I remember setting the scope for 750 yards and then aiming low -- belly balls knees etc. But I would not do that to an animal. Unethical. Only to an enemy human.
how close are you approaching, sharp stick poking range?...that's kinda dangerous, native americans built pounds so they would be safe while taking down buffalo...there was a local guy a couple years back who thought buffalo were civilized like cattle and decided he'd walk through an open pasture with buffalo, it didn't end well
I was into archery for a few years way way back in the day, but only targets, but that was enough for me to admire the skill required and the commitment needed to get and remain good. Cheers, and happy hunting.
I read a paper not that long ago (I forget where) that posited that that homo sapiens "at a distance" weapons was a key factor in their dominance and neanderthal extinction. It theorized that homo sapiens could out hunt the neanderthals providing their clans with more protein enabling more rapid population expansion.
Once I was hiking in the Mt. Scott Wildlife Refuge of Ft. Sill OKLA with a girlfriend, and we came out of the brush and right in the middle of a herd of bison. We stopped dead in our tracks and the bison all looked at us. She said, "What do we do now?" I replied, "Walk backwards, back to where we came from, slowly."
You can tell fake science from real science? You can make mega bucks with that kind of skill. Or is this just dunning kruger in living color?
I can understand the advantage of bows but there has to be more to it. Neanderthals were more successful than homo sapiens, they were around longer than we have, their hunting technique wasn't an issue for them for 400,000 years. Now if you combined hunting technique with climate change that becomes more plausible. I'm not sure about climate change either as neanderthals went through that too previously and survived. I'm guessing it was a combination of factors.
now put yourself back into that situation and imagine you and couple buddies trying to take one down with just spears! Neanderthals had big balls!
Uh....what in the world does that mean? And do you think career scientists can't tell the difference...but you can? Since scientific work is peer reviewed, this is essentially what you are saying. And that is absurd.
If you need to be told, you either won't understand the explanation, or you have a closed mind, therefore providing the explanation would be a waste of my time. The trick is having the instinct to know one is being lied to?
Have you really not noticed just how endemic lying has become where governments and affiliated self-serving government bodies are concerned? They're all doing it?? As to it being 'peer reviewed' - if they're on some kind of subterfuge or scam, then obviously they're going to back each other up to keep the shows on the road. I can't believe how naive people are these days. I might not be the sharpest knife in the block but I don't do 'absurd'.
That's called paranoia, and it's classified as a personality disorder. Dunning-Kruger Syndrome refers to the way that the less expertise someone has, the more expertise they believe they have. That is, stupid people are too stupid to understand that they're stupid. Intelligent people understand their own limits, and don't proclaim that they obviously know more than the smartest people in the world on every topic.
This is the sort of work I once did, and it is very exciting stuff, or at least it was for me and my peers. But the pay was not good enough and so I went back and got a degree in banking and finance, which did satisfy the need for "mo money". ha ha. But I have never lost my love and interest in this field. Being a very old man today, I stopped keeping on top of what was going on in this field and appreciate the OP. I have always been fascinated by this group of people and much has been discovered about them from hard work since I got a degree in physical anthropology in the early 70s. Glad to see the work continues. The quest for knowledge is important in all of the fields. Knowledge is power, but it is much more than that. It defines our species, IMO. Perhaps we got our curiosity from other hominids that preceded us? And that is a very important curiosity for it led to modern tech and civilization. I am intrigued by the Stoned Ape theory, and one wonders if this group of people, this species ever went down that road? (if indeed what the stoned ape folks think is factual?) And perhaps if they did not, this might explain some of the differences? But I am digressing, and conjecturing, which I like to do. Thinking is good for all minds, right? ha ha I collect clovis projectile points. I always wondered why much older projectile points exhibited such fine craftmanship and even appear to be art? As times advanced the points became much more course in nature, in appearance, as if those earlier people placed a greater value on looks than much later tribes. I think when most look at clovis era flint knapping they can see a marked difference in what followed much later on. I assume that no flint tools, projectile points have ever been found in regards to this group? I should know the answer but it has been such a long time since the early 70s! And creating my own business in the later 70s did not allow me to keep up to date. We never devoted that much time to this group of people and it was not my area of specialty. And ideas about these people has changed over the decades since the 70s, or so I understand. Thanks to the member who thought this was interesting enough to make a thread about it. It makes me want to try and catch up on the new knowledge we have discovered in regards to these people. I have the internet at my fingertips so no excuse not to do that, although I am sure I will find one! ha ha
And there you have it...total nonsense. As if you can rely on your instincts to know this....ridiculous...
