Nungali

apparently this covers most 'experience' ( a few may fall outside this, but apparently the dont 'effect' us ) oh look ... its that tripartite duality again that I keep harping on about

Oh no ..... its what 'some quantum illusion' says ....

Good article though ! I wrote a similar one years back ; ' Indigenous Agriculture and Technology in Australia ' for the Australian Bio-dynamic Agriculture magazine . It featured such things as (little known about back then , and certainly NEVER taught when I was at school ) mentioned in the article , including the worlds oldest operating mine , stone villages, food harvesting processing and storing in underground silos, 'fire stick farming' to develop pastures , aquaculture , we are only just now starting to realize the medicinal knowledge they had ..... Blushwood ! ( I know I keep posting this , but just ignore it if you already read ) “In preclinical trials we injected it into our models and within five minutes, you see a purpling of the area that looks like a bruise,” Boyle, from the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute said. “About 24 hours later, the tumour area goes black, a couple of days later you see a scab, and at around the 1.5 week mark, the scab falls off, leaving clean skin with no tumour there. The speed certainly surprised me.” https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/08/cancer-tumours-destroyed-by-berry-queensland-rainforest

Right up my alley ... but I wonder why this is such a surprise ? I mean we know they were here when that happened , we know they retain history orally ( and this is a 'general event ' not some complex 'gossip' where details change ) and we know some of this oral history / memory can go back through multiple generations . Uncle Link told me about Bundjalung history, they started up north but lost land due to sea rising and moved out. Also, various groups hunting rights have continued over the flooded land and are now in fishing rights and are worked out, out at sea, by visual triangulation from shore. Someone mapped some of it and compared it to the sea floor maps - where the boundaries seem based on the old land watersheds. Also, on this continent they lived through eras of tidal waves, volcanoes, glaciation, sea level rise, desertification , climate change .... Also their understanding of human psychology .... developed over 40,000 is astounding (if you can interpret it ! ) The problem has been whitey dumbing it down ( and in most cases receiving the 101 version first and never bothering to look deeper, so get no more ) .... the translated word 'Dreamtime' and its modern usage is a classic example.

I say we burn Karl to ash

Good Lord ! Now he is not just twisting others words surreptitiously, he is openly 'editing ' ! ... and ..... he's off !

Oh yeah .... and I forgot , he also changes definitions off his own volition , and then argues from his newly defined perspective . I a, sure he will remind me of some more as we go on .

Oh ..... how curious then that when I trounced him in logical debate and exposed all his silly tactics ( especially that one where he wrongly paraphrases what others say and turns it into his own wrong statement then goes about pulling it to pieces and showing the falsity ... of what he actually wrote himself ... but blames the other for writing it ) he chose to never respond to me again ..... maybe he put me on ignore ? I guess that part doesnt make ' good copy ' ?

'Talismanic tattoos ' ? I got a few.

Go for it ... you only live once despite what the reincarnation thread says !

Oh ? I hear today is your birthday as well ;

happiness is not owning one single tie

?

are you saying other animals dont have a ' mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically ' ? can you beat the monkey ? http://www.wimp.com/chimp-solves-puzzle-faster-than-most-humans/

The there is the 'eye thing'. If a modern human from a young age is learnt to dive underwater and play and hunt, their eyes develop differently, and many islander kids have this; they can see clear , not blurred, under water, as if they had goggles on. And just as clear when they surface as their eyes change with the pressure on them. If they dont this , their eyes loose the ability, and you cant get it back . - So I saw on some tv doco ... ? The 'stories' I have been hearing recently have started to change .... 'Old Man Dreaming ' "used to be a whale " ... huh ! and ' Really, we came out of the ocean . " "We are water people " and other stuff ( traditional 'teachings' are given via stories, in levels, most of what we hear, or is told and recorded , is virtually kindergarten level / kids 'fairy-tale', then they change and get more complex and inter related as the levels rise .) ancient people, calling the dolphins up with song so they herd fish to shore for them or doing a 'crippled limping dance' on the shore at sunset with a fire behind so the killer whales would see 'the injured old man' and hear his song calling for help and drive fish into the shore for him .... http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2013/10/29/3879462.htm

It means that we are different from the other animals in that we developed culture.

It sure is . I am not disputing that at all . Check this out ; ... the size and detail some could achieve back then ! ( from Gonur - Central Asia )

Maybe its off a ' Darwin Stubby ' ? 2 liters mate !

