On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 08:54:30 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
.. .
[...]

And how do I know? Well I have actually, unlike you, spent some time
in places [West Papua?] where no man may have ever walked before.
[...]

Allow me to disabuse you of that notion. There is no place on earth where
man has not trod, except areas of Antarctica. Every other place has been
thoroughly explored and perhaps settled at one time or another by mankind.


Is that true? Or just another of your current fantasias.

You see Dooley, whole sections of places like New Guinea and even
parts of Australia, as well as the Sahara desert and Arabia's "Empty
Quarter" simply have no water or food. And as stupid as mankind
generally is it is very difficult to believe that anyone plods over
hill and dale in deep jungle or desert without food and water. For
what purpose?

In jungles, for example, there is very little to eat, very few animals
that can be hunted and while there are birds they are way up there in
top of the trees and very, very hard to get to.

In fact the strategy that the British used successfully against the
Communists guerrilla in Malaysia was to deny them access to towns
where food could be obtained.

Of course in desert regions there isn't any water (I suppose that's
why they are "deserts"). And while it is perfectly logical, sitting
home in front of the T.V. to imagine one's self trudging through the
deserts in search of the Queen of Shiba's gold, it doesn't work well
in practice.

If, instead of sitting home watching the T.V. you actually traveled to
any of these remote regions you would find that the bulk of the poor
primitive people are located along rivers and streams where there is
an abundance of water and at least fish to eat. And even the Danu
people, a stone age culture, in West Guinea who live as high as 3,000
- 4,000 ft. above sea level and depend on agriculture for survival
live along streams and rivers.


When the Europeans came to the New World, every square inch of the New World
was already inhabited by man, even the forbidding Amazon rain forest. The
natives had to be gotten rid of in order to have European settlement. This
was mostly accomplished by disease, but it was still amazing that Cortez
could overcome the Aztecs with such a minimal number of soldiers.

Your imagination is running away with you.

"The population figure for indigenous peoples in the Americas before
the 1492 voyage of Christopher Columbus has proven difficult to
establish. Scholars rely on archaeological data and written records
from settlers from the Old World. Most scholars writing at the end of
the 19th century estimated the pre-Columbian population as low as 10
million; by the end of the 20th century most scholars gravitated to a
middle estimate of around 50 million"

50 million people on a land mass of 34.93 million square
kilometers....28% of the world's land mass? That is an average
population of 1.4 per square kilometer.

Your thesis is not very reliable.

Your fabled isle of New Guinea was similarly totally inhabited by man. The
island was full of various tribes and languages from time immemorial and I
assure you there was no part of that island that was not trod by man. By far
the most difficult area of the earth to settle was the high Arctic, yet the
Eskimos did it. And the Bedouins conquered the Sahara. New Guinea was a
paradise compared to those areas.

Again you speak without knowledge. In fact there aren't many people in
New Guinea. No where that I worked, in roughly 5 years in the country,
was there a town or village. The Danu, one of the largest tribes seem
to have about 90,000 members, and the entire populating of W. New
Guinea is estimated at 3.6 million and the population density seems to
be 10 per sq. Km. Anthropologists describe the people as primarily
living in villages along the rivers.

In short Doolie you are talking rubbish. Not facts. Not even educated
conjecture. Or one might say, no knowledge and a vivid imagination.

And yes, you can holler and shout, "I'm right, I'm right" all you
want, but I'm going to say, quietly and gentlemanly, "show us the
facts, show us the facts". And do please do note the word "facts". Not
simply shouting "I'm Right", but actual documented facts.... something
that seems extremely lacking in any of your conversations.
--
cheers,

John B.