Expanded Explorations of the Dinaledi Subsystem, Rising Star Cave
System, South Africa.

Abstract

The Dinaledi Chamber of the Rising Star cave system has yielded a
large assemblage of fossil hominin material, attributed to Homo
naledi. The unusual taphonomic and geological situation of the
assemblage suggested that the remains may have been deliberately
deposited in the chamber. However, the route and mechanism of
deposition of the remains within the Dinaledi Chamber are still
uncertain. During the 2017—2018 field seasons, we expanded
explorations of the passages surrounding the Dinaledi Chamber. These
explorations improved our understanding of the cave’s spatial
complexity, necessitating a revision of the way the spaces are named
and described. The work supported the hypothesis that there is no
alternate entrance into the system other than the Chute. The work also
identified new fossil deposits in several remote passages, three of
which contain material attributable to H. naledi. Here, we clarify the
definition of the Dinaledi Subsystem and provide terminology for new
fossil localities found in this portion of the Rising Star cave
system. These results emphasize the complex depositional environment
of the Dinaledi Subsystem and raise new questions about the process
and timing of the fossil accumulations.

Open access:
https://paleoanthropology.org/ojs/index.php/paleo/article/view/68

Pandora wrote:

> The Dinaledi Chamber of the Rising Star cave system has yielded a
> large assemblage of fossil hominin material, attributed to Homo
> naledi. The unusual taphonomic and geological situation of the
> assemblage suggested that the remains may have been deliberately
> deposited in the chamber.

Why? What is the evidence for this?

I've never seen anything to support such a claim. I've been hearing it
beginning with the very first articles but I've never seen this claim
worked out.

I look but, I don't see any reason to assume that these are intentional
burials. My immediate impression was that animals pushed deeper
and deeper into the blackness, chasing cooler, damper air in the
hopes of finding a water source during a drought, only to be trapped
in a pitch black hole in the ground without food and water.

That seemed like the most plausible explanation to me... the most
obvious. But even that is assuming that what they report as facts
bears some resemblance to reality, and quite frankly there is no
reason to assume that.

Remember when they "Reported" that it was over 2 million years
old, which turned out to be utterly baseless?

It was literally a circular argument. A classic example of circular
reasoning. They assumed it was a human ancestor, and as such
the invented a date where they might plausibly fit it on the timeline,
given it's morphology, so their CONCLUSION -- "human ancestor" --
resulted in the dating that supported the conclusion.

And what photographic/video evidence that exists shows them
mishandling the finds, contaminating them rather aggressively.

Bare hands, uncovered hair & faces... so much for DNA, right?

And what about the modern brain, or the brain with "Modern
Features" which doesn't seem to have actually existed. No, one
endocast came out with some lines that seemed to match some
lines on the modern human brain. One endocast. Just one. And
that was perverted into this human ancestor with a modern
brain that buried it's dead, and lived over 2 million years ago.

I mean, for all I know it really is over 2 million years old, and it's
the recent dating that's the bullshit. I mean, when you know
someone is a liar then THAT'S what you know. You can't cherry
pick what you want to believe and what you want to dismiss.

None of what they say is trustworthy.

But all of it is in line with the Out-of-Africa purity bullshit, the
social program some elitist twat came up with because THEY
are racist to the core, and everything they see validates their
racism so obviously if anyone else sees it they'll be racist too.

...never mind the fact that racism is alive & well already,
and has been for millennia and there's precisely ZERO chance
that actual science, instead of the social program, is going to
make it any worse...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/30289826006

> Expanded Explorations of the Dinaledi Subsystem, Rising Star Cave
> System, South Africa.
> https://paleoanthropology.org/ojs/index.php/paleo/article/view/68
> The Dinaledi Chamber of the Rising Star cave system has yielded a
> large assemblage of fossil hominin material, attributed to Homo
> naledi.

Anthropocentric nonsense:
Pan or Australopithecus naledi.
Google "pan naledi verhaegen".

> The unusual taphonomic and geological situation of the
> assemblage suggested that the remains may have been deliberately
> deposited ...

:-DDD

On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 03:33:25 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Expanded Explorations of the Dinaledi Subsystem, Rising Star Cave
>> System, South Africa.
>> https://paleoanthropology.org/ojs/index.php/paleo/article/view/68
>> The Dinaledi Chamber of the Rising Star cave system has yielded a
>> large assemblage of fossil hominin material, attributed to Homo
>> naledi.
>
>Anthropocentric nonsense:
>Pan or Australopithecus naledi.
>Google "pan naledi verhaegen".

In the only phylogenetic analysis so far that includes naledi (Dembo
et al. 2016), it is deeply nested within Homo:
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248416300100-gr2.jpg

>> The unusual taphonomic and geological situation of the
>> assemblage suggested that the remains may have been deliberately
>> deposited ...
>
>:-DDD

You think it was teleportation?

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Expanded Explorations of the Dinaledi Subsystem, Rising Star Cave
>> System, South Africa.
>> https://paleoanthropology.org/ojs/index.php/paleo/article/view/68
>> The Dinaledi Chamber of the Rising Star cave system has yielded a
>> large assemblage of fossil hominin material, attributed to Homo
>> naledi.
>
> Anthropocentric nonsense:

You've examined the bones?