Completely irrelevant to published, peer reviewed science. Complete nonsense. Anyone is free to challenge the methods and conclusions. For you to imply that scientists are all lying and engaged in a vast conspiracy ( which you only dream up in the cases where the facts do not align with your superstitions) speaks to YOUR motivations, and nobody else's.
So you have the ability to know a lie just by seeing it? Wow, that's quite the trick, especially over the Internet. I don't have any mystical lie detection power so I have to detect lies the old fashion way and actually research the statement in question to see if it is true or not.`
if you're questioning knowledge gained since the 70"s regarding neanderthals yeah there's been a lot of progress...back when I was in anthropology in the 70's they weren't thought of as very bright but even back then I thought that was wrong...it was widely assumed they didn't have language, turns out that was wrong...that they didn't have art, wrong...that they didn't respect their dead, wrong...that they didn't look after the weak among them, wrong...that they weren't technically capable, wrong...that they didn't exchange genes with homo sapiens, wrong...a lot of these ideas were based on our own arrogance of superiority, we survived and they didn't therefore we're smarter/superior... there probably never were very many of them so finding evidence of their existence and piecing together a picture of who they were is the proverbial needle in a haystack...and then there are their Denisovan cousins, all that remains of them is part of a finger bone and a tooth or two...
Ah, we hail from the same period in regards to anthropology. I remembered the impression of academia in regards to these people, from that era, once you mentioned it. I also recall now that you mentioned it, the negation of what you mentioned that we were taught, from a piece in National Geographic a few years ago. I used to get that mag each month once upon a time and for decades. Along with the Smithsonian. I have seen people that looked to have some of their genes, BTW. Whether they did nor not, I dunno, but at least they appeared to be, given the artist renderings based upon bones. Anyways thanks for the input! I have never lost my interest in this field, even after these many decades. One of my younger profs was actually employed by the USN, (Navy) and I remember him telling us even the military had use for cultural anthropologists. Not sure if he was serious or not. ha ha. But the prof that stands out the greatest was Dr. Pines, a classic very bright eccentric, who literally hated middle eastern muslims, after spending time in that area and witnessing, in the 60s the sexual attacks by them on city streets, of western female tourists. He said they were prolific and habitual. Seems he did not deal with that "culture shock" very well. ha ha. But he was not a cultural anthropologist either, as the other mentioned Prof was. He looked to be in his 50s when he was serving as the head of the dept. Of course this memory of what he said came back in more recent years when discussing islam here on this forum. It seems what we are seeing in parts of europe was the same behavior he witnessed in the 60s, so not much has changed in regards to this. And this is just one reason that I found those reports from europe to be very credible. For the same crap was going on in the middle east in the 60s. So, I see it as behavior peculiar to islamic male culture. And disconcerting since some bring that behavior to the west, and think it is right and normal. Dr. Pines would be dead now, but his insight was valuable later on in determining the truth of middle eastern islam, and the culture it in part created. Which apparently lives on, strongly.
Undoubtedly its was only one contributor of any number of other critical success factors for homo sapiens. Fer instance there is the theory that a disease vector overcame their immune systems but ours handled it. I wonder how much, if any, our immune system varied from theirs?