The in home care package for my father finally starts next week. I rejected one about a month ago because the religious agency who were going to administer it sent a 'nurse' who 'prescribed' drugs to make him more compliant and they would continue to use that 'nurse'.
This week another agency sent a 'nurse' who 'prescribed' a specific drug. My Beloved was able to get advice from experts who advised against administering that drug, it would make him very passive, unable to make simple decisions, basically taking away all the dignity he has left.
Our priority is for him to live with as much enjoyment and dignity as possible. Fortunately I was able to reject the use of that drug without annoying the organizer too much. I am still slowly working on minimizing the interaction with that 'nurse'.
How are your elderly relatives being treated?
When you are unable to take care of yourself do want an organization funded by the government drugging you out of your mind?
Friday 7 September 2012
Thursday 26 July 2012
Saturday 9 June 2012
Wednesday 6 June 2012
Sunday 3 June 2012
Saturday 4 February 2012
Aboriginal activists claim they are the original occupants of Australia and they arrived 40,000 years ago. This assertion is obviously false.
I have been told there were two migrations to Australia
-One 200,000 years ago via India
-One 60,000 years ago via New Guinea
----------------
'In 1974, the discovery of Mungo Man turned the conventional theory of human evolution upside-down. Mungo Man was a hominin who is estimated to have died 62,000 years ago, and was ritually buried with his hands covering his penis. Anatomically, Mungo Man's bones were distinct from other human skeletons being unearthed in Australia. Unlike the younger skeletons that had big-brows and thick-skulls, Mungo Man's skeleton was finer, and more like modern humans. The ANU's John Curtin School of Medical Research found that Mungo Man's skeleton's contained a small section of mitochondrial DNA. After analysing the DNA, the school found that Mungo Man's DNA bore no similarity to the other ancient skeletons, modern Aborigines and modern Europeans. Furthermore, his mitochondrial DNA had become extinct.'
http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm
----------------
Obviously Mungo man is a different breed to subsequent inhabitants dating seems to vary but today's aborigines did not descend from this race and it appears were here before their claimed date of arrival.
----------------
'Cross-matching a range of recent dating tests puts the minimum date of the burial of the remains (Mungo Man) at 56,000 to 68,000 years ago.'
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Mungo_Man.html
----------------
'The skeletal remains found at Lake Mungo have recently been dated by 3 different methods, uranium series, electron spin resonance and optically stimulated luminescence, to arrive at a new, older, age of 62,000 years +/- 6,000 years.'
http://austhrutime.com/mungo_man.htm
----------------
'There is some evidence for the presence of different ethnic groups in Australia during the past. For instance,considerable research amongst Aboriginal people was carried out by individuals such as Joseph Birdsell and Norman B. Tindale. They presented a series of papers and publications in which it was argued that the Australian Aboriginal population represented several waves of culture, rather than a single group as is frequently the expounded philosophy. Birdsell... formally named the Australian representatives of this type the Barrinean, after our 1938 work in the Lake Barrine area had confirmed their presence.'
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/chauvet/barrinean.php
----------------
'From the 1940s until the 1960s, it was fairly widely known there were pygmies in Australia. They lived in North Queensland and had come in from the wild of the tropical rainforests to live on missions in the region. This was a fact recorded at the time not only in anthropological textbooks and articles but also in popular books about the Australian Aborigines. There was even an award-winning children's book tracing their origins. The more famous photographs of the Australian pygmies were reproduced in both the academic and the popular literature.
At the time, there was controversy about their origins but not over the fact of their existence. In 1962, the first volume of Manning Clark's History of Australia recorded their presence on its first two pages and repeated the then influential anthropological theory about their origins and their place in the waves of migration of hunter-gatherer peoples from Asia who populated the Australian continent in the millennia before the British arrived in 1788. [1]
Yet, since then, the Australian pygmies have been totally obliterated from public memory. To test just how complete this process has been, over recent months we have questioned a wide range of friends and acquaintances. Although most were well-educated and well-read people, none had ever heard of the pygmies, not even when we used some of their other, once-familiar alternative names such as "Negritos" and "Barrineans". A few friends scoffed at the notion and demanded some evidence. They wouldn't believe us until we emailed them the photographs.'
'No one today with a lay interest in Aboriginal anthropology, and few of those doing introductory courses in the subject, would ever find out that Australia had a pygmy people. What, then, has been going on? Why would these people have been expunged from popular memory? How did the Australian pygmies become extinct within the public consciousness?
