Re: hand made longbow?
Dr. Otto Bahn
> By the way , did you see the report about Otzi (The Iceman) where they said
> his death-blow was actually an arrow-strike to the back from about thirty
> metres away?
How do they know he wasn't stabbed in the back
by someone with an arrow?
> Re-constructive archeology...great stuff.
Except for the parts that are bunk.
--oTTo--
Strider
"Dr. Otto Bahn" <Spam...@Baconburger.com> wrote in message
news:cglh5k$lij$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
Looked like just one heck of a lot of suppositions to me. For all they know,
the guy could have fallen off a rock and impaled himself with his own arrow.
It happens.
Maybe they were trying to pull in some research grants.
Strider
Richard A. Lewis
>I saw that work of fiction on the Science or History channel or some such.
>Looked like just one heck of a lot of suppositions to me. For all they know,
>the guy could have fallen off a rock and impaled himself with his own arrow.
>It happens.
Go to Ockham and ask for William. I'm sure he can explain it to you.
>Maybe they were trying to pull in some research grants.
Maybe they just weren't all idiots.
ral
>Strider
Offbreed
Nah. More fodder for the weapon control freaks. He was shot with a
Saturday night special assault bow.
Strider
"Richard A. Lewis" <red...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ndsXc.4734$Y%3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
like you will believe whatever half assed theory they care to publish. I'm
pretty sure there are some TV producers with your picture on the wall
serving as poster boy for the American couch potato that is their target
market.
Strider
Strider
"Offbreed" <Offbre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:maidncJibt9...@scnresearch.com...
***snip***
>
> Nah. More fodder for the weapon control freaks. He was shot with a
> Saturday night special assault bow.
Probably select fire at that.
Strider
CanopyCo
>I saw that work of fiction on the Science or History channel or some such.
>Looked like just one heck of a lot of suppositions to me. For all they know,
>the guy could have fallen off a rock and impaled himself with his own arrow.
>It happens.
I would think that falling backwards on your own arrow and impaling yourself
would tend to make some side to side cutting.
A shot arrow would go in and be pulled straight out.
But yes, it requires a lot of guessing when investigating a death that occurred
in the pre bronze age.
I found it pretty interesting though, just for the factual parts.
Like how he use the best wood for each part of his gear, and that he had to
travel around to get all those different woods.
I can do my own guessing.
Strider
"CanopyCo" <cano...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote in message
news:20040827104551...@mb-m01.aol.com...
I found the discussion on his equipment and supplies to be the main interest
of the show as well.
Strider
Dr. Otto Bahn
"Strider" <str...@usit.net> wrote:
> > >I saw that work of fiction on the Science or History channel or some
> such.
> > >Looked like just one heck of a lot of suppositions to me. For all they
> know,
> > >the guy could have fallen off a rock and impaled himself with his own
> arrow.
> > >It happens.
> >
> > Go to Ockham and ask for William. I'm sure he can explain it to you.
> >
> > >Maybe they were trying to pull in some research grants.
> >
> > Maybe they just weren't all idiots.
> >
> > ral
> >
> > >Strider
> >
> Maybe they create those shows so reading impaired, easily impressed morons
> like you will believe whatever half assed theory they care to publish. I'm
> pretty sure there are some TV producers with your picture on the wall
> serving as poster boy for the American couch potato that is their target
> market.
My work here is done.
--oTTo--
Richard A. Lewis
>Maybe they create those shows so reading impaired, easily impressed morons
>like you will believe whatever half assed theory they care to publish. I'm
>pretty sure there are some TV producers with your picture on the wall
>serving as poster boy for the American couch potato that is their target
>market.
>Strider
Figures. You have absolutely no idea wtf you're talking about and
choose to cover your idiocy with insults yet again.
William would have told you that if you find a body laying in a street
with three bullets in his back, you assume that he was shot by
someone....not that he fell and impaled himself on his own bullets.
Fucking moron.
ral
Strider
condition. A logical person would conclude that, in order for bullets to get
to sufficient velocity to penetrate and kill, they would need to be fired
from a weapon. However, merely noting that someone is lying dead on the
street with bullet wounds is not sufficient in and of itself to determine
that the person did, indeed, die of gunshot wounds.
People can and do fall on arrows, most notably from tree stands, here in
modern times. Occasionally, this is a fatal accident. That's why people
seldom carry exposed arrow heads on the bow quivers these days.
Logic is obviously not something that you are familiar with. I'd think that
you'd want to quit putting that dirty foot into your mouth every day.
strider
Offbreed
Think it had a bayonet lug?
Ben Heaton
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Richard A. Lewis wrote:
>
> William would have told you that if you find a body laying in a street
> with three bullets in his back, you assume that he was shot by
> someone....not that he fell and impaled himself on his own bullets.
But your "shooting theory" requires postulating some additional person,
to have shot him. That's just the sort of unnecessary complication that
Occam's Razor warns against. The simplest explanation is that the body was
always dead, there are no other people or streets in the world, and the
bullets were never moving. Anything else violates the well-known principle
of least hypothesis.
