https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594

I wrote this post to the authors:
"I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like
you draw to little children. What happened in La Brea Tar pits happened
also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called
Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is
called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made
humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and
pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because
prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New
World.
I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory
about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't
able to understand absolutely anything.
And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
were aquatic predators, they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey
from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines
through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have
skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of
lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes.
The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they
were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
>
> I wrote this post to the authors:
> "I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like
> you draw to little children. What happened in La Brea Tar pits happened
> also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
> came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called
> Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is
> called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made
> humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and
> pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because
> prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New
> World.
> I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
> stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory
> about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't
> able to understand absolutely anything.
> And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
> were aquatic predators, they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
> prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey
> from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines
> through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have
> skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of
> lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes.
> The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they
> were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."
give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.

On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
>>
>> I wrote this post to the authors:
>> "I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like
>> you draw to little children. What happened in La Brea Tar pits happened
>> also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
>> came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called
>> Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is
>> called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made
>> humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and
>> pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because
>> prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New
>> World.
>> I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
>> stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory
>> about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't
>> able to understand absolutely anything.
>> And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
>> were aquatic predators, they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
>> prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey
>> from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines
>> through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have
>> skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of
>> lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes.
>> The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they
>> were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."
> give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.
Hm, "this" is nonsense? What, exactly, is nonsense?

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
> >>
> >> I wrote this post to the authors:
> >> "I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like
> >> you draw to little children.

With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?

> What happened in La Brea Tar pits

.... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
The connection with the increased fires is not well established.

Since they would have starved to death anyway, there is no
point in claiming that they were burned to death without
plenty of evidence, and you give none.

> >> happened also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
> >> came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called
> >> Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is
> >> called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made
> >> humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and
> >> pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because
> >> prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New
> >> World.

All of this is highly compatible with what the authors write. They talk a great
deal in the article about how fire changed the whole ecosystem, and they
must have gotten a very bad impression from your failure to acknowledge that.

The following insult was therefore a lot worse than the first:

> >> I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
> >> stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory
> >> about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't
> >> able to understand absolutely anything.
> >> And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
> >> were aquatic predators, they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
> >> prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey
> >> from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines
> >> through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have
> >> skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of
> >> lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes.
> >> The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they
> >> were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."

There is a well known case of a nimravid (*Nimravus* itself0 with two holes in
the skull, and the verdict is that it was killed by a sabertooth
with much longer canines, *Eusmilus*.

However, it is easier to kill an animal that has been blinded,
so you both may have been right.

Erik was typically unhelpful with the following unsupported comment,
but for once he was on the right track:

> > give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.

> Hm, "this" is nonsense? What, exactly, is nonsense?

Erik was on the right track because you are uncritically following
the "waterside hypothesis" of that self-advertiser, Marc Verhaegen.

Marc's spam spans three groups.
After he got tired of advertising himself on his natural habitat,
sci.anthropology.paleo, he spammed first sci.bio.paleontology,
then talk.origins. At first, he seemed willing to discuss things with me,
but he eventually announced that he had "too little time" for discussion,
and has confined himself to advertising his ideas and his many papers.

If you look at the table of contents for sci.bio.paleontology,
you will see that the last thread he started, on August 2, has
had no replies. [The more recently listed was started by him back in May.]
The sci.bio.paleontology regulars have caught on to his ways.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
>>>>
>>>> I wrote this post to the authors:
>>>> "I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like
>>>> you draw to little children.
>
> With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?

I really don't care. I get reply from those people only when I mention
a book that the guy wrote. So he feels the obligation to reply, because
I have his book (I do have some prominent books). Other than that they
don't reply to me. When I figured this out, I stopped to mention their
books. I know that they read what I am posting, they just don't reply
(unless I mention their books). Not replying is also very offensive,
especially if you know that they are reading those posts. So, I really
don't care. There is no reason for me to be polite to them, if they are
so rude towards me. After all, this all isn't, either about me, or about
them, it should be their obligation to discuss those things, especially
when argumentation is good. But also, even if the argumentation is
barely sufficient they have to examine it, this is their job, this is
what they are paid to do, they are not paid to take care of their
persona, this is not kindergarten.

>> What happened in La Brea Tar pits
>
> ... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
> and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
> eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
> The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
>
> Since they would have starved to death anyway, there is no
> point in claiming that they were burned to death without
> plenty of evidence, and you give none.

I gave none, but in paper it is well established. It is new paper,
four days old, and it should become very famous. I didn't read the
paper, I've read two thorough articles about it, and it is clear that
this should be a seminal paper.

>>>> happened also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
>>>> came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called
>>>> Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is
>>>> called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made
>>>> humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and
>>>> pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because
>>>> prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New
>>>> World.
>
> All of this is highly compatible with what the authors write. They talk a great
> deal in the article about how fire changed the whole ecosystem, and they
> must have gotten a very bad impression from your failure to acknowledge that.

No, authors were very surprised with the results. I was writing about
this few years back (possibly even many years back, I have this theory
for 30 years, and I write about it on the internet for the last 20
years), exactly in this very news group. I knew that things are like
that much before. So, trust me, I cannot learn anything new from them,
it is them who can learn from me (if they want to), I don't need them, I
don't expect them to reply me (as I explained above), I wrote this to
teach them something, so that they don't run in circles, and so that the
next time they wouldn't be so surprised. The scientists who are
researching this are surprised, while me, the layman, isn't. Trust me, I
didn't learn anything new from this paper, the whole humanity learnt,
and only today, because they didn't want to listen to me, and because
they didn't care when I was talking to them so many times before about
the exactly what they found only few days ago. Because they didn't
listen, and because they didn't care. Bloody idiots. This isn't a
pleasant dinner party, they are paid to do the job I am doing instead of
them.

> The following insult was therefore a lot worse than the first:
>
>>>> I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
>>>> stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory
>>>> about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't
>>>> able to understand absolutely anything.
>>>> And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
>>>> were aquatic predators, they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
>>>> prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey
>>>> from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines
>>>> through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have
>>>> skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of
>>>> lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes.
>>>> The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they
>>>> were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."
>
> There is a well known case of a nimravid (*Nimravus* itself0 with two holes in
> the skull, and the verdict is that it was killed by a sabertooth
> with much longer canines, *Eusmilus*.
>
> However, it is easier to kill an animal that has been blinded,
> so you both may have been right.
>
>
> Erik was typically unhelpful with the following unsupported comment,
> but for once he was on the right track:
>
>>> give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.
>
>> Hm, "this" is nonsense? What, exactly, is nonsense?
>
> Erik was on the right track because you are uncritically following
> the "waterside hypothesis" of that self-advertiser, Marc Verhaegen.
>
> Marc's spam spans three groups.
> After he got tired of advertising himself on his natural habitat,
> sci.anthropology.paleo, he spammed first sci.bio.paleontology,
> then talk.origins. At first, he seemed willing to discuss things with me,
> but he eventually announced that he had "too little time" for discussion,
> and has confined himself to advertising his ideas and his many papers.
>
> If you look at the table of contents for sci.bio.paleontology,
> you will see that the last thread he started, on August 2, has
> had no replies. [The more recently listed was started by him back in May.]
> The sci.bio.paleontology regulars have caught on to his ways.

First, "waterside" isn't Marc's, but from Sir Alister Hardy, a
prominent marine biologists, and it is called Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT),
later promoted by Elaine Morgan. My and Marc's versions are different,
and I don't agree with Marc on many subjects. In fact, I was expelled
out from Marc's AAT group, this is how uncritically I follow his hypothesis.

On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> ... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
> and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
> eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
> The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
>
> Since they would have starved to death anyway, there is no
> point in claiming that they were burned to death without
> plenty of evidence, and you give none.