On that linked page ... did you click on the button for ' show scale' ? next to the seal ..... it isnt much bigger than a bottle cap. ....... unless that is a UFO next to it

In Russia . But why carry 2 and have both hands filled ? When one could be worn around the neck ? https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/d2/00/75/d200756e17b44a3a367dccdc1d2796f3.jpg This pic seems to affirm the seal though ; it is a pic from the Rods.ru site , titled 'Metropolitan Museum' (doesnt say which one ) in any case, they seem to be claiming it is the remains of an old 'Egyptian rod', disassembled : https://egyptianhealingrods.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/InMetropolitanMuseum.jpg But I think I can see engravings on the outside ? Maybe the seal was kept in a case , that would make it bigger. ? ? ?

http://www.oocities.org/unforbidden_geology/ancient_egyptian_copper_slabbing_saws.html

Since a link just appeared with no text or explanation or reason for putting it up , and considering the pics and captions, one assumes that this is a demo of some of the results the Egyptians achieved. Now to some , it might appear that no one could do that with primitive tools ? if that was the point of the exercise ? They seem to make a point of bringing attention to sawn stone * and to rounded moulding on stone ..... ( maybe he never heard of a stone column ? They are round and curved all the way up . Egyptians were quiet good at making them . How to saw stone : http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/articles/petrie.php ( This is pretty basic Egyptology) Mechanical Methods - Petrie's Comments The following extracts are taken from Chapter VIII entitled "Mechanical Methods" in Petrie's classic reference work "The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh". They concern some of his findings at 'Gizeh' during the winters of 1880 and 1881. "The methods employed by the Egyptians in cutting the hard stones which they so frequently worked, have long remained undetermined. Various suggestions have been made, some very impractical; but no actual proofs of the tools employed, or the manner of using them, have been obtained..." "The typical method of working hard stones - such as granite, diorite, basalt, etc.- was by means of bronze tools; these were set with cutting points, far harder than the quartz which was operated on. The material of these cutting points is yet undetermined; but only five substances are possible - beryl, topaz, chrysoberyl, corindum or sapphire, and diamond. The character of the work would certainly seem to point to diamond as being the cutting jewel; and only the considerations of its rarity in general,...interfer with this conclusion." " Many nations,..., are in the habit of cutting hard materials by mean of a soft substance (as copper, wood, horn etc.), with a hard powder applied to it; the powder sticks in the basis employed, and this being scraped over the stone to be cut, so wears it away. Many persons have therefore very readily assumed(as I myself did at first) that this method must necessarily have been used by the Egyptians; and that it would suffice to produce all the examples now collected. Such, however, is far from being the case; though no doubt in alabastar, and other soft stones, this method was employed." "That the Egyptians were acquainted with a cutting jewel far harder than quartz, and that they used this jewel as a sharp pointed graver, is put beyond doubt by the diorite bowls with inscriptions of the fourth dynasty, of which I found fragments at Gizeh; as well as the scratches on polished granite of Ptolemaic age at San. The hieroglyphs are incised, with a very fre-cutting point; they are not scraped or ground out, but are ploughed through the diorite, with rough edges to the line. As the lines are only 1/150 inch wide (the figures being about .2 long), it is evidence that the cutting point must have been much harder than quartz; and tough enough not to splinter when so fine an edge was being employed, probably only 1/200 inch wide. Parallel lines are graved only 1/30 inch apart from centre to centre." There is a heap youtubes out there that claim to be mystified about these basic processes , so called experts film the stone , then say "Some type of saw must have been used !!! " (ummmm .... yeah . ) " How did they do it ? I dont know ." (maybe thats becasue you didnt bother to do the basic kindy research about it ? ) Like this one ; "The methods employed by the Egyptians in cutting the hard stones which they so frequently worked, have long remained undetermined. Various suggestions have been made, some very impractical; but no actual proofs of the tools employed, or the manner of using them, have been obtained..." "The typical method of working hard stones - such as granite, diorite, basalt, etc.- was by means of bronze tools; these were set with cutting points, far harder than the quartz which was operated on. The material of these cutting points is yet undetermined; but only five substances are possible - beryl, topaz, chrysoberyl, corindum or sapphire, and diamond. The character of the work would certainly seem to point to diamond as being the cutting jewel; and only the considerations of its rarity in general,...interfer with this conclusion." " Many nations,..., are in the habit of cutting hard materials by mean of a soft substance (as copper, wood, horn etc.), with a hard powder applied to it; the powder sticks in the basis employed, and this being scraped over the stone to be cut, so wears it away. Many persons have therefore very readily assumed(as I myself did at first) that this method must necessarily have been used by the Egyptians; and that it would suffice to produce all the examples now collected. Such, however, is far from being the case; though no doubt in alabastar, and other soft stones, this method was employed." "That the Egyptians were acquainted with a cutting jewel far harder than quartz, and that they used this jewel as a sharp pointed graver, is put beyond doubt by the diorite bowls with inscriptions of the fourth dynasty, of which I found fragments at Gizeh; as well as the scratches on polished granite of Ptolemaic age at San. The hieroglyphs are incised, with a very fre-cutting point; they are not scraped or ground out, but are ploughed through the diorite, with rough edges to the line. As the lines are only 1/150 inch wide (the figures being about .2 long), it is evidence that the cutting point must have been much harder than quartz; and tough enough not to splinter when so fine an edge was being employed, probably only 1/200 inch wide. Parallel lines are graved only 1/30 inch apart from centre to centre." "The methods employed by the Egyptians in cutting the hard stones which they so frequently worked, have long remained undetermined. Various suggestions have been made, some very impractical; but no actual proofs of the tools employed, or the manner of using them, have been obtained..." "The typical method of working hard stones - such as granite, diorite, basalt, etc.