-Ben "Factitious" Heaton
--
No sale, honcho!
Richard A. Lewis
>>
>Logic would dictate that if one fell on his bullets, he'd not die of that
>condition.
Dying of the condition has as little to do with it as if you had
stated that he "had the flu when he died so he must have fallen on his
own arrow". By the logic of the arrow being in his back and
sufficiently deep to have been fired from a bow, anyhting else is a
non sequitur.
Rest of the drivel snipped....
>People can and do fall on arrows, most notably from tree stands,
Find many tree stands round about where he was killed, then?
More idiot garbage snipped....
>Logic is obviously not something that you are familiar with. I'd think that
>you'd want to quit putting that dirty foot into your mouth every day.
Really? And that tidbit coming from someone who had no idea who
William of Ockham was, idiot?
ROFLMAO!!!!
Fucking pitiful.
ral
>strider
Richard A. Lewis
>But your "shooting theory" requires postulating some additional person,
>to have shot him. That's just the sort of unnecessary complication that
>Occam's Razor warns against.
No, it's not and no, it does not.
Ockham's Razor states that everything has a natural state and that the
logic of that thing dictates that it will operate in its most natural
form and that assigning it characteristics outside its natural
state/form is the illogical part.
An arrow is a projectile weapon meant to be fired as a ranged weapon
from a bow the same as a bullet from a gun. That's its natural state
and form the same as the bullet etc. Assuming it dropped from an
airplane and hit someone or assuming that it was lying on the ground
and someone fell on it is outsides its natural state and barring some
other evidence to the contrary, is illogical.
Who or what shot the arrow has no bearing on William's argument at
all. The only thing he's dictating is that it's more logical for a
ranged weapon in the back to have been fired than to have been fallen
on. Postulating who or what might have fired it is as outside the
argument as the idiot's suggestion that he might have fallen from his
treestand. ROFLMAO!!!!!
>The simplest explanation is that the body was
>always dead, there are no other people or streets in the world, and the
>bullets were never moving. Anything else violates the well-known principle
>of least hypothesis.
ROFLMAO!!!!!
ral
Dr. Otto Bahn
> >But your "shooting theory" requires postulating some additional person,
> >to have shot him. That's just the sort of unnecessary complication that
> >Occam's Razor warns against.
>
> No, it's not and no, it does not.
>
> Ockham's Razor states that everything has a natural state and that the
> logic of that thing dictates that it will operate in its most natural
> form and that assigning it characteristics outside its natural
> state/form is the illogical part.
I though Ockham's Razor cut away the unnecessary
stupidity. You might want to sharpen your blade
--oTTo--
Richard A. Lewis
>I though Ockham's Razor cut away the unnecessary
>stupidity.
Isn't that what I just said?
>You might want to sharpen your blade
Come on back and talk to me when you understand it, bud.
ral
>--oTTo--
Marc Goodman
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE UNDERSTAND MY BLADE
Dr. Otto Bahn
> >I though Ockham's Razor cut away the unnecessary
> >stupidity.
>
> Isn't that what I just said?
No, that's why you snipped it.
> >You might want to sharpen your blade
>
> Come on back and talk to me when you understand it, bud.
Have you ever shaved in the car on the way to work?
--oTTo--
Strider
> "Strider" <str...@usit.net> wrote:
> >>
> >Logic would dictate that if one fell on his bullets, he'd not die of that
> >condition.
>
> Dying of the condition has as little to do with it as if you had
> stated that he "had the flu when he died so he must have fallen on his
> own arrow". By the logic of the arrow being in his back and
> sufficiently deep to have been fired from a bow, anyhting else is a
> non sequitur.
Bullshit, Richie. The authors of the show mad up an entire work of fiction
to entertain couch 'spuds like you. All they really know is that they found
a 5,000 year old body with artifacts all around. Everything else, except for
the genetic info, was pure speculative fiction.
>
> Rest of the drivel snipped....
Too bad. I'm tired of you snipping the parts of my posts that you don't
like:
>Logic would dictate that if one fell on his bullets, he'd not die of that
>condition. A logical person would conclude that, in order for bullets to
get
>to sufficient velocity to penetrate and kill, they would need to be fired
>from a weapon. However, merely noting that someone is lying dead on the
>street with bullet wounds is not sufficient in and of itself to determine
>that the person did, indeed, die of gunshot wounds.
>
> >People can and do fall on arrows, most notably from tree stands,
>
> Find many tree stands round about where he was killed, then?
>
> More idiot garbage snipped....
Trimming my posts to try to make your post look logical will not fly you
jackass.
>People can and do fall on arrows, most notably from tree stands, here in
>modern times. Occasionally, this is a fatal accident. That's why people
>seldom carry exposed arrow heads on the bow quivers these days.
Notice I said "in modern times". If you look back a few posts, I said, "For
all they know,
the guy could have fallen off a rock and impaled himself with his own arrow.