And Peter, please, before giving your opinion on something, please, at
least take a basic research of the thing you are commenting.

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:24:24 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > ... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
> > and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
> > eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
> > The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
> >
> > Since they would have starved to death anyway,

or sank deep into the tar and drowned,

> > there is no point in claiming that they were burned to death without
> > plenty of evidence, and you give none.

> And Peter, please, before giving your opinion on something, please, at
> least take a basic research of the thing you are commenting.

I am sorry to say this, but you are parroting a lot of criticism that people
have been leveling at you, without giving any clue as to where that "basic research" is to be looked for.
Or is it JTEM's criticism of others whom you are parroting?

I've gone out of my way to be helpful to you, spending many hours that I could have
spent learning things from others or teaching things to others in talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology.
Is this the way you repay me for all my help?

I will make a wild guess: the only place that can be fruitfully researched is the stack of about 50 papers that
Marc Verhaegen keeps advertising, with no advance clue as to whether he gives reasons for
them having burned to death that amount to more than his say-so.

If I am wrong, please do the research you are advising me to do, and let everyone
know where the evidence for them having burned to death can be found.

Peter Nyikos

On 22.8.2023. 22:46, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:24:24 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> ... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
>>> and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
>>> eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
>>> The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
>>>
>>> Since they would have starved to death anyway,
>
> or sank deep into the tar and drowned,
>
>>> there is no point in claiming that they were burned to death without
>>> plenty of evidence, and you give none.
>
>> And Peter, please, before giving your opinion on something, please, at
>> least take a basic research of the thing you are commenting.
>
> I am sorry to say this, but you are parroting a lot of criticism that people
> have been leveling at you, without giving any clue as to where that "basic research" is to be looked for.
> Or is it JTEM's criticism of others whom you are parroting?
>
> I've gone out of my way to be helpful to you, spending many hours that I could have
> spent learning things from others or teaching things to others in talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology.
> Is this the way you repay me for all my help?
>
>
> I will make a wild guess: the only place that can be fruitfully researched is the stack of about 50 papers that
> Marc Verhaegen keeps advertising, with no advance clue as to whether he gives reasons for
> them having burned to death that amount to more than his say-so.
>
> If I am wrong, please do the research you are advising me to do, and let everyone
> know where the evidence for them having burned to death can be found.

First, they weren't burnt to death only in La Brea tar pits, they were
burnt to death all over America, Australia, Siberia, as you should well
know, if you are researching paleontology. These were the mayor events,
the extinction of megafauna in Siberia and Americas, and the complete
change of everything in Australia. Anybody who is researching
paleontology should know everything about it.
Second thing, no, I didn't repeat what this paper says. This papers
say that it just happen that in that particular place, and in that
particular time merged climate change (rapid warming), megadrought,
millennial scale trend toward the lose of large herbivores and human
fire. What I am saying is that everything except human fire is false,
because exactly the same happened in Siberia, in Australia, and 9.7 mya
during Vallesian crisis.
Regarding AAT Marc Verhaegen isn't relevant at all. I cannot believe
that you didn't hear about AAT, you think that this is Marc's theory.
AAT is very well known theory, although scientists don't research it at
all, but it is regularly mentioned in paleoanthropological books, and
laymen support this theory. For example David Attenborough also supports
this theory. Maybe you can find something on this link (I didn't read it):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis
But the best would be if you read one of books by Elaine Morgan, I
presume that the book "The Aquatic Ape" from 1982 would be an excellent
choice.

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
> >>>>
> >>>> I wrote this post to the authors:
> >>>> "I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like
> >>>> you draw to little children.
> >
> > With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?

> I really don't care. I get reply from those people only when I mention
> a book that the guy wrote. So he feels the obligation to reply, because
> I have his book (I do have some prominent books).

All through this post, you are talking about a forum that
you do not identify. What is it?

> Other than that they
> don't reply to me. When I figured this out, I stopped to mention their
> books. I know that they read what I am posting, they just don't reply
> (unless I mention their books). Not replying is also very offensive,
> especially if you know that they are reading those posts.

What posts? How do you know they are reading them?

In sci.bio.paleontology and talk.origins, it is very common not
to reply to posts when the people are at a loss as to how to
refute you. John Harshman does it very often, and if I have time today,
I will hit him on his latest refusal to reply. Over in talk.origins, he has about twenty people
who are friendly towards him and hostile towards me and Glenn,
so he can get away with it. We'll see how well he does here, where
there is only Erik Simpson to back him regularly, now that Oxyaena
has vanished without so much as saying goodbye. Simpson is as loyal to Harshman
as Sancho Panza was to Don Quixote.

Why is your un-named forum so different?

> So, I really don't care. There is no reason for me to be polite to them, if they are
> so rude towards me. After all, this all isn't, either about me, or about
> them, it should be their obligation to discuss those things, especially
> when argumentation is good. But also, even if the argumentation is
> barely sufficient they have to examine it, this is their job, this is
> what they are paid to do, they are not paid to take care of their
> persona, this is not kindergarten.

Paid? by whom? I have often suspected that some talk.origins
participants are paid to be as obnoxious and dishonest as they are, but
I have no evidence, and they'd just laugh if I said I suspect them.

> >> What happened in La Brea Tar pits
> >
> > ... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
> > and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
> > eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
> > The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
> >
> > Since they would have starved to death anyway, there is no
> > point in claiming that they were burned to death without
> > plenty of evidence, and you give none.

> I gave none, but in paper it is well established. It is new paper,
> four days old, and it should become very famous. I didn't read the
> paper, I've read two thorough articles about it, and it is clear that
> this should be a seminal paper.

Where is this paper? it certainly is not the one you linked.

> >>>> happened also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
> >>>> came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called
> >>>> Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is
> >>>> called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made
> >>>> humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and
> >>>> pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because
> >>>> prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New
> >>>> World.
> >
> > All of this is highly compatible with what the authors write. They talk a great
> > deal in the article about how fire changed the whole ecosystem, and they
> > must have gotten a very bad impression from your failure to acknowledge that.

> No, authors were very surprised with the results. I was writing about
> this few years back (possibly even many years back, I have this theory
> for 30 years, and I write about it on the internet for the last 20
> years), exactly in this very news group.

Not sci.bio.paleontology, obviously.

> I knew that things are like
> that much before. So, trust me, I cannot learn anything new from them,
> it is them who can learn from me (if they want to),

Not from anything you posted here, from the looks of the quality
of their paper.

> I don't need them, I
> don't expect them to reply me (as I explained above), I wrote this to
> teach them something, so that they don't run in circles, and so that the
> next time they wouldn't be so surprised. The scientists who are
> researching this are surprised, while me, the layman, isn't. Trust me, I
> didn't learn anything new from this paper, the whole humanity learnt,
> and only today, because they didn't want to listen to me, and because
> they didn't care when I was talking to them so many times before about
> the exactly what they found only few days ago. Because they didn't
> listen, and because they didn't care. Bloody idiots. This isn't a
> pleasant dinner party, they are paid to do the job I am doing instead of
> them.

So far, the job you've displayed isn't worth more than two dollars, if that..

> > The following insult was therefore a lot worse than the first:
> >
> >>>> I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
> >>>> stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory
> >>>> about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't
> >>>> able to understand absolutely anything.
> >>>> And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
> >>>> were aquatic predators,

Here is where I started to suspect the influence of Marc Verhaegen.
Sure, jaguars swim, but they are only distantly related to Smilodon.