- was by means of bronze tools; these were set with cutting points, far harder than the quartz which was operated on. The material of these cutting points is yet undetermined; but only five substances are possible - beryl, topaz, chrysoberyl, corindum or sapphire, and diamond. The character of the work would certainly seem to point to diamond as being the cutting jewel; and only the considerations of its rarity in general,...interfer with this conclusion." " Many nations,..., are in the habit of cutting hard materials by mean of a soft substance (as copper, wood, horn etc.), with a hard powder applied to it; the powder sticks in the basis employed, and this being scraped over the stone to be cut, so wears it away. Many persons have therefore very readily assumed(as I myself did at first) that this method must necessarily have been used by the Egyptians; and that it would suffice to produce all the examples now collected. Such, however, is far from being the case; though no doubt in alabastar, and other soft stones, this method was employed." "That the Egyptians were acquainted with a cutting jewel far harder than quartz, and that they used this jewel as a sharp pointed graver, is put beyond doubt by the diorite bowls with inscriptions of the fourth dynasty, of which I found fragments at Gizeh; as well as the scratches on polished granite of Ptolemaic age at San. The hieroglyphs are incised, with a very fre-cutting point; they are not scraped or ground out, but are ploughed through the diorite, with rough edges to the line. As the lines are only 1/150 inch wide (the figures being about .2 long), it is evidence that the cutting point must have been much harder than quartz; and tough enough not to splinter when so fine an edge was being employed, probably only 1/200 inch wide. Parallel lines are graved only 1/30 inch apart from centre to centre." "The methods employed by the Egyptians in cutting the hard stones which they so frequently worked, have long remained undetermined. Various suggestions have been made, some very impractical; but no actual proofs of the tools employed, or the manner of using them, have been obtained..." "The typical method of working hard stones - such as granite, diorite, basalt, etc.- was by means of bronze tools; these were set with cutting points, far harder than the quartz which was operated on. The material of these cutting points is yet undetermined; but only five substances are possible - beryl, topaz, chrysoberyl, corindum or sapphire, and diamond. The character of the work would certainly seem to point to diamond as being the cutting jewel; and only the considerations of its rarity in general,...interfer with this conclusion." " Many nations,..., are in the habit of cutting hard materials by mean of a soft substance (as copper, wood, horn etc.), with a hard powder applied to it; the powder sticks in the basis employed, and this being scraped over the stone to be cut, so wears it away. Many persons have therefore very readily assumed(as I myself did at first) that this method must necessarily have been used by the Egyptians; and that it would suffice to produce all the examples now collected. Such, however, is far from being the case; though no doubt in alabastar, and other soft stones, this method was employed." "That the Egyptians were acquainted with a cutting jewel far harder than quartz, and that they used this jewel as a sharp pointed graver, is put beyond doubt by the diorite bowls with inscriptions of the fourth dynasty, of which I found fragments at Gizeh; as well as the scratches on polished granite of Ptolemaic age at San. The hieroglyphs are incised, with a very fre-cutting point; they are not scraped or ground out, but are ploughed through the diorite, with rough edges to the line. As the lines are only 1/150 inch wide (the figures being about .2 long), it is evidence that the cutting point must have been much harder than quartz; and tough enough not to splinter when so fine an edge was being employed, probably only 1/200 inch wide. Parallel lines are graved only 1/30 inch apart from centre to centre." "The methods employed by the Egyptians in cutting the hard stones which they so frequently worked, have long remained undetermined. Various suggestions have been made, some very impractical; but no actual proofs of the tools employed, or the manner of using them, have been obtained..." "The typical method of working hard stones - such as granite, diorite, basalt, etc.- was by means of bronze tools; these were set with cutting points, far harder than the quartz which was operated on. The material of these cutting points is yet undetermined; but only five substances are possible - beryl, topaz, chrysoberyl, corindum or sapphire, and diamond. The character of the work would certainly seem to point to diamond as being the cutting jewel; and only the considerations of its rarity in general,...interfer with this conclusion." " Many nations,..., are in the habit of cutting hard materials by mean of a soft substance (as copper, wood, horn etc.), with a hard powder applied to it; the powder sticks in the basis employed, and this being scraped over the stone to be cut, so wears it away. Many persons have therefore very readily assumed(as I myself did at first) that this method must necessarily have been used by the Egyptians; and that it would suffice to produce all the examples now collected. Such, however, is far from being the case; though no doubt in alabastar, and other soft stones, this method was employed." "That the Egyptians were acquainted with a cutting jewel far harder than quartz, and that they used this jewel as a sharp pointed graver, is put beyond doubt by the diorite bowls with inscriptions of the fourth dynasty, of which I found fragments at Gizeh; as well as the scratches on polished granite of Ptolemaic age at San. The hieroglyphs are incised, with a very fre-cutting point; they are not scraped or ground out, but are ploughed through the diorite, with rough edges to the line. As the lines are only 1/150 inch wide (the figures being about .2 long), it is evidence that the cutting point must have been much harder than quartz; and tough enough not to splinter when so fine an edge was being employed, probably only 1/200 inch wide. Parallel lines are graved only 1/30 inch apart from centre to centre."