There have been two main reasons. We explain them in detail below but, briefly, they were: first, a vitriolic debate within the academic discipline of anthropology in which the view prevailed that there was nothing remarkable about these people; second, the emergence in the 1960s of the radical Aboriginal political movement, which found the existence of a pygmy people an inconvenient counter-example to one of its central doctrines. As a result, these indigenous Australians have been subject to an airbrushing from history that makes even that of the old Bolshevik leadership of the USSR in the 1930s look mild by comparison.'
http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/reprints/windschuttle-gillin/windschuttle-gillin.htm
----------------
Obviously the presence of an indigenous people with small stature as late as between the two wars makes the 'the original occupants' assertion ridiculous.
----------------
'At the same time, however, a political movement was gathering force that would later swamp the trihybrid thesis and dissuade any converts it had won. In the late 1960s, Aboriginal activists and their white supporters began to build a political movement among all Australian Aboriginal people. Previous attempts to achieve this had failed because Aborigines were divided by geography, culture and, in some places, by language, and few felt they had much in common.
'In fact, Stoneking and Wilson said their work showed that at least 15 different mtDNA lineages colonized Australia. They said this confirmed an earlier study of Aboriginal Australians done in 1987 with a smaller sample, which found seven different mtDNA lineages. The authors acknowledged the smallness of their sample but argued that a bigger size would only increase the number of different lineages to be found. "Probably the most important insight to date," they summarized, "is that relatively many females were involved in the colonization of Australia and Papua New Guinea." Stoneking and Wilson were heavily sarcastic about the "one people" thesis'
http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/reprints/windschuttle-gillin/windschuttle-gillin.htm
----------------
'Mungo Man is a huge spanner in the works for the Out-of-Africa theory because it can't explain how Mungo Man looked liked modern humans, yet was not related to any human that had left Africa in the last 200,000 years. A 'Multiple-Regions' theory is held up as the answer. If Out-of-Africa is a theory of war, then Multiple Regions is a theory of sex. The theory proposes that Homo erectus was not conquered. Rather, once Homo erectus left Africa 1.4 million years ago, it kept evolving on migration lines between Asia and Africa (and possibly Australia). Interbreeding among nomadic tribes kept most of the different groups on a relatively constant evolutionary track and ensured they remained the same species.
I have been told there were two migrations to Australia
-One 200,000 years ago via India
-One 60,000 years ago via New Guinea
----------------
'In 1974, the discovery of Mungo Man turned the conventional theory of human evolution upside-down. Mungo Man was a hominin who is estimated to have died 62,000 years ago, and was ritually buried with his hands covering his penis. Anatomically, Mungo Man's bones were distinct from other human skeletons being unearthed in Australia. Unlike the younger skeletons that had big-brows and thick-skulls, Mungo Man's skeleton was finer, and more like modern humans. The ANU's John Curtin School of Medical Research found that Mungo Man's skeleton's contained a small section of mitochondrial DNA. After analysing the DNA, the school found that Mungo Man's DNA bore no similarity to the other ancient skeletons, modern Aborigines and modern Europeans. Furthermore, his mitochondrial DNA had become extinct.'
http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm
----------------
Obviously Mungo man is a different breed to subsequent inhabitants dating seems to vary but today's aborigines did not descend from this race and it appears were here before their claimed date of arrival.
----------------
'Cross-matching a range of recent dating tests puts the minimum date of the burial of the remains (Mungo Man) at 56,000 to 68,000 years ago.'
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Mungo_Man.html
----------------
'The skeletal remains found at Lake Mungo have recently been dated by 3 different methods, uranium series, electron spin resonance and optically stimulated luminescence, to arrive at a new, older, age of 62,000 years +/- 6,000 years.'
http://austhrutime.com/mungo_man.htm
----------------
'There is some evidence for the presence of different ethnic groups in Australia during the past. For instance,considerable research amongst Aboriginal people was carried out by individuals such as Joseph Birdsell and Norman B. Tindale. They presented a series of papers and publications in which it was argued that the Australian Aboriginal population represented several waves of culture, rather than a single group as is frequently the expounded philosophy. Birdsell... formally named the Australian representatives of this type the Barrinean, after our 1938 work in the Lake Barrine area had confirmed their presence.'
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/chauvet/barrinean.php
----------------
'From the 1940s until the 1960s, it was fairly widely known there were pygmies in Australia. They lived in North Queensland and had come in from the wild of the tropical rainforests to live on missions in the region. This was a fact recorded at the time not only in anthropological textbooks and articles but also in popular books about the Australian Aborigines. There was even an award-winning children's book tracing their origins. The more famous photographs of the Australian pygmies were reproduced in both the academic and the popular literature.