> >>>> they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
> >>>> prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey
> >>>> from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines
> >>>> through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have
> >>>> skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of
> >>>> lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes..
> >>>> The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they
> >>>> were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."
> >
> > There is a well known case of a nimravid (*Nimravus* itself0 with two holes in
> > the skull, and the verdict is that it was killed by a sabertooth
> > with much longer canines, *Eusmilus*.
> >
> > However, it is easier to kill an animal that has been blinded,
> > so you both may have been right.
> >
> >
> > Erik was typically unhelpful with the following unsupported comment,
> > but for once he was on the right track:
> >
> >>> give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.
> >
> >> Hm, "this" is nonsense? What, exactly, is nonsense?
> >
> > Erik was on the right track because you are uncritically following
> > the "waterside hypothesis" of that self-advertiser, Marc Verhaegen.
> >
> > Marc's spam spans three groups.
> > After he got tired of advertising himself on his natural habitat,
> > sci.anthropology.paleo, he spammed first sci.bio.paleontology,
> > then talk.origins. At first, he seemed willing to discuss things with me,
> > but he eventually announced that he had "too little time" for discussion,
> > and has confined himself to advertising his ideas and his many papers.
> >
> > If you look at the table of contents for sci.bio.paleontology,
> > you will see that the last thread he started, on August 2, has
> > had no replies. [The more recently listed was started by him back in May.]
> > The sci.bio.paleontology regulars have caught on to his ways.

> First, "waterside" isn't Marc's, but from Sir Alister Hardy, a
> prominent marine biologists, and it is called Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT),
> later promoted by Elaine Morgan. My and Marc's versions are different,
> and I don't agree with Marc on many subjects. In fact, I was expelled
> out from Marc's AAT group, this is how uncritically I follow his hypothesis.

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 2:52:52 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > >> On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > >>>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I wrote this post to the authors:
> > >>>> "I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like
> > >>>> you draw to little children.
> > >
> > > With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?
>
> > I really don't care. I get reply from those people only when I mention
> > a book that the guy wrote. So he feels the obligation to reply, because
> > I have his book (I do have some prominent books).
> All through this post, you are talking about a forum that
> you do not identify. What is it?
> > Other than that they
> > don't reply to me. When I figured this out, I stopped to mention their
> > books. I know that they read what I am posting, they just don't reply
> > (unless I mention their books). Not replying is also very offensive,
> > especially if you know that they are reading those posts.
> What posts? How do you know they are reading them?
>
> In sci.bio.paleontology and talk.origins, it is very common not
> to reply to posts when the people are at a loss as to how to
> refute you. John Harshman does it very often, and if I have time today,
> I will hit him on his latest refusal to reply. Over in talk.origins, he has about twenty people
> who are friendly towards him and hostile towards me and Glenn,
> so he can get away with it. We'll see how well he does here, where
> there is only Erik Simpson to back him regularly, now that Oxyaena
> has vanished without so much as saying goodbye. Simpson is as loyal to Harshman
> as Sancho Panza was to Don Quixote.
>
> Why is your un-named forum so different?
> > So, I really don't care. There is no reason for me to be polite to them, if they are
> > so rude towards me. After all, this all isn't, either about me, or about
> > them, it should be their obligation to discuss those things, especially
> > when argumentation is good. But also, even if the argumentation is
> > barely sufficient they have to examine it, this is their job, this is
> > what they are paid to do, they are not paid to take care of their
> > persona, this is not kindergarten.
> Paid? by whom? I have often suspected that some talk.origins
> participants are paid to be as obnoxious and dishonest as they are, but
> I have no evidence, and they'd just laugh if I said I suspect them.
> > >> What happened in La Brea Tar pits
> > >
> > > ... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
> > > and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
> > > eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
> > > The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
> > >
> > > Since they would have starved to death anyway, there is no
> > > point in claiming that they were burned to death without
> > > plenty of evidence, and you give none.
>
> > I gave none, but in paper it is well established. It is new paper,
> > four days old, and it should become very famous. I didn't read the
> > paper, I've read two thorough articles about it, and it is clear that
> > this should be a seminal paper.
> Where is this paper? it certainly is not the one you linked.
> > >>>> happened also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
> > >>>> came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called
> > >>>> Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is
> > >>>> called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made
> > >>>> humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and
> > >>>> pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because
> > >>>> prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New
> > >>>> World.
> > >
> > > All of this is highly compatible with what the authors write. They talk a great
> > > deal in the article about how fire changed the whole ecosystem, and they
> > > must have gotten a very bad impression from your failure to acknowledge that.
>
> > No, authors were very surprised with the results. I was writing about
> > this few years back (possibly even many years back, I have this theory
> > for 30 years, and I write about it on the internet for the last 20
> > years), exactly in this very news group.
> Not sci.bio.paleontology, obviously.
> > I knew that things are like
> > that much before. So, trust me, I cannot learn anything new from them,
> > it is them who can learn from me (if they want to),
> Not from anything you posted here, from the looks of the quality
> of their paper.
> > I don't need them, I
> > don't expect them to reply me (as I explained above), I wrote this to
> > teach them something, so that they don't run in circles, and so that the
> > next time they wouldn't be so surprised. The scientists who are
> > researching this are surprised, while me, the layman, isn't. Trust me, I
> > didn't learn anything new from this paper, the whole humanity learnt,
> > and only today, because they didn't want to listen to me, and because
> > they didn't care when I was talking to them so many times before about
> > the exactly what they found only few days ago. Because they didn't
> > listen, and because they didn't care. Bloody idiots. This isn't a
> > pleasant dinner party, they are paid to do the job I am doing instead of
> > them.
> So far, the job you've displayed isn't worth more than two dollars, if that.
> > > The following insult was therefore a lot worse than the first:
> > >
> > >>>> I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
> > >>>> stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory
> > >>>> about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't
> > >>>> able to understand absolutely anything.
> > >>>> And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
> > >>>> were aquatic predators,
> Here is where I started to suspect the influence of Marc Verhaegen.
> Sure, jaguars swim, but they are only distantly related to Smilodon.
> > >>>> they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
> > >>>> prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey
> > >>>> from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines
> > >>>> through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have
> > >>>> skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of
> > >>>> lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes.
> > >>>> The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they
> > >>>> were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."
> > >
> > > There is a well known case of a nimravid (*Nimravus* itself0 with two holes in
> > > the skull, and the verdict is that it was killed by a sabertooth
> > > with much longer canines, *Eusmilus*.
> > >
> > > However, it is easier to kill an animal that has been blinded,
> > > so you both may have been right.
> > >
> > >
> > > Erik was typically unhelpful with the following unsupported comment,
> > > but for once he was on the right track:
> > >
> > >>> give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.
> > >
> > >> Hm, "this" is nonsense? What, exactly, is nonsense?
> > >
> > > Erik was on the right track because you are uncritically following
> > > the "waterside hypothesis" of that self-advertiser, Marc Verhaegen.
> > >
> > > Marc's spam spans three groups.
> > > After he got tired of advertising himself on his natural habitat,
> > > sci.anthropology.paleo, he spammed first sci.bio.paleontology,
> > > then talk.origins. At first, he seemed willing to discuss things with me,
> > > but he eventually announced that he had "too little time" for discussion,
> > > and has confined himself to advertising his ideas and his many papers..
> > >
> > > If you look at the table of contents for sci.bio.paleontology,
> > > you will see that the last thread he started, on August 2, has
> > > had no replies. [The more recently listed was started by him back in May.]
> > > The sci.bio.paleontology regulars have caught on to his ways.
>
> > First, "waterside" isn't Marc's, but from Sir Alister Hardy, a
> > prominent marine biologists, and it is called Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT),
> > later promoted by Elaine Morgan. My and Marc's versions are different,
> > and I don't agree with Marc on many subjects. In fact, I was expelled
> > out from Marc's AAT group, this is how uncritically I follow his hypothesis.
> OK, I thought that all your exposure to Marc in sci.anthropology.paleo
> was what got you going on AAT. In what way is Hardy and Morgan's
> theory different from his?
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
Mario is a badly-educated man with a hyperactive imagination. He is a fountain of
misinformation. Can't you see that? in addition, I'd like to call your attention to your
own fountain of insults. Can't you see that's what you're doing? I can't believe you're
as unpleasant in real life, since you have a family and a job. "Give ir a break".

