Re: Terra firma hominids


Mario Petrinovich wrote:
nickname:
Mario Petrinovich:
nickname:
Mario Petrinovich:
You are talking about the time of sharpened sticks,

Bamboo is eaten by gorillas, orangs, pandas; stick tool use by orangs,
bonobos. Early Homo could have produced sharpened sticks by gnawing,
grinding on stone or carving with lithics. No verbal comm. required.
Stick tool used to pry mollusks, etc.
Sea otters use stone tools, Homo used stick and stone tools.

Actually, the best way to produce sharpened stick is by fire.

Mario, do you think they had fire 1 or 2 million years ago? I don't
think fire was used regularly until maybe 1 or 2 hundred thousand years
ago.

You
put a branch, or any wood on fire. Simple as that. After some time, you'll
have pointed spear. Just like that, nothing else needed. When I talked about
verbal comm., I thought about traps you've mentioned.

about time of
strong verbal communication. With sharpened sticks and communication
people
could live everywhere. On the beaches, on the plains, everywhere. I am
talking about bipedal apes. This is interesting time for us. Later we
could
live everywhere, it is not a problem. Marine otter, an animal that is
very
comparable to our aquatic period, lives only on rocky coast, and AVOIDS
beaches. Beaches are dangerous places for an animal like this. Becuase on
beaches it is very hard to reach vaste deep water. Cats are leaping
through
water excelently. They are faster in shallow water than anything. On
beaches it is a long way to safety of deep water.

Mario, they slept in groups and had sharp sticks to poke predators
with. Marine otters don't. Do you think sharp sticks weren't invented
until after language was invented?

Until after fire.

I think that the HPG LCA already
habitually carried a sharp tool-stick (in mouth or hands).

No way. They would carry it today, as well.

They don't, since they live in the forest full of twigs and branches,
very convenient to grab a stick anytime. Orangs use a stick tool in
their mouth to access neesia seeds while avoiding the stinging spines
of the fruit. I don't know if the stick tool is sharp.


You think cats were common on sea beaches?

Yes.

You think cats were common at freshwater holes in savannas?
Which is more productive for a cat, monopoly at freshwater holes (that
savanna animals need to drink from), or non-monopoly at sea beaches
(that savanna animals don't drink from, except when needing salt)? Sea
beaches don't have food for savanna animals. Why don't the cats follow
the savanna animals? This makes no sense. Maybe cats attack penguins
and seals at south African coasts, but in equatropical sea beaches,
what are the cats eating, aside from scavenging dead fish etc.? Just
Homo? If Homo stayed in cliff caves, then the cats would have starved
to death, so no more beach cats.

I'd say far more common at
freshwater, where they can monopolize their territory, rather than at
sea beaches, where they can't.
Lions depend on stalking and surprize, hard to do on open beaches
without tall savanna grasses to hide them. A large male lion rambling
along a sea beach is scavenging, out in the open, very different from a
prowling pride hidden behind grasses and bushes, downwind of prey,
watching for weak members of a herd. But as I said, no doubt an
opportunist lion or tiger would attack and eat an unlucky beachcomber
and succeed in escaping without injury occasionally. Please Mario, if
you say water, specify salt or freshwater. Big difference in habitat
and predation/prey habits.

If you cannot escape, lion doesn't have to hide.

Sharp sticks, pebbles, groups, etc.

Lions hunt in
Nile's delta (if I remember correctly).
You don't have to put some irracional obstacles in front of a cat.
Cat will go around them, just like that.

Not if they fall into a pit with sharp sticks poking them in the tummy.

You cannot build your scenario on
fear, and such things. Forget beaches. They are not good places.

Sea beaches are wonderful places, Mario. Cats can't drink saltwater
AFAIK.

Monkeys/apes are climbers.

Patas monkeys, baboons, savanna chimps are savanna dwellers.

Places where you can climb, where they are adventageous, are places to search for them. You cannot climb a beach.

There are palm trees on sea beaches.

And cats are excellent in shallow water.

Again, you confuse the water. Sea beaches don't have freshwater. Tidal
estuaries have brackish water. Rivers have freshwater.