At the time, there was controversy about their origins but not over the fact of their existence. In 1962, the first volume of Manning Clark's History of Australia recorded their presence on its first two pages and repeated the then influential anthropological theory about their origins and their place in the waves of migration of hunter-gatherer peoples from Asia who populated the Australian continent in the millennia before the British arrived in 1788. [1]
Yet, since then, the Australian pygmies have been totally obliterated from public memory. To test just how complete this process has been, over recent months we have questioned a wide range of friends and acquaintances. Although most were well-educated and well-read people, none had ever heard of the pygmies, not even when we used some of their other, once-familiar alternative names such as "Negritos" and "Barrineans". A few friends scoffed at the notion and demanded some evidence. They wouldn't believe us until we emailed them the photographs.'
'No one today with a lay interest in Aboriginal anthropology, and few of those doing introductory courses in the subject, would ever find out that Australia had a pygmy people. What, then, has been going on? Why would these people have been expunged from popular memory? How did the Australian pygmies become extinct within the public consciousness?
There have been two main reasons. We explain them in detail below but, briefly, they were: first, a vitriolic debate within the academic discipline of anthropology in which the view prevailed that there was nothing remarkable about these people; second, the emergence in the 1960s of the radical Aboriginal political movement, which found the existence of a pygmy people an inconvenient counter-example to one of its central doctrines. As a result, these indigenous Australians have been subject to an airbrushing from history that makes even that of the old Bolshevik leadership of the USSR in the 1930s look mild by comparison.'
http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/reprints/windschuttle-gillin/windschuttle-gillin.htm
----------------
Obviously the presence of an indigenous people with small stature as late as between the two wars makes the 'the original occupants' assertion ridiculous.
----------------
'At the same time, however, a political movement was gathering force that would later swamp the trihybrid thesis and dissuade any converts it had won. In the late 1960s, Aboriginal activists and their white supporters began to build a political movement among all Australian Aboriginal people. Previous attempts to achieve this had failed because Aborigines were divided by geography, culture and, in some places, by language, and few felt they had much in common.
The Sixties movement adopted the anti-imperialist rhetoric then prevalent in southeast Asia and Africa. British colonialism had caused indigenous oppression and dispossession, they argued, so all Aborigines should come together to reject the hegemony of white Australia. Although this was primarily a movement of radical urban blacks trying to create a constituency among dispersed Aborigines in rural areas, the appeal galvanized considerable support, especially among white sympathizers.
Their appeal to pan-Aboriginalism, the notion that all Australian indigenous people had a common political interest, was always dependent on the idea that they were one people. (The only exception allowed was that of the Torres Strait Islanders, who were later defined as a separate entity.) Their politics were based on the claim that they were the original owners of the continent who had been dispossessed by the British. They did not want to allow there might be a hierarchy of claims for arrival, and thus ownership, among Aborigines themselves. So anyone who argued against the "one people" thesis would be seen as betraying the pan-Aboriginal movement and undermining Aboriginal political aspirations.
Moreover, the moral appeal of the activists' case would have been weakened by the notion that there had been several waves of Aboriginal migrants, each of whom had violently dispossessed the other. Rather than a story of aggressive white imperialists disrupting an arcadian Aboriginal people living in harmony with one another and their environment, the long term history of Australian habitation would have resembled more that of humanity at large where the stronger have pushed aside the weaker, irrespective of the colour of either side. Hence, instead of a simple moral tale of goodies and baddies, the history of this continent would have reflected more the hard reality of the human condition everywhere.'
http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/reprints/windschuttle-gillin/windschuttle-gillin.htm
'In fact, Stoneking and Wilson said their work showed that at least 15 different mtDNA lineages colonized Australia. They said this confirmed an earlier study of Aboriginal Australians done in 1987 with a smaller sample, which found seven different mtDNA lineages. The authors acknowledged the smallness of their sample but argued that a bigger size would only increase the number of different lineages to be found. "Probably the most important insight to date," they summarized, "is that relatively many females were involved in the colonization of Australia and Papua New Guinea." Stoneking and Wilson were heavily sarcastic about the "one people" thesis'
http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/reprints/windschuttle-gillin/windschuttle-gillin.htm
----------------
'Mungo Man is a huge spanner in the works for the Out-of-Africa theory because it can't explain how Mungo Man looked liked modern humans, yet was not related to any human that had left Africa in the last 200,000 years. A 'Multiple-Regions' theory is held up as the answer. If Out-of-Africa is a theory of war, then Multiple Regions is a theory of sex. The theory proposes that Homo erectus was not conquered. Rather, once Homo erectus left Africa 1.4 million years ago, it kept evolving on migration lines between Asia and Africa (and possibly Australia). Interbreeding among nomadic tribes kept most of the different groups on a relatively constant evolutionary track and ensured they remained the same species.