On 8/22/23 2:52 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wrote this post to the authors:
>>>>>> "I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like
>>>>>> you draw to little children.
>>>
>>> With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?
>
>> I really don't care. I get reply from those people only when I mention
>> a book that the guy wrote. So he feels the obligation to reply, because
>> I have his book (I do have some prominent books).
>
> All through this post, you are talking about a forum that
> you do not identify. What is it?
>
> > Other than that they
>> don't reply to me. When I figured this out, I stopped to mention their
>> books. I know that they read what I am posting, they just don't reply
>> (unless I mention their books). Not replying is also very offensive,
>> especially if you know that they are reading those posts.
>
> What posts? How do you know they are reading them?
>
> In sci.bio.paleontology and talk.origins, it is very common not
> to reply to posts when the people are at a loss as to how to
> refute you. John Harshman does it very often, and if I have time today,
> I will hit him on his latest refusal to reply.

Please stop these gratuitous (and in this case entirely irrelevant)
attacks on third parties, and please stop assuming you know the reasons
for what other people do.

> Over in talk.origins, he has about twenty people
> who are friendly towards him and hostile towards me and Glenn,
> so he can get away with it. We'll see how well he does here, where
> there is only Erik Simpson to back him regularly, now that Oxyaena
> has vanished without so much as saying goodbye. Simpson is as loyal to Harshman
> as Sancho Panza was to Don Quixote.

And please stop with the weird rants.

> Why is your un-named forum so different?
>
>> So, I really don't care. There is no reason for me to be polite to them, if they are
>> so rude towards me. After all, this all isn't, either about me, or about
>> them, it should be their obligation to discuss those things, especially
>> when argumentation is good. But also, even if the argumentation is
>> barely sufficient they have to examine it, this is their job, this is
>> what they are paid to do, they are not paid to take care of their
>> persona, this is not kindergarten.
>
> Paid? by whom? I have often suspected that some talk.origins
> participants are paid to be as obnoxious and dishonest as they are, but
> I have no evidence, and they'd just laugh if I said I suspect them.

That's a bizarre thing to suspect, certainly. Who would pay them?

>>>> What happened in La Brea Tar pits
>>>
>>> ... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
>>> and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
>>> eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
>>> The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
>>>
>>> Since they would have starved to death anyway, there is no
>>> point in claiming that they were burned to death without
>>> plenty of evidence, and you give none.
>
>> I gave none, but in paper it is well established. It is new paper,
>> four days old, and it should become very famous. I didn't read the
>> paper, I've read two thorough articles about it, and it is clear that
>> this should be a seminal paper.
>
> Where is this paper? it certainly is not the one you linked.

The one he linked was indeed only a few days old. But since he didn't
read it (!) he's unlikely to have understood what it says.

OK, carry on with your arguments with this crackpot. But please stop
bringing me into it.

>>>>>> happened also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
>>>>>> came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called
>>>>>> Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is
>>>>>> called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made
>>>>>> humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and
>>>>>> pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because
>>>>>> prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New
>>>>>> World.
>>>
>>> All of this is highly compatible with what the authors write. They talk a great
>>> deal in the article about how fire changed the whole ecosystem, and they
>>> must have gotten a very bad impression from your failure to acknowledge that.
>
>> No, authors were very surprised with the results. I was writing about
>> this few years back (possibly even many years back, I have this theory
>> for 30 years, and I write about it on the internet for the last 20
>> years), exactly in this very news group.
>
> Not sci.bio.paleontology, obviously.
>
>> I knew that things are like
>> that much before. So, trust me, I cannot learn anything new from them,
>> it is them who can learn from me (if they want to),
>
> Not from anything you posted here, from the looks of the quality
> of their paper.
>
>
>> I don't need them, I
>> don't expect them to reply me (as I explained above), I wrote this to
>> teach them something, so that they don't run in circles, and so that the
>> next time they wouldn't be so surprised. The scientists who are
>> researching this are surprised, while me, the layman, isn't. Trust me, I
>> didn't learn anything new from this paper, the whole humanity learnt,
>> and only today, because they didn't want to listen to me, and because
>> they didn't care when I was talking to them so many times before about
>> the exactly what they found only few days ago. Because they didn't
>> listen, and because they didn't care. Bloody idiots. This isn't a
>> pleasant dinner party, they are paid to do the job I am doing instead of
>> them.
>
> So far, the job you've displayed isn't worth more than two dollars, if that.
>
>
>>> The following insult was therefore a lot worse than the first:
>>>
>>>>>> I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
>>>>>> stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory
>>>>>> about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't
>>>>>> able to understand absolutely anything.
>>>>>> And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
>>>>>> were aquatic predators,
>
> Here is where I started to suspect the influence of Marc Verhaegen.
> Sure, jaguars swim, but they are only distantly related to Smilodon.
>
>
> > >>>> they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
>>>>>> prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey
>>>>>> from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines
>>>>>> through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have
>>>>>> skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of
>>>>>> lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes.
>>>>>> The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they
>>>>>> were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."
>>>
>>> There is a well known case of a nimravid (*Nimravus* itself0 with two holes in
>>> the skull, and the verdict is that it was killed by a sabertooth
>>> with much longer canines, *Eusmilus*.
>>>
>>> However, it is easier to kill an animal that has been blinded,
>>> so you both may have been right.
>>>
>>>
>>> Erik was typically unhelpful with the following unsupported comment,
>>> but for once he was on the right track:
>>>
>>>>> give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.
>>>
>>>> Hm, "this" is nonsense? What, exactly, is nonsense?
>>>
>>> Erik was on the right track because you are uncritically following
>>> the "waterside hypothesis" of that self-advertiser, Marc Verhaegen.
>>>
>>> Marc's spam spans three groups.
>>> After he got tired of advertising himself on his natural habitat,
>>> sci.anthropology.paleo, he spammed first sci.bio.paleontology,
>>> then talk.origins. At first, he seemed willing to discuss things with me,
>>> but he eventually announced that he had "too little time" for discussion,
>>> and has confined himself to advertising his ideas and his many papers.
>>>
>>> If you look at the table of contents for sci.bio.paleontology,
>>> you will see that the last thread he started, on August 2, has
>>> had no replies. [The more recently listed was started by him back in May.]
>>> The sci.bio.paleontology regulars have caught on to his ways.
>
>> First, "waterside" isn't Marc's, but from Sir Alister Hardy, a
>> prominent marine biologists, and it is called Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT),
>> later promoted by Elaine Morgan. My and Marc's versions are different,
>> and I don't agree with Marc on many subjects. In fact, I was expelled
>> out from Marc's AAT group, this is how uncritically I follow his hypothesis.
>
> OK, I thought that all your exposure to Marc in sci.anthropology.paleo
> was what got you going on AAT. In what way is Hardy and Morgan's
> theory different from his?
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

On 22.8.2023. 23:52, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wrote this post to the authors:
>>>>>> "I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like
>>>>>> you draw to little children.
>>>
>>> With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?
>
>> I really don't care. I get reply from those people only when I mention
>> a book that the guy wrote. So he feels the obligation to reply, because
>> I have his book (I do have some prominent books).
>
> All through this post, you are talking about a forum that
> you do not identify. What is it?