If you are talking about sharpened sticks, this is after fire. I didn't "invent" this fire-making sharp sticks. I've read about that, when I've read how people got sharp stick. This is the natural way to get it. Not my "invention".

They are very avare of tigers. I
wouldn't neglect the predator problem, and all aspects of that
problem. I
am
claiming that a bipedal animal can deal with terrestrial predatos much
better in water.

I agree with you Mario. Direct facial splashing would be one method to
dissuade big cats, since they don't like swimming in tidal salt water,
also throwing pebbles at their snout and eyes, and jabbing in the tummy
with the bamboo spear. Also your idea about diving under it is good
too, since they don't have grip at depth.

I agree that a bambo spear can be accessible in that situation.
But
splashing, no. Cats don't like to run and get tired, yet they do that in
order to catch a prey. No, cats aren't stupid, they wouldn't be
distracted by splashing no more than you would be.

Again, cats don't like to be splashed in the face, with their primary
senses constantly filled with flying water.

For Gods sake DD, forget it. What cats LIKE to do is sleeping all
day long. Just like some people, ; ). Splashing will not prevent cats from
hunting.

Again, blind tiger = dead tiger. Why don't you get this?

Why it is so hard for you to understand? Overcome this and go
further. Otherwise you will whole your life be stuck nowhere.

No smell, no sight, no
sound, no touch except water. They completely depend on their senses.

Just like ANY bloody animal. Just like you and me.
But, this grey stuff between their eyes is called brain. And it
works.

Cat eyeballs are very vulnerable to fast thrown pebbles, if one eye is
hit, the tiger goes blind, the tiger probably dies due to starvation
due to poorer hunting. Remember the blind tiger story in AAT?

My eyeball is vulnerable to just everything.
Why on Earth you don't listen to me? Just try to hit a dog with a
stone. Animals are not like humans. They are much, much more agile, with
much more sharper reflexes. We cannot even understand how agile they are.
Believe me.
I did one experiment with my dog.
Tell your friend to squeeze a pencil with his full hand. And to
position this pencil vertically. Now, hold top of that pencil, and say your
friend to relax hand, but only enough to let pencil go, for 1 milimeter.
Now, tell him to squeeze pencil again, when you let go pencil. He will not
gonna make it. Pencil will drop down. You can pull pencil up from his hand,
so that he sees whole pencil, and still he will not be able to catch it.
Now, I had really excellent beatch. She completly understood what
she is suppose to do. I've put meat in front of her nose. But she knew, from
position of my hand, and from my attitude, that she isn't suppose to take
that meat. Only when I dropped meat, she is supposed to catch it (and it was
right in front of her nose). And when I did drop it, she cought it so
fastly, you wouldn't believe. No man can do anything even close as fast.
IOW, that meat was as close as pencil, but the animal had much faster
reflexes. No way you can hit animal with a stone, if that animal is watching
what you are doing. No way. No pebbles, no anything. In water, when its
movements are constrained, then you have very good chance to do whatever you
want. But only if animal is not touching bottom, and cannot anchor its
strenght.

Big, heavy, sharp
stones, oh yes.

No. Too hard to throw long distance accurately. Round pebbles, golf
ball size, easy to throw and aim and carry while running and place on
sandy beach in case of occasional cat.

No, this will not hurt anybody. This will not hurt me, if I am
watching you. I will move away. Try it. Somebody did hit stones on me. It is
easy to move away. This is only a PA's story (not very smart PA's), because
they didn't have anything better.
OTOH, I think you didn't understand what I was talking about. If you
CLIMB (see, "climb", we are climbers) out of water, and cat wants to climb
after you (and hence produces that really unpleasent sound, for Gods sake,
why is this PARTICULAR sound, out of all the bloody sounds in the World, so
unpleasent for us?), you hit it with a big rock (on a *rocky* coast, not on
a beach), from ABOVE into head. Why this is so hard to understand? It is
efficient, it is possible, it is logical, it isn't some abracadabra. It is
safe for humans. It is TRUE.

This would hurt. Hurt much.

To hit cat with pebbles? Cat will not even notice it. They do hit
baboons in Africa, with stones. And baboons ARE hurt. But, probably they
were hit while they weren't watching the attacker (they were cropping food).
When cat attacks in a hurry, you forget your name, not to say to do anything
else. You don't have time to think, forget about hitting it with a pebble.

