This discussion is also going on with the Solutreans!
Why does the chicken cross the road?
Pressure.
Also the geologists claim that the crossing point at is narrowest was 7 kilometers, 4.2 miles wide.
I.o.w. the would be crossers had their goal in sight. They could see where they wanted to go. It was visible from Africa. They had a target. That probably sped up the process by a couple centuries...
OTOH: a narrow strait like that tends to have monstrously violent tidal currents. Changing direction 4 times a day, everyday. With a dead tide of no more than maybe 15 minutes. And they didn't have speedboats.
Last edited by Rokcet Scientist on Sun May 10, 2009 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Still, those tidal currents are a formidable obstacle. So formidable that they make me revert back: they couldn't be crossed on a makeshift raft. So imo HE crossed walking, when they could do so with practically dry feet. That didn't happen often. But it obviously did happen or HE wouldn't have gotten across, would he?
That RS is a wonderful example of circular thinking. You start be deciding that water craft weren't invented then construct an argument to support it.
I'll give you another version, they got there, geologists, petrologists, experts in plate tectonics all state that there has never been shallow water between the two sides of the Wallace line, Ipso facto, watercraft.
Or you must tell me that all these people are wrong!
If you tell me that I will remind you of it in the future if you quote them in support of any ideas.
You cannot have it both ways. One group of experts might be wrong but there is not much likelihood of all of them being so.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
Well, that settles it then: since I can't be wrong, they must be, innit?
But then there's a 3rd possibility: we're all right! It was deep water. And HE only crossed when he could walk. So HE didn't cross at those places, but elsewhere. Remember: the coastlines were nothing like today! Entirely, totally different!
Assuming they didn't have to cross the Nile there are still rivers that had to be crossed. While I agree that sea levels were lower when it comes to rivers all that means is that they were longer and probably wider at the estuary. The same techniques that got them across the rivers, where they could also see the far embankment, must have been used when they crossed the Red Sea. They would have most likely not made much of a distinction between the two.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Minimalist wrote:
Assuming they didn't have to cross the Nile there are still rivers that had to be crossed. While I agree that sea levels were lower when it comes to rivers all that means is that they were longer and probably wider at the estuary.
And shallower, thus more easily wadeable.
The same techniques that got them across the rivers, where they could also see the far embankment, must have been used when they crossed the Red Sea. They would have most likely not made much of a distinction between the two.
OTOH: the difference must have been obvious, even to them: salt. And its consequences: undrinkable, better floating, and 4 tides a day.
Tain't necessarily so! Lowering sea levels increases the river gradient, which in turn increases the speed of flow and normally results in a deeper channel.
That in turn increases the sediment at the estuary and increases the mud flats, not suitable for walking!
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
That's an assumption on your part. Anything over five-six feet rules out the wading option. I think it would be rare to find a ford near the mouth of a river. If they were going to move upstream looking for a ford everytime they came to a river they'd never get anywhere.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Water moving much faster that walking pace Min, and above your knees, will topple you if you don't use support.
The usual method is a sturdy pole, face upstream and lean on it as you cross, progressing sideways.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
Digit wrote:
[...]mud flats, not suitable for walking!
BS! Mudflats can be walked on very well. Each year thousands of (untrained) people in my country walk 20 kilometers across tidal estuary mud flats from the coast to a couple islands offshore at ebb tide. Like other countries' citizens go hiking in the mountains or the woods, my countrymen hike across mudflats and wade chest-high through tidal channels.
Digit wrote:Water moving much faster that walking pace Min, and above your knees, will topple you if you don't use support.
The usual method is a sturdy pole, face upstream and lean on it as you cross, progressing sideways.
No poles involved or necessary! You strip! And get very wet (and icy cold...). But you DO reach the other side. Again and again. In either direction.
Last edited by Rokcet Scientist on Mon May 11, 2009 11:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Digit wrote:Water moving much faster that walking pace Min, and above your knees, will topple you if you don't use support.
The usual method is a sturdy pole, face upstream and lean on it as you cross, progressing sideways.
Roy.
I still think a boat is a much surer method.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
All possibly true where you are RS, I would not recommend it on Morecambe Bay. 19 people died there recently in ONE DAY, nor would I recommend it here 'cos the mud is VERY sticky.
On Morecambe Bay the tide comes in from so far out you cannot even see the sea and at a pace that exceeds that of a running man! Not counting the extensive quick sands that are constantly shifting.
NONE of the rivers here in west Wales are fordable at their estuaries, all were forded in the middle ages and all miles from the sea.
Our local river, the Teifi, is too deep for fording till 10 miles from its estuary and risky for fording beyond that due to the current.
Out of curiosity how many of your countrymen drown each year or have to be rescued and how many of them try the exercise carrying children or back packs?
I would also explain that the Teifi fishermen use Coracles and make their own.
Tradionally one hide, some some supple stems and some stripped bark for stitching and they are waterborne.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