Generally I was writing in sci.anthropology.paleo (I don't write there
for a long time) and in Marc's AAT Yahoo! group (Yahoo! groups
terminated, Marc organized another group, but I was expelled out of it
very soon). I also wrote in this particular group about those things. Of
course, you don't remember, because in general you are here to correct
me in my "wrong views", to steer me, not to take care of what I am
actually writing. But I presume some people here still remember, Eric
Simpson said that it is time to stop with this tedious nonsense, but
you, on the other hand, for you it is the first time you noticed it,
although you are discussing with me all the time.
I also commented on various YouTube videos, few times I presented this
in comments of Milo's videos, but I also wrote to some
paleoanthorpologists if a paper with similar subject emerges, just like
this time.

> > Other than that they
>> don't reply to me. When I figured this out, I stopped to mention their
>> books. I know that they read what I am posting, they just don't reply
>> (unless I mention their books). Not replying is also very offensive,
>> especially if you know that they are reading those posts.
>
> What posts? How do you know they are reading them?

Because every time I mentioned their book, they always reply. I do
have some books, and I do have books of those people too. So I used to
use some parts from those books to bring the subject closer to them. And
then they would reply. If I didn't mention a book, they wouldn't reply.
So I stopped to mention books, and now nobody replies.
Anyway, if I post to somebody, it is on him to reply me, the end of story.

> In sci.bio.paleontology and talk.origins, it is very common not
> to reply to posts when the people are at a loss as to how to
> refute you. John Harshman does it very often, and if I have time today,
> I will hit him on his latest refusal to reply. Over in talk.origins, he has about twenty people
> who are friendly towards him and hostile towards me and Glenn,
> so he can get away with it. We'll see how well he does here, where
> there is only Erik Simpson to back him regularly, now that Oxyaena
> has vanished without so much as saying goodbye. Simpson is as loyal to Harshman
> as Sancho Panza was to Don Quixote.
>
> Why is your un-named forum so different?
>
>> So, I really don't care. There is no reason for me to be polite to them, if they are
>> so rude towards me. After all, this all isn't, either about me, or about
>> them, it should be their obligation to discuss those things, especially
>> when argumentation is good. But also, even if the argumentation is
>> barely sufficient they have to examine it, this is their job, this is
>> what they are paid to do, they are not paid to take care of their
>> persona, this is not kindergarten.
>
> Paid? by whom? I have often suspected that some talk.origins
> participants are paid to be as obnoxious and dishonest as they are, but
> I have no evidence, and they'd just laugh if I said I suspect them.

Scientists are paid to reveal the truth to people. I am talking about
mails sent to scientists, just like in this particular case. Why I am
writing to scientists? Hey, if I concluded 30 years ago that humans burn
around the planet, and a scientist has all the evidence for it, and
still he doesn't believe, no, it cannot be that humans are burning, it
had to be climate, "megadrought", long lasting factors, it cannot be
only humans, there must be something else too, then I have to write to
them, hey, the same was true in Siberia, the same was true in Australia,
when humans came. And still they don't get it. If I, all by myself,
figured how sabre-tooths hunted, and the whole scientific community
cannot get it, and then finally there is a paper that mentions two
nimravids fighting, with scratches of lower canines at the back, and
upper canines around eyes, which 100 % matches my theory, and the guy
just concludes that they tried to blind each other (my god), and I write
to him, hey, they were trying to kill each other, this is how they are
killing, you have all the necessary evidence right in front of your
eyes, then he should show at least some decency to reply to me. I mean,
even if I may not be 100 % correct, this is mighty good argument, and
the guy should, per his duty, examine each and every good argument, this
is his job, but no, he even doesn't care to reply. What do you expect
from me, which attitude towards those people should I have? I am not
their minor, you know, although it may look like it to you, I am
nobody's minor. Especially if I solved their problem, and they are so
stupid to still not get it.

>>>> What happened in La Brea Tar pits
>>>
>>> ... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
>>> and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
>>> eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
>>> The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
>>>
>>> Since they would have starved to death anyway, there is no
>>> point in claiming that they were burned to death without
>>> plenty of evidence, and you give none.
>
>> I gave none, but in paper it is well established. It is new paper,
>> four days old, and it should become very famous. I didn't read the
>> paper, I've read two thorough articles about it, and it is clear that
>> this should be a seminal paper.
>
> Where is this paper? it certainly is not the one you linked.

Hm, what you are talking about?

>>>>>> happened also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
>>>>>> came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called
>>>>>> Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is
>>>>>> called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made
>>>>>> humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and
>>>>>> pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because
>>>>>> prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New
>>>>>> World.
>>>
>>> All of this is highly compatible with what the authors write. They talk a great
>>> deal in the article about how fire changed the whole ecosystem, and they
>>> must have gotten a very bad impression from your failure to acknowledge that.
>
>> No, authors were very surprised with the results. I was writing about
>> this few years back (possibly even many years back, I have this theory
>> for 30 years, and I write about it on the internet for the last 20
>> years), exactly in this very news group.
>
> Not sci.bio.paleontology, obviously.

Ask Erik Simpson, he should know about it.

>> I knew that things are like
>> that much before. So, trust me, I cannot learn anything new from them,
>> it is them who can learn from me (if they want to),
>
> Not from anything you posted here, from the looks of the quality
> of their paper.
>
>
>> I don't need them, I
>> don't expect them to reply me (as I explained above), I wrote this to
>> teach them something, so that they don't run in circles, and so that the
>> next time they wouldn't be so surprised. The scientists who are
>> researching this are surprised, while me, the layman, isn't. Trust me, I
>> didn't learn anything new from this paper, the whole humanity learnt,
>> and only today, because they didn't want to listen to me, and because
>> they didn't care when I was talking to them so many times before about
>> the exactly what they found only few days ago. Because they didn't
>> listen, and because they didn't care. Bloody idiots. This isn't a
>> pleasant dinner party, they are paid to do the job I am doing instead of
>> them.
>
> So far, the job you've displayed isn't worth more than two dollars, if that.

On 23.8.2023. 0:45, John Harshman wrote:
> The one he linked was indeed only a few days old. But since he didn't
> read it (!) he's unlikely to have understood what it says.

I don't see a single reason to read that paper. Papers are technical
stuff. There were very educated peers that examined paper, it was issued
in Science magazine. Can you tell me a single reason why would I read
that paper? I think that you are a crackpot, you would read that paper.
Don't you have anything else to do in your life, for god's sake? Have
you read any paper in your life at all? You are reading all those
technical things? Why, for god's sake? Do you think you have to, that it
is your duty, or whatever? That you are not "credible" if you don't read
it? What do you think is written there? I've read a lot of papers, I
know how they look like. Do you know how they look like? Do you think
that two thorough articles about this paper, that authors of those
articles are inventing things? And you call me a crackpot? Lol. Have you
read this paper? If you didn't, why are you commenting on something you
know nothing about? You have a perception of it? Ah, I understand, lol.

On 23.8.2023. 1:46, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 23.8.2023. 0:45, John Harshman wrote:
>> The one he linked was indeed only a few days old. But since he didn't
>> read it (!) he's unlikely to have understood what it says.
>
>         I don't see a single reason to read that paper. Papers are
> technical stuff. There were very educated peers that examined paper, it
> was issued in Science magazine. Can you tell me a single reason why
> would I read that paper? I think that you are a crackpot, you would read
> that paper. Don't you have anything else to do in your life, for god's
> sake? Have you read any paper in your life at all? You are reading all
> those technical things? Why, for god's sake? Do you think you have to,
> that it is your duty, or whatever? That you are not "credible" if you
> don't read it? What do you think is written there? I've read a lot of
> papers, I know how they look like. Do you know how they look like? Do
> you think that two thorough articles about this paper, that authors of
> those articles are inventing things? And you call me a crackpot? Lol.
> Have you read this paper? If you didn't, why are you commenting on
> something you know nothing about? You have a perception of it? Ah, I
> understand, lol.

Actually, I never saw a single trace of intelligence in anything that
you've said. It is questionable if you have brain at all.

