Did Giant Comet Help Hobbits Reach Flores?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well done, you've made a valid argument here. My hypothesis would require that the earliest stone tool datings are over estimates. This is not beyond the laws of possibility since the value of 94,000 years was given rather tentatively, if I remember correctly.

In any case, the main hypothesis would still be valid of course, evidenced by the Mammoths. The proposed land bridge could still have aided early man to cross to the island continent of Australia, around 40,000 years ago.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sea levels were lower 40000 years ago. Man has been adapted to water for a considerable time. Crossing the short distance from Indonesia to Australia in primitve boats would not have been a major challenge. Why do you underestimate the capabilities of our ancestors? On the basis of the posts here, they were smarter than you.

 

http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/research.php (scroll down for photograph of footprints) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm

Incidentally, I have made a new estimate of the NEO orbit as 19,000 years. This is based on the beryllium-10 northern hemisphere spikes at 60,000 B.P and 41,000 B.P. These both coincided with retreats of the North American ice sheets.

 

I've looked through a few of these links, and can't find anywhere that suggests a trans-Pacific land bridge. The theory of earlier migrations, or landings, of people in the Americas seem to be by watercraft, possibly accidental. This relates with many other assertions of migrations to Australia (and Flores etc) by short jumps in watercraft when sea levels were at their lowest, ie during ice ages. I see no problem with this from a technological angle, only the why! Keep moving, keep running?
Just a couple of thoughts about a land bridge, especially a temporary one caused by unknown comets: if the time scale was quick enough to shift herds of mammoth and freeze them, surely such a geological phenomenom would cause widespread earthquakes and tsunami. I can't imagine humans surviving such a passage, let alone take that route by choice. What window of opportunity existed? Why didn't other animal life make the journey, both ways? For instance, deer have established themselves in Aust and NZ in recent times, so why not back then.
An interesting book about the establishment of fauna on islands (amongst many other interesting questions regarding fauna, flora and mankind in the Pacific) is Tim Flannery's "The Future Eaters".

Regrads,
Bric

 

This link confirms and expands upon the point I made: ancient man had no problem travelling by sea. There is absolutely no need for your complex, unsubstantiated specualtion of a giant comet.

 

There is no direct evidence of the use of watercraft around 40,000 B.P. This would have been technologically beyond the capabilities of early man. The supposed land bridge could have remained for hundreds of years, a long time after the earthquakes had ceased. I think other fauna did make the crossing. Professor Hapgood famously looked into the conundrum of South American fauna apparently being descended from forms belonging to the Australian island continent. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence. One of which is the South American 'rhea', which is a relative of the ostriche.

This is only the interpretation of a cave painting by one man, which he suggests is of a period at least 17,000 years old. This is not proof in the slightest!

The ocean is notoriously very deep and treacherous between Australia and the northern islands. A watercraft crossing is by no means easy, even during periods of lower sea level due to glaciation. Early man was very primitive 40,000 years ago, they simply didn't have the evolutionary knowledge of such a complex task. Just because we take things for granted today, we lose sight of how difficult and slow the path of progression really was.

 

Would you learn how to use the quote function correctly. The above post wholly distorts my observations and those of Bricoleur. Your remarks on our comments appear to be part of our posts. Please straighten this out. I do not like having my words distorted in this way and to appear as confused as you probably are. If you require guidance on how to use the quotes properly pm me.

 

Velikovsky said Venus was a comet. Thornhill thinks so too.

You might also want to keep in mind that no rafting trip would've been necessary as the Pacific was completely enclosed in the Cretaceous.

Harrison, L., The Migration Route of the Australian Marsupial Fauna, Australian Zoologist, Volume 3, Pages 247-263, 1924

Ji, Q., et al., The Earliest Known Eutherian Mammal, Nature, 416, Pages 816-822, Apr 2002

Rincon, P., Oldest Marsupial Ancestor Found, BBC, Dec 2003

Pickrell, J., Oldest Marsupial Fossil Found in China, National Geographic, December 2003

McCarthy, D.D., The Transpacific Zipper Effect: Disjunct Sister Taxa and Matching Geological Outlines That Link the Pacific Margins, Journal of Biogeography, Volume 30, Issue 10, Pages 1545-1561, 2003

Briggs, J.C., The Ultimate Expanding Earth Hypothesis, Journal of Biogeography, Volume 31, Issue 5, Pages 855 - 857, 2004

McCarthy, D.D., Biogeographical and Geological Evidence for a Smaller, Completely-Enclosed Pacific Basin in the Late Cretaceous, Journal of Biogeography, Volume 32, Issue 12, Pages 2161 - 2177, 2005

McCarthy, D.D., Biogeography and Scientific Revolutions, The Systematist, Number 25, Pages 3-12, 2005

Briggs, J.C., Another Expanding Earth Paper, Journal of Biogeography, Volume 33, Issue 9, Pages 1674 - 1676, 2006

Ali, J.R., Biogeographical and Geological Evidence for a Smaller, Completely-Enclosed Pacific Basin in the Late Cretaceous: a Comment, Journal of Biogeography, Volume 33, Issue 9, Pages 1670-1674, 2006

 

True, but I have a soft spot for Velikovsky. When I read World's In Collision as a thirteen or fourteen year old it was my first exposure to an 'academic' work, with its detailed bibliography, elaborate footnotes and extensive references. My interest in astronomy and geology was expanded by it.
Yes, he was wrong, but he was gloriously wrong in a manner that most others accused of pseudoscience never achieve.

 

or at least slightly gay

 

What work are you referring to?

Yes. My mistake. I was thinking of things prior to homo erectus.

The opening post said 800,000 years ago actually.

 

Velikovsky's.

 

All of it?

 

You didn't answer the question.

 

I've changed it where I was still able to edit. Sorry about that.

OIM does make a good point about the trans-pacific fauna connection, which evidence suggests could have occurred in the ancient past, i.e Cretaceous.

The fact remains that a temporary land bridge is a good contender for the arrival of early man to Australia. The isostasy of the lithosphere is a relatively new science and only now becoming part of general knowledge. You may not agree with my idea of how and why this could have occurred, but an uplift event is surely just as credible as the use of watercraft 40,000 years ago. The added angle of homo floresiensis reaching the island of Flores by the same means is just a logical suggestion.

The 'far out' idea of the proposed land bridge stretching across the Pacific is again a logical progression. It is tenuous I agree, but the circumstantial evidence does seem to fit, such as the American Aborigine connection. It is well founded scientific circumstantial evidence, and certainly makes an interesting proposition in my opinion.

The 'far far out' idea of the proposed land bridge being linked to the mystery of the frozen Siberian Mammoths could be considered a step too far by some. But I started my scientific journey in life trying to solve the 'gravity problem' from the age of about thirteen. The solution of an 'extra gravitational pull' by matter of a lower entropy state is an exceptionally good fit. The gravitational pull by a giant NEO near-miss on the Earth's inner core is a possibility. It is a long stretch of the imagination, I agree.

BTW, OIM - thanks for the great links.

One last point. The Aborigines aren't exactly well known for their nautical know-how. When have you ever seen Australian Aborigines fishing from ocean-going boats?