Most proponents of the Multiple-Regions theory argue that the Neanderthals in Eurasia and the Hobbit in Indonesia were not unique species and therefore must have contributed DNA to modern Homo sapiens.
Testing of Neanderthal DNA has produced mixed evidence. Repeated testing of mitochondrial DNA of modern humans found no evidence of Neanderthal DNA. Because mitochondrial DNA is passed on by women, the lack of it indicated that Homo sapiens do not have a female Neaderthal ancestor. Even though sapiens don't have a female Neaderthal ancestor, they do have a male. In 2010, 60 per cent of the Neaderthal had been mapped and was subsequently compared to modern humans from Papua New Guinea, Europe, Asia and Africa. It found that 1-4% of modern human DNA, in populations outside of Africa, was Neanderthal in origin. There was no evidence of Homo sapien DNA contributing to Neaderthal DNA.
The results suggest that Neanderthals had the ability to breed with Homo sapiens, but breeding was minimal. Furthermore, the one-way flow of genes, and the absense of Neaderthal mitochondrial DNA in modern humans, would suggest it was only a few Neanderthal men breeding with Homo sapien women. On the whole, the two Hominins bred very little.
Perhaps the small flow of genes could also be attributed to migration routes. The Neanderthals may have evolved independently because they were an ice age people living in caves. Ice age Eurasia was just too inhospitable for nomadic Homo erectus. Likewise, in the Indonesian archipelago, the ancestor of the Hobbit may have been cut off from migration routes due to changes in sea levels or volcanic activity. Consequently, they also become a unique species.
Aside from the Neanderthals and the Hobbits, all other Homo erectus keep migrating, keep breeding and kept evolving on a constant track. Eventually they evolved into Homo sapiens.
At some stage in the last 850,000 years (or longer), either Homo erectus or Homo sapiens made the crossing from Java to Australia. These hominins were the ancestors of Mungo Man. It would not have been a difficult crossing to make. Rats are believed to have made the crossing 2 million years ago.
200,000 years ago, females from an African tribe started spreading their genes through the entire arc between Australia and Africa. This spreading of female genes could have occurred as a result of a nomadic African tribe emerging from Africa and breeding throughout Asia. It could also have occurred as a result of an Asian tribe going to Africa, and forcibly taking women back to Asia. (*Although evidence indicates that all humans might have had a female African ancestor 200,000 years ago, there is no evidence to show a male ancestor.)
60,000 years ago, Homo sapiens with African ancestors started migrating into Australia, and joined Mungo Man. The first group of Africans were known as Robust due to their heavy-boned physique. This group was significantly different from the slender body shaped Gracile of Mungo Man. The Robust soon came to dominate Australia. Either they killed most of the Gracile or they bred most of them out of existence. Many thousands of years later, more Gracile either migrated to Australia, or a group of Gracile that survived the Robust invasion starting dominating the Robust. Aborigines today have a Gracile body shape that is like the 62,000-year-old Mungo Man and unlike the 10,000-year-old Kow Swamp people'
http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm
----------------
'The study of Australian pre-history is not really about science. It is about politics and funding. Many scientists are not motivated by the love of discovery and theoretical debate, they are motivated by an argument that they can use in an application for a grant. For example, Dr Colin Groves is an anthropologist from the Australian National University who is frequently consulted by the media for his expert opinion. Groves argued against the possibility of multiple migrations because he felt it it would have reduced pressure on ex-Prime Minister John Howard to apologize to the Stolen Generations (mixed race children removed from Aboriginal communities by state governments from around 1900 to the 1970s.) In the words of Groves:
"But at the same time as one "pure-race" hypothesis was hitting the dust, another was rising. Ancient Australian skeletons were being discovered in Victoria and southern New South Wales, and they seemed to show great diversity. None of them were Negritos, Murrayians or Carpentarians, but those from Keilor and Lake Mungo were like modern Aboriginal people, whereas some (not all) of those from Kow Swamp had very flat, sloping foreheads, and some people even likened them to so-called "Java Man", Homo erectus, that had preceded modern humans (Homo sapiens) in the region to the Northwest of Australasia at least as late as 300,000 years ago. Unfortunately, although Alan Thorne, the describer of the Kow Swamp skeletons, never actually said that they were Homo erectus, the idea that an extremely primitive people preceded the present Aboriginal people in Australia, and was eliminated by them, seems to have seeped into some folks' consciousness just like the Negritos did. Negritos or Homo erectus - either way, the Aborigines were not the first possessors of Australia so the land doesn't really belong to them and the whites needn't feel too bad about dispossessing them. Really good fodder, this, for the One Nation Party, and the Prime Minister needn't feel he has to say "sorry". (Australia for the Australians by Colin Groves http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-June-2002/groves.html)'
http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm
----------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)