On 22.8.2023. 23:52, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> No, authors were very surprised with the results. I was writing about
>> this few years back (possibly even many years back, I have this theory
>> for 30 years, and I write about it on the internet for the last 20
>> years), exactly in this very news group.
>
> Not sci.bio.paleontology, obviously.

Then thread was called "Deforestation, the main cause of extinctions",
it is from October/November 2018. You participated, too.

On 23.8.2023. 2:48, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 22.8.2023. 23:52, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> No, authors were very surprised with the results. I was writing about
>>> this few years back (possibly even many years back, I have this theory
>>> for 30 years, and I write about it on the internet for the last 20
>>> years), exactly in this very news group.
>>
>> Not sci.bio.paleontology, obviously.
>
>         Then thread was called "Deforestation, the main cause of
> extinctions", it is from October/November 2018. You participated, too.

Well, I abandoned search, but now I decided to see if there is more of
it. There is a thread called "Fire", from August 2020.. You participated
also. You and I thoroughly discussed the whole situation, you even asked
if I think that human burning is responsible for grasses in Africa.

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:38:15 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 2:52:52 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > > On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > > >> On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
> > > >>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > > >>>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I wrote this post to the authors:
> > > >>>> "I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like
> > > >>>> you draw to little children.
> > > >
> > > > With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?
> >
> > > I really don't care. I get reply from those people only when I mention
> > > a book that the guy wrote. So he feels the obligation to reply, because
> > > I have his book (I do have some prominent books).

> > All through this post, you are talking about a forum that
> > you do not identify. What is it?

> > > Other than that they
> > > don't reply to me. When I figured this out, I stopped to mention their
> > > books. I know that they read what I am posting, they just don't reply
> > > (unless I mention their books). Not replying is also very offensive,
> > > especially if you know that they are reading those posts.

> > What posts? How do you know they are reading them?
> >
> > In sci.bio.paleontology and talk.origins, it is very common not
> > to reply to posts when the people are at a loss as to how to
> > refute you. John Harshman does it very often, and if I have time today,
> > I will hit him on his latest refusal to reply. Over in talk.origins, he has about twenty people
> > who are friendly towards him and hostile towards me and Glenn,
> > so he can get away with it. We'll see how well he does here, where
> > there is only Erik Simpson to back him regularly, now that Oxyaena
> > has vanished without so much as saying goodbye. Simpson is as loyal to Harshman
> > as Sancho Panza was to Don Quixote.
> >
> > Why is your un-named forum so different?

> > > So, I really don't care. There is no reason for me to be polite to them, if they are
> > > so rude towards me. After all, this all isn't, either about me, or about
> > > them, it should be their obligation to discuss those things, especially
> > > when argumentation is good. But also, even if the argumentation is
> > > barely sufficient they have to examine it, this is their job, this is
> > > what they are paid to do, they are not paid to take care of their
> > > persona, this is not kindergarten.

> > Paid? by whom? I have often suspected that some talk.origins
> > participants are paid to be as obnoxious and dishonest as they are, but
> > I have no evidence, and they'd just laugh if I said I suspect them.

> > > >> What happened in La Brea Tar pits
> > > >
> > > > ... is that lots of megafauna, now extinct, got trapped in the tar
> > > > and were cut off from their food supply [some after they had
> > > > eaten all they could of the prey they had killed].
> > > > The connection with the increased fires is not well established.
> > > >
> > > > Since they would have starved to death anyway, there is no
> > > > point in claiming that they were burned to death without
> > > > plenty of evidence, and you give none.
> >
> > > I gave none, but in paper it is well established. It is new paper,
> > > four days old, and it should become very famous. I didn't read the
> > > paper, I've read two thorough articles about it, and it is clear that
> > > this should be a seminal paper.

> > Where is this paper? it certainly is not the one you linked.

> > > >>>> happened also in Australia when humans came, happened also in Siberia when humans
> > > >>>> came, and, finally, happened in the old world when a biped called
> > > >>>> Ouranopithecus emerged around Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and this event is
> > > >>>> called Vallesian crisis. In other words, it wasn't savanna that made
> > > >>>> humans, it were humans that made savanna. You may have prairie and
> > > >>>> pampas in the New World, but you don't have savanna fauna yet, because
> > > >>>> prairie and pampas are new, and emerged only when humans came to the New
> > > >>>> World.
> > > >
> > > > All of this is highly compatible with what the authors write. They talk a great
> > > > deal in the article about how fire changed the whole ecosystem, and they
> > > > must have gotten a very bad impression from your failure to acknowledge that.
> >
> > > No, authors were very surprised with the results. I was writing about
> > > this few years back (possibly even many years back, I have this theory
> > > for 30 years, and I write about it on the internet for the last 20
> > > years), exactly in this very news group.

> > Not sci.bio.paleontology, obviously.

> > > I knew that things are like
> > > that much before. So, trust me, I cannot learn anything new from them,
> > > it is them who can learn from me (if they want to),

> > Not from anything you posted here, from the looks of the quality
> > of their paper.

> > > I don't need them, I
> > > don't expect them to reply me (as I explained above), I wrote this to
> > > teach them something, so that they don't run in circles, and so that the
> > > next time they wouldn't be so surprised. The scientists who are
> > > researching this are surprised, while me, the layman, isn't. Trust me, I
> > > didn't learn anything new from this paper, the whole humanity learnt,
> > > and only today, because they didn't want to listen to me, and because
> > > they didn't care when I was talking to them so many times before about
> > > the exactly what they found only few days ago. Because they didn't
> > > listen, and because they didn't care. Bloody idiots. This isn't a
> > > pleasant dinner party, they are paid to do the job I am doing instead of
> > > them.
> > So far, the job you've displayed isn't worth more than two dollars, if that.
> > > > The following insult was therefore a lot worse than the first:
> > > >
> > > >>>> I am so tired of writing those posts, and so tired of human
> > > >>>> stupidity. Those who claim that they are so intelligent (every theory
> > > >>>> about human evolution relies on human "intelligence") actually aren't
> > > >>>> able to understand absolutely anything.
> > > >>>> And ok, I will explain to you how sabre tooths hunted. They
> > > >>>> were aquatic predators,

> > Here is where I started to suspect the influence of Marc Verhaegen.
> > Sure, jaguars swim, but they are only distantly related to Smilodon.

> > > >>>> they were swimming after the prey, grabbed the
> > > >>>> prey from behind with their strong front legs, fixated the skull of prey
> > > >>>> from behind with their small lower canines, and stuck front canines
> > > >>>> through prey's eyes. In South (or North, I forgot) Dakota you have
> > > >>>> skulls of two nimravids that were fighting, and you have scratches of
> > > >>>> lower canines at the back of skull, and of upper canines around eyes.
> > > >>>> The scientist concluded that they tried to blind each other. No, they
> > > >>>> were trying to kill each other, this is how sabre tooths kill."
> > > >
> > > > There is a well known case of a nimravid (*Nimravus* itself0 with two holes in
> > > > the skull, and the verdict is that it was killed by a sabertooth
> > > > with much longer canines, *Eusmilus*.
> > > >
> > > > However, it is easier to kill an animal that has been blinded,
> > > > so you both may have been right.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Erik was typically unhelpful with the following unsupported comment,
> > > > but for once he was on the right track:
> > > >
> > > >>> give it a break, Mario. This is tedious nonense.
> > > >
> > > >> Hm, "this" is nonsense? What, exactly, is nonsense?
> > > >
> > > > Erik was on the right track because you are uncritically following
> > > > the "waterside hypothesis" of that self-advertiser, Marc Verhaegen.
> > > >
> > > > Marc's spam spans three groups.
> > > > After he got tired of advertising himself on his natural habitat,
> > > > sci.anthropology.paleo, he spammed first sci.bio.paleontology,
> > > > then talk.origins. At first, he seemed willing to discuss things with me,
> > > > but he eventually announced that he had "too little time" for discussion,
> > > > and has confined himself to advertising his ideas and his many papers.
> > > >
> > > > If you look at the table of contents for sci.bio.paleontology,
> > > > you will see that the last thread he started, on August 2, has
> > > > had no replies. [The more recently listed was started by him back in May.]
> > > > The sci.bio.paleontology regulars have caught on to his ways.
> >
> > > First, "waterside" isn't Marc's, but from Sir Alister Hardy, a
> > > prominent marine biologists, and it is called Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT),
> > > later promoted by Elaine Morgan. My and Marc's versions are different,
> > > and I don't agree with Marc on many subjects. In fact, I was expelled
> > > out from Marc's AAT group, this is how uncritically I follow his hypothesis.

