[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Explain 'Little Lucy's deposition?

Subject: Re: Explain 'Little Lucy's deposition?
From: "deowll"
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:29:48 -0500
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
"Lee Olsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]
> deowll wrote:
>> The remains are not overly likely to have moved very far though I suppose 
>> a
>> flood might. Somehow the body ended up in shallow water. Exact cause of
>> death is unknown but the dental problem was a monster infection that 
>> would
>> have saped the beings ability, strength, and ruined his health. It 
>> certainly
>> played a role in his death.
> But why speculate "not overly likely to have moved very far" and
> what is your basis for that speculation? What evidence is there to the
> contrary of what the primary researchers  have written that would lead
> you to even bring it up? Since it is a demonstrated fact that the
> individual was found on a flood plain and that the organisms at the
> site are  consistent with over-bank flooding, why speculate  what
> isn't in evidence? "I suppose a flood might"? Since "over-bank
> flooding" represents the known evidence, then "might" is a
> speculation and flooding is a fact.   Occam's Razor then applies.
> Floods may or may not move a body very far, so to speculate one way or
> another just how far or at all, is just that--- speculation.

I didn't break Occam's Razor. I noted a fact. Dead bodies are often moved by 
water and as you noted it was on a flood plan which must have flooded on 
occasion or the remains would not have been buried. I'm merely noting that 
we can't know with certainty exactly how and where the being died.

If you go back and read what I wrote and look at what you just admitted it 
pretty much amounts to the same thing. Floods may or may not move bodies. At 
this point in time certainty is not possible in this case.

> "It certainly played a role in his death." You don't know that
> anymore than you know the remains "are not likely to have moved very
> far" For all you know, the tooth was the least of his problems.

I know an abcess of that scale, one that left visible evidence on the bone, 
would put you in the hospital taking massive amounts of antibiotics with no 
certainty that you would survive. If the child had worse problems than that 
the most likely outcome would be death. In fact death is an expected outcome 
for an infection of that scale at any point in time unless the patient gets 
effective medical treatment.

You might check with the police on how for bodies get moved by floods. My 
understanding is that most don't get moved far.

You have fun now.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>