and "knowledge" ....all of it by viewing one video on YourTube or whatever the hell those things are called. Scary, ain't it?

Baron Max

That's precisely it. The internet does not provide knowledge of a subject, it provides (usually biased) information "bites". As you say, the reader then comes away feeling he knows something about the subject when more often he knows only enough to be dangerously ill-informed.

You tube - another one. The matrix... a movie which some actually came to believe. Ideas and philosophy formed from entertainment.

Scary, yes. It's our future.
Sometimes I get the terrible feeling that mankind has already seen its best days. Can you imagine a Da Vinci popping up amongst this generation? Or the couple before that?

Scary, yes. It's our future.
Sometimes I get the terrible feeling that mankind has already seen its best days. Can you imagine a Da Vinci popping up amongst this generation? Or the couple before that?

This fear is everlasting through centuries...the past generations has just the same terrible feeling that their days had been the best. Dont fear wars...because there were wars plenty in the past. DaVinci...Einstein...the next is one who unifies the gravity with all other electromagneticquantum forces...

All too easy to dismiss so flippantly, when one hasn't been around long enough to see any change with his own eyes.

It has little to do with wars.

You tube - another one. The matrix... a movie which some actually came to believe. Ideas and philosophy formed from entertainment.

Scary, yes. It's our future.


you might think that entertainment shapes us...which it does...but what do you think shapes entertainment?...us...and we include our thoughts...emotions...history we know in this creation.

People, stop bitching about internet info.

Who among you would go to the library to find out about feral children? I didn't think so...

Not to mention most libraries have shit on the topic...

The internet is bringing us down? What? Instant knowledge, of almost anything, is bad?

It's not like wikipedia is subtracting from our views. The "old reliable" information you're referencing is still around. Just now there is an addition, which provides invaluable resources to us.

The internet is potentially the best thing that has happened to human education, how are you scared of its horrible impacts?

Whoever has that point of view is surely looking at the glass half empty.

The internet is potentially the best thing that has happened to human education, ....

The key word there is "potentially". The info on the Internet is not a bad thing, nor is using it to learn about things that you might be interesting in learning. But the main difference is how one uses that info, and for what purpose.

The internal combustion engine was touted as just such a wonderful potential tool, wasn't it? But then look what has actually been created because of it's extensive use.

The stone spearpoints were a marvelous potential ...but then the cave men began using them to kill other cave men! Yep, potential!

The internet is bringing us down? What? Instant knowledge, of almost anything, is bad?

There's no such thing as "instant knowledge" ...there's only "instant information" on the Internet. But it's also information that should be studied and considered before using it. And "instant information" isn't worth a damn if it's not fully reliable and accurate.

The internet is potentially the best thing that has happened to human education, how are you scared of its horrible impacts?

Didn't they say exactly the same thing about atomic energy research? Are you scared of a world full of atomic weapons?

Baron Max

The more knowledge, the more inferences, the more refined and better the mind concludes things.

Your examples are too exaggerated, but I agree and understand where you're coming from now. It is completely up to how the individual uses the information.

The group that uses it correctly benefits hugely.

The question as to whether these internet-resources are an advantage right now would need to see the ratio of incorrect to correct users, as well as a heap of other considerations.

My opinion is that it is much better to have, than not to have, because in my experiences the internet has had a very positive impact. Those experiences include my own, and people I've interacted with.

My opinion is that it is much better to have, than not to have, because in my experiences the internet has had a very positive impact. Those experiences include my own, and people I've interacted with.

Sure, and I don't think I'm arguing that aspect of it at all.

But, for example, isn't that exactly what people probably said about the new inventions and techniques and methods of the late 1880s and early 1900s? ...when the world began to use those new inventions and manufacturing methods to pollute the air, rivers and land?

Making a snap decision about how good or bad something is, without the benefit of knowing the consequences, isn't too smart, is it?

I'm withholding my own judgement about the Internet simply because I can't know what man might do with it for his own selfish gain. Humans have been notorious for that very thing with almost every invention since man stood upright on the African plains. Why should we think he'll be so wonderful with this new invention?

Baron Max

I was talking in terms of up to this point in time

This thread has actually been pretty productive for me. Before it I'd never considered the Internet's outcome as anything but good.

very persuasive argument you've created, and I'll agree with everything in that last post.

fin'

Yeah, in reading this I was reminded of something I read a long time ago:

"A person who has a lot of knowledge, we usually call them scholarly or well-educated. But a person who has a little knowledge, we usually know them as dangerous!"

Baron Max