I've been very busy in talk.origins for over a week, mostly about
the highly on-topic themes of the origin of life (OOL, also called abiogenesis)
and evolution. But now I take a little time out from that to reply to
a very confusing post of yours.

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:36:07 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 22.8.2023. 23:52, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>> On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>>>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I wrote this post to the authors:
> >>>>>> "I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like
> >>>>>> you draw to little children.
> >>>
> >>> With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?
> >
> >> I really don't care. I get reply from those people only when I mention
> >> a book that the guy wrote.

Which guy? one of the authors of the article that you linked above?
What book are you talking about?

> >> So he feels the obligation to reply, because
> >> I have his book (I do have some prominent books).
> >
> > All through this post, you are talking about a forum that
> > you do not identify. What is it?

> Generally I was writing in sci.anthropology.paleo (I don't write there
> for a long time) and in Marc's AAT Yahoo! group (Yahoo! groups
> terminated, Marc organized another group, but I was expelled out of it
> very soon).

I didn't know the two of you were so much at odds with each other.
That's because I very seldom read sci.anthropology.paleo and
I don't even remember whether I ever encountered you there.

> I also wrote in this particular group about those things. Of
> course, you don't remember,

I get the impression that we are talking about different things here.
I've been looking for some evidence that the animals in the LaBrea
tar pits burned to death, whereas you seem to be talking about
the general theme of human deforestation by the use of fire,
on which we have always been in agreement about.

> because in general you are here to correct
> me in my "wrong views", to steer me, not to take care of what I am
> actually writing.

I always try to address what you are writing. Sometimes I disagree,
sometimes I agree, sometimes I adopt a "wait and see" attitude.

> But I presume some people here still remember, Eric
> Simpson said that it is time to stop with this tedious nonsense, but
> you, on the other hand, for you it is the first time you noticed it,
> although you are discussing with me all the time.

Not the burning to death in the La Brea tar pits. Might your thread
title been misleading me? Maybe it should have read, "The megafauna
found in the LaBrea tar pits are of the same species as others who burned
to death elsewhere" with an explanation at the beginning of the
post that the fires that burned the latter ones were man-made.

> I also commented on various YouTube videos, few times I presented this
> in comments of Milo's videos, but I also wrote to some
> paleoanthorpologists if a paper with similar subject emerges, just like
> this time.

> > > Other than that they
> >> don't reply to me. When I figured this out, I stopped to mention their
> >> books. I know that they read what I am posting, they just don't reply
> >> (unless I mention their books).

I got the impression from this that the same people who wrote that article in _Science_
were actually reading what you write in a forum that I would love to participate in,
but it appears that you are merely talking about the regular participants of
sci.anthropolgy.paleo and sci.bio.paleontology. But I've never seen ANY
of the 19 authors of that _Science_ article here, unless one of them uses
the pseudonym Pandora.

> >> Not replying is also very offensive,
> >> especially if you know that they are reading those posts.
> >
> > What posts? How do you know they are reading them?

> Because every time I mentioned their book, they always reply. I do
> have some books, and I do have books of those people too. So I used to
> use some parts from those books to bring the subject closer to them. And
> then they would reply. If I didn't mention a book, they wouldn't reply.

> So I stopped to mention books, and now nobody replies.

I don't get it. Did you stop mentioning their books because you *don't*
want them to reply?

> Anyway, if I post to somebody, it is on him to reply me, the end of story..

> > In sci.bio.paleontology and talk.origins, it is very common not
> > to reply to posts when the people are at a loss as to how to
> > refute you. John Harshman does it very often, and if I have time today,
> > I will hit him on his latest refusal to reply. Over in talk.origins, he has about twenty people
> > who are friendly towards him and hostile towards me and Glenn,
> > so he can get away with it. We'll see how well he does here, where
> > there is only Erik Simpson to back him regularly, now that Oxyaena
> > has vanished without so much as saying goodbye. Simpson is as loyal to Harshman
> > as Sancho Panza was to Don Quixote.

The only aspect of these two jerks that this analogy expresses is the constancy
of their loyalty to each other, resulting in a lot of comical behavior. Harshman
is about as far in spirit to the sentiments in the song "The Impossible Dream"
from "The Man of La Mancha" as it is possible for an adult to be.

I've got to go now: I need to attend a very important faculty meeting
in three minutes.

TO BE CONTINUED

Peter Nyikos

On 31.8.2023. 22:00, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:36:07 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 22.8.2023. 23:52, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:01:40 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 22.8.2023. 20:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:44:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 20.8.2023. 18:09, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:36 AM UTC-7, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo3594
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wrote this post to the authors:
>>>>>>>> "I wrote so many of posts like this, I will draw you a picture like
>>>>>>>> you draw to little children.
>>>>>
>>>>> With an insult like that, did you really expect a reply?
>>>
>>>> I really don't care. I get reply from those people only when I mention
>>>> a book that the guy wrote.
>
> Which guy? one of the authors of the article that you linked above?
> What book are you talking about?

This isn't the first mail that I sent to some author. I sent it more
than 50, I believe. I do have something like 80 prominent books of
paleoanthropology, for 5 years I spent all my excess money on those
books. So, when some paper is issued that is of interest to me, if I
have a book by that author I would see what he wrote in this book about
it, just so that I make the subject closer to him. Then I realized that
they respond to me when I do this, and they don't respond to me if I
don't to this. So I stopped to do this, if they don't feel the need for
response, I will not "force" them to respond. I don't like hypocrisy.

>>>> So he feels the obligation to reply, because
>>>> I have his book (I do have some prominent books).
>>>
>>> All through this post, you are talking about a forum that
>>> you do not identify. What is it?
>
>> Generally I was writing in sci.anthropology.paleo (I don't write there
>> for a long time) and in Marc's AAT Yahoo! group (Yahoo! groups
>> terminated, Marc organized another group, but I was expelled out of it
>> very soon).
>
> I didn't know the two of you were so much at odds with each other.
> That's because I very seldom read sci.anthropology.paleo and
> I don't even remember whether I ever encountered you there.

Uh, I was there all the time. Started some 20 years ago, but stopped
few years back. I am not at odds with Marc, we just have different
views, regarding niche, and regarding the time frame. The fact is that
20 years ago I participated in Marc's Yahoo! group, and it was really
nice environment, smart people. But when Yahoo! quit its groups Marc
started some other. Now, this new group had really low standards, so I
was always at odds with them. This didn't last for long, they expelled
me out, not so much on Marc's request, but on the request of others.

>> I also wrote in this particular group about those things. Of
>> course, you don't remember,
>
> I get the impression that we are talking about different things here.
> I've been looking for some evidence that the animals in the LaBrea
> tar pits burned to death, whereas you seem to be talking about
> the general theme of human deforestation by the use of fire,
> on which we have always been in agreement about.

Excellent, :) .

>> because in general you are here to correct
>> me in my "wrong views", to steer me, not to take care of what I am
>> actually writing.
>
> I always try to address what you are writing. Sometimes I disagree,
> sometimes I agree, sometimes I adopt a "wait and see" attitude.