It happens."
If you can't do better than to trim posts to try to make your assinine
points, then you don't have a whole lot to work with Richard.
Stridr
Dr. Otto Bahn
> > >Logic would dictate that if one fell on his bullets, he'd not die of that
> > >condition.
> >
> > Dying of the condition has as little to do with it as if you had
> > stated that he "had the flu when he died so he must have fallen on his
> > own arrow". By the logic of the arrow being in his back and
> > sufficiently deep to have been fired from a bow, anyhting else is a
> > non sequitur.
>
> Bullshit, Richie. The authors of the show mad up an entire work of fiction
> to entertain couch 'spuds like you. All they really know is that they found
> a 5,000 year old body with artifacts all around. Everything else, except for
> the genetic info, was pure speculative fiction.
Plus, I never would have though I'd catch a fish
this big..
--oTTo--
Ben Heaton
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Strider wrote:
>
> Bullshit, Richie. The authors of the show mad up an entire work of fiction
> to entertain couch 'spuds like you. All they really know is that they found
> a 5,000 year old body with artifacts all around. Everything else, except for
> the genetic info, was pure speculative fiction.
Do they really know that those things are artifacts? Maybe they were
naturally occuring - we don't know much about life back then, or what
weird sorts of species might have been around.
> >Logic would dictate that if one fell on his bullets, he'd not die of that
> >condition.
What if the bullets were made of a powerful contact poison? Can your
"logic" explain that?
Strider
"Ben Heaton" <bh0...@mail.rochester.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.04...@mail1.ats.rochester.edu...
>
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Strider wrote:
>
> >
> > Bullshit, Richie. The authors of the show mad up an entire work of
fiction
> > to entertain couch 'spuds like you. All they really know is that they
found
> > a 5,000 year old body with artifacts all around. Everything else, except
for
> > the genetic info, was pure speculative fiction.
>
> Do they really know that those things are artifacts? Maybe they were
> naturally occuring - we don't know much about life back then, or what
> weird sorts of species might have been around.
Sure, could have been an unknown species of brass clam that just looks like
an axe.
>
> > >Logic would dictate that if one fell on his bullets, he'd not die of
that
> > >condition.
>
> What if the bullets were made of a powerful contact poison? Can your
> "logic" explain that?
Probably a rare species of lead head maggots.
strider
Richard A. Lewis
>Bullshit, Richie. The authors of the show mad up an entire work of fiction
>to entertain couch 'spuds like you.
The entire thing was based upon a lot of law enforcement history and
technique in that every aspect of the "crime scene" was analyzed just
like evidence today.
From the fact that he had so few prepared arrows to the fact that he
was shot in the back to the fact that he was wounded but not followed
etc etc etc.
If he were a hunter, he would have more than two firable arrows on
him. The fact that he had a dozen halfmade ones shows that he had
used his supply very recently. The human blood on the one and the
blood on his cape showed that he had recently been next to a person
who had been shot with his arrows. Yeah, I know....him and his gay
lover were going at it in their treestand and during a rather arduous
half gainer, they both fell out and impaled themselves on two
different arrows.
ROFLMAO!!!!
Ya know, s, if you were a teenager, your aparent lack of an education
and seeming stupidity would be understandable. I'm gonna guess that
you really are just putting us on and acting like the villiage idiot
for fun though, right?
Rest of the drivel snipped....
ral
Richard A. Lewis
>Plus, I never would have though I'd catch a fish
>this big..
>--oTTo--
Yeah yeah yeah. You replied to the thread....
ral
Richard A. Lewis
>No, that's why you snipped it.
Read it again. You'll get it sooner or later.
ral
>--oTTo--
Dr. Otto Bahn
> >Plus, I never would have though I'd catch a fish
> >this big..
>
> Yeah yeah yeah. You replied to the thread....
And it's still wiggling on the hook.
--oTTo--
Strider
are showing signs of overdose on TV.
Strider
Dr. Otto Bahn
> I choose not to take a piece of fictional entertainment as hard fact. You
> are showing signs of overdose on TV.
Jerry Lewis did that once. That's why he moved
to France -- his career was in tatters.
--oTTo--
David
[...]
> People can and do fall on arrows, most notably from tree stands,
> here in modern times. Occasionally, this is a fatal accident.
It should always be: only wusses "hunt" from tree stands.
D.
--
"I don't think that I can take it, cuz it took so long to bake it."
...................................................................
(C) 2004 TheDavid^TM | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
Richard A. Lewis
Dance for us, puppet....wow, I said it before the big, smart, cool
guy! I must be cooler than him! Wow!
Fucking pathetic idiots.
ral
Richard A. Lewis
>>
>I choose not to take a piece of fictional entertainment as hard fact. You
>are showing signs of overdose on TV.
No one said it was "fact". The entire show, from the beginning,
explained that it was simply being looked at with today's logic and
reasoning as entertainment. Nothing more.
ral
>Strider
Strider
Strider