Not deliberately wanting to hurt the cat, unless completely necessary.
Just make it stop attacking, distracting by noise (like monkeys) and
throwing things at the cat's sensory organs.

Yes, just to please you.

Thanks Mario! Did you see the Japanese video I posted to SAP? "Tiger
cub's babysitter is da BOSS!".

If you hurt the cat, then
it will defend itself, but if you just scare it or poke it a bit, it
will leave to find easier prey.

Why don't you just say "booo" to cat? Maybe it will scare it. Please
DD, just forget about scaring cats with those soft approach. It will NOT
scare the cat. You are the one who will be scared as ***. And for a good
reason.
I mean, aren't nobody watched that very known video, when lion ate a
man on some safari? It was so known few decades ago. Lion just gently put a
pawn on man's shoulder. Just this gentle move (gentle by lion's standards)
was enough for man to simply colapse to the ground. When man was lying down,
lion just slowly started to eat him. Eat him alive. There was something like
15 people around. In something like 5 wehicles. NOBODY could do ABSOLUTELY
nothing about it.

Mario, those people had no sharp sticks or pebbles? Why? Because they
are town people, right? Because they are not Homo erectus. They are
modern people.

For Gods sake, people, why don't you believe this? You are
inventing some fairy tales, which should fit whatever you think it needs to
be fitten. No, it isn't ANYTHING like that. Those cats are BEASTS. Dangerous
beasts. They are not pussycats. They are killling. They are hunters, they
are killers. They don't have to think to kill. They KNOW exactly what to do
in any situation. If they want to kill you, they will kill you. No splashing
will do anything to them. No pebbles. Those people tried everything. They
tried to push lion with bumpers of their cars. No, nothing helped. Lion just
ate that man, and 15 other men, with HUGe brains, with HUGE knowlage of
everything, couldn't do apsolutely nothing about it. Try to hit a lion with
a stone? Boy, you better be immortal before you try this. Because lion will
tear a *** out of you.

Blind tiger = dead tiger. If a lion can't see, it dies.

Why didn't those huge brained modern town people shoot the lion? Were
they afraid to hit the man?

When Masais are hunting lion, whole village with spears and nets
come to hunt.

Really bad sensory harassment is very
effective against specialised predators.

In jungle, monkeys make lots of noise, this bothers leopard's hearing
sense a lot. In savanna, noise is not so helpful because it carries
away to far away, so savanna prey doesen't make much noise. At beach,
it's between these 2 I guess.

What is between 2?

Between jungle and savanna, the effects of sound to confuse cat.

Between noise monkeys to on branches and what? If
you have a siren, it will not help you. Otherwise every grassing animal will
have a siren.

So much that cat would try to leave soon.
OK, you know what I meant. Make it stop attacking. Confuse it.

Confuse whom? A lion? I am telling you, 5 cars with their sirens and
bumpers didn't stop lion to eat a human. And why should? What do you think,
that animals are idiots? No they aren't.

A modern town human. Not Homo erectus.

But if cat is in
water, water dumps its movement. Cat is easy target for anybody. Even for
a kid.

I agree, but I think they didn't have so many cats around anyway. Maybe
for a small migrating group, 2 or 3 attacks per year. Maybe 1 human
victim, and maybe 1 wounded or dead cat.

They had ENOUGH cats to do the job. IF humans are easy targets,

Do you think Homo erectus was an easy target? Why? I think Homo erectus
was almost impossible target for lone cats, especially on sea beaches.
Homo erectus was an exceptionally smart multi-talented predator,
compared to a lion. Lions are extremely limited (specialized) in many
ways.

cats
WILL come, and eat those humans. This is how it goes in animal world. No,
there will not be a smaller number of cats, just because you need a smaller
number of cats so that your scenario can work. Forget about such thing.
If you are doing a scenario, put that scenario to hardest tests,
because evolution tests every scenario thoroughly. If that scenario passes
hardest tests, than it works, than it is a TRUE scenario. -- Mario

Thanks Mario! DD

.

Quantcast