Ok, good, :) .

>> But I presume some people here still remember, Eric
>> Simpson said that it is time to stop with this tedious nonsense, but
>> you, on the other hand, for you it is the first time you noticed it,
>> although you are discussing with me all the time.
>
> Not the burning to death in the La Brea tar pits. Might your thread
> title been misleading me? Maybe it should have read, "The megafauna
> found in the LaBrea tar pits are of the same species as others who burned
> to death elsewhere" with an explanation at the beginning of the
> post that the fires that burned the latter ones were man-made.

That's what paper is about. I presented a link. It has an abstract.

>> I also commented on various YouTube videos, few times I presented this
>> in comments of Milo's videos, but I also wrote to some
>> paleoanthorpologists if a paper with similar subject emerges, just like
>> this time.
>
>>>> Other than that they
>>>> don't reply to me. When I figured this out, I stopped to mention their
>>>> books. I know that they read what I am posting, they just don't reply
>>>> (unless I mention their books).
>
> I got the impression from this that the same people who wrote that article in _Science_
> were actually reading what you write in a forum that I would love to participate in,
> but it appears that you are merely talking about the regular participants of
> sci.anthropolgy.paleo and sci.bio.paleontology. But I've never seen ANY
> of the 19 authors of that _Science_ article here, unless one of them uses
> the pseudonym Pandora.
>
>>>> Not replying is also very offensive,
>>>> especially if you know that they are reading those posts.
>>>
>>> What posts? How do you know they are reading them?
>
>> Because every time I mentioned their book, they always reply. I do
>> have some books, and I do have books of those people too. So I used to
>> use some parts from those books to bring the subject closer to them. And
>> then they would reply. If I didn't mention a book, they wouldn't reply.
>
>> So I stopped to mention books, and now nobody replies.
>
> I don't get it. Did you stop mentioning their books because you *don't*
> want them to reply?

I mean, it is up to them if they want to reply or not. I, definitely,
like to discuss my ideas with whomever. Though, from time to time you
step on people that are so stupid, that I cease to visit the whole
group. This happened with sci.anthropology.paleo, when some guy called
'Primum Sapienti' started to post. I mean, this guy is so stupid you
wouldn't believe. Similar thing happened in hr.soc.politika, a Croatian
group about politics, when some guy called 'Denis' started to post. My
god, I simply cannot comprehend how somebody can be so stupid. So I
ceased to write there, :) . There were mostly "mercenariers" (people
employed by two mayor parties, and working for the interests of Catholic
church, Jews, Serbs, each group had one representative, lol) anyway. So,
imagine political group with all those mercenaries, two independent
smart guys (I was one of those two, :) ), and then came this extremely
stupid guy, and I said, its enough, lol.

>> Anyway, if I post to somebody, it is on him to reply me, the end of story.
>
>>> In sci.bio.paleontology and talk.origins, it is very common not
>>> to reply to posts when the people are at a loss as to how to
>>> refute you. John Harshman does it very often, and if I have time today,
>>> I will hit him on his latest refusal to reply. Over in talk.origins, he has about twenty people
>>> who are friendly towards him and hostile towards me and Glenn,
>>> so he can get away with it. We'll see how well he does here, where
>>> there is only Erik Simpson to back him regularly, now that Oxyaena
>>> has vanished without so much as saying goodbye. Simpson is as loyal to Harshman
>>> as Sancho Panza was to Don Quixote.
>
> The only aspect of these two jerks that this analogy expresses is the constancy
> of their loyalty to each other, resulting in a lot of comical behavior. Harshman
> is about as far in spirit to the sentiments in the song "The Impossible Dream"
> from "The Man of La Mancha" as it is possible for an adult to be.

On 31.8.2023. 22:46, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 31.8.2023. 22:00, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> I don't get it. Did you stop mentioning their books because you *don't*
>> want them to reply?
>
>         I mean, it is up to them if they want to reply or not. I,
> definitely, like to discuss my ideas with whomever.

Maybe this will explain my stance better.
I started to dig into our past more than 30 years ago. I started to
contemplate where we do fit. Immediately, on the very first day, I
realized that we fit well onto cliffs. Just like that. Our hands, our
torso, our foot, we are bad at climbing trees, we are good at climbing
cliffs.
Ok, I saw this immediately, without any knowledge, a child could see
this. Ok, now I went to research this. There were a lot of scientists
before me who researched our past, not a single one *ever* mentioned
cliffs. Now, how come? They see chimps, chimps are on trees, fine. They
copy/paste, that's it.
See this book (I have it, at home):
https://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Encyclopedia-Human-Evolution-Reference/dp/0521467861
The face on this book isn't a human face, the face on this book isn't
a chimp face, this is a morph of human and chimp faces. This isn't
thinking, this isn't contemplating, even little children aren't so
bloody simple.
So, they saw a chimp, they saw tree, they never ever moved away from
this. Out of so many scientists, neither one of those ever turned its
head in the direction of cliffs. Ever. They are glued to trees. Only
because this is what they saw, chimp, tree, that's it. What about
cliffs? Nobody sees it. Are they blind?
When I researched more, I realized that the development of our foot
matches exactly what you would expect on cliffs. I don't know how much
you know about human foot, but it is completely different from ape foot,
in our foot the most important is big toe, everything revolves around
it. Which functions excellently on a cliff, where you put the whole
weight of body onto big toe. Plus, we have the strongest tendon there,
Achilles tendon. They say that all this is for walking. I say that all
this functions perfectly on cliffs. I said this numerous times, I posted
this numerous times, to numerous people. Yet, nobody is researching this.
Now you ask me do I want some of them to discuss something with me. It
is like if you would ask me do I want your dog to be my friend. I say,
why not, but what's the point?

On 31.8.2023. 22:46, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 31.8.2023. 22:00, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> I don't get it. Did you stop mentioning their books because you *don't*
>> want them to reply?
>
>         I mean, it is up to them if they want to reply or not. I,
> definitely, like to discuss my ideas with whomever.

Maybe this will explain my stance better.
I started to dig into our past more than 30 years ago. I
started to contemplate where we do fit. Immediately, on the very first
day, I realized that we fit well onto cliffs. Just like that. Our hands,
our torso, our foot, we are bad at climbing trees, we are good at
climbing cliffs.
Ok, I saw this immediately, without any knowledge, a child
could see this. Ok, now I went to research this. There were a lot of
scientists before me who researched our past, not a single one *ever*
mentioned cliffs. Now, how come? They see chimps, chimps are on trees,
fine. They copy/paste, that's it.
See this book (I have it, at home):
https://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Encyclopedia-Human-Evolution-Reference/dp/0521467861
The face on this book isn't a human face, the face on this book
isn't a chimp face, this is a morph of human and chimp faces. This isn't
thinking, this isn't contemplating, even little children aren't so
bloody simple.
So, they saw a chimp, they saw tree, they never ever moved away
from this. Out of so many scientists, neither one of those ever turned
its head in the direction of cliffs. Ever. They are glued to trees. Only
because this is what they saw, chimp, tree, that's it. What about
cliffs? Nobody sees it. Are they blind?
When I researched more, I realized that the development of our
foot matches exactly what you would expect on cliffs. I don't know how
much you know about human foot, but it is completely different from ape
foot, in our foot the most important is big toe, everything revolves
around it. Which functions excellently on a cliff, where you put the
whole weight of body onto big toe. Plus, we have the strongest tendon
there, Achilles tendon. They say that all this is for walking. I say
that all this functions perfectly on cliffs. I said this numerous times,
I posted this numerous times, to numerous people. Yet, nobody is
researching this.
Now you ask me do I want some of them to discuss something with
me. It is like if you would ask me do I want your dog to be my friend. I
say, why not, but what's the point?