> Pan or Australopithecus naledi.
> Google "pan naledi verhaegen".
>
>> The unusual taphonomic and geological situation of the
>> assemblage suggested that the remains may have been deliberately
>> deposited ...

https://elifesciences.org/articles/09561

"With the exception of six avian bones and isolated non-diagnostic rodent
elements, all identifiable, macro-skeletal specimens recovered to date from
the Dinaledi Chamber are clearly hominin..."

"The skeletal assemblage of H. naledi displays little variation in surface
structure and condition, indicating that the hominin material has been
exposed to a limited range of environmental fluctuation during its
depositional history. "

"None of the bone fragments studied preserve evidence of bleaching,
cortical exfoliation, delamination or deep patination, indicating that the
bones were not affected by solar radiation (Lyman and Fox, 1989, 1997);
that is, no bone fragment was exposed to weathering on surface outside
the cave, which is consistent with sedimentation patterns observed in the
chamber."

"The matrix sediments surrounding the fossils do not present evidence for
sedimentation processes that involved significant water action able to
transport coarse-grained material including bone fragments."

"No evidence is noted of vertebrate modifications such as those caused by
carnivores, rodents or other hominins. The specimens were assessed for
evidence of edge polish from repeated gnawing, tooth pits or punctures
perpendicular to the surface of the bone, tooth scores, striations and/or
furrows (V or U-shaped in cross section), and traces of gastric corrosion
(Haynes, 1983; de Ruiter and Berger, 2000; Pickering et al., 2004; Pokines
and Symes, 2013; Supplementary file 2). There is no evidence of stone tool
inflicted cuts, scrapes, impact or chop marks (White, 2014). Tooth scores
and pits, crenulated edges and splintered shafts associated with carnivore
damage (Kuhn, 2011) are absent. None of the specimens are burnt (Stiner
et al., 1995) or shows signs of trampling other than limited incidental
recent
breakage by cavers that is readily evident (Behrensmeyer et al., 1986)."

"Overall, weathering patterns of the bone surfaces are consistent with the
effects of sub-aerial and sub-surface processes in a periodically wet or
water-saturated, dark depositional environment that experienced stable
temperatures."

"Limited weathering (physical and chemical) indicative of sub-aerial,
sub-surface processes in a periodically wet or water-saturated, dark
environment (Figure 10) indicate that the bones were never exposed to the
earth's surface and elements (the sun and rain) outside the cave (Lyman
and Fox, 1989; Backwell et al., 2012; Junod and Pokines, 2013)."

Pandora wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 03:33:25 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
> <littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Expanded Explorations of the Dinaledi Subsystem, Rising Star Cave
>>> System, South Africa.
>>> https://paleoanthropology.org/ojs/index.php/paleo/article/view/68
>>> The Dinaledi Chamber of the Rising Star cave system has yielded a
>>> large assemblage of fossil hominin material, attributed to Homo
>>> naledi.
>>
>> Anthropocentric nonsense:
>> Pan or Australopithecus naledi.
>> Google "pan naledi verhaegen".
>
> In the only phylogenetic analysis so far that includes naledi (Dembo
> et al. 2016), it is deeply nested within Homo:
> https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248416300100-gr2.jpg
>
>>> The unusual taphonomic and geological situation of the
>>> assemblage suggested that the remains may have been deliberately
>>> deposited ...
>>
>> :-DDD
>
> You think it was teleportation?
>
https://elifesciences.org/articles/09561

"With the exception of six avian bones and isolated non-diagnostic rodent
elements, all identifiable, macro-skeletal specimens recovered to date from
the Dinaledi Chamber are clearly hominin..."

"The skeletal assemblage of H. naledi displays little variation in surface
structure and condition, indicating that the hominin material has been
exposed to a limited range of environmental fluctuation during its
depositional history. "

"None of the bone fragments studied preserve evidence of bleaching,
cortical exfoliation, delamination or deep patination, indicating that the
bones were not affected by solar radiation (Lyman and Fox, 1989, 1997);
that is, no bone fragment was exposed to weathering on surface outside
the cave, which is consistent with sedimentation patterns observed in the
chamber."

"The matrix sediments surrounding the fossils do not present evidence for
sedimentation processes that involved significant water action able to
transport coarse-grained material including bone fragments."

"No evidence is noted of vertebrate modifications such as those caused by
carnivores, rodents or other hominins. The specimens were assessed for
evidence of edge polish from repeated gnawing, tooth pits or punctures
perpendicular to the surface of the bone, tooth scores, striations and/or
furrows (V or U-shaped in cross section), and traces of gastric corrosion
(Haynes, 1983; de Ruiter and Berger, 2000; Pickering et al., 2004; Pokines
and Symes, 2013; Supplementary file 2). There is no evidence of stone tool
inflicted cuts, scrapes, impact or chop marks (White, 2014). Tooth scores
and pits, crenulated edges and splintered shafts associated with carnivore
damage (Kuhn, 2011) are absent. None of the specimens are burnt (Stiner
et al., 1995) or shows signs of trampling other than limited incidental
recent
breakage by cavers that is readily evident (Behrensmeyer et al., 1986)."

"Overall, weathering patterns of the bone surfaces are consistent with the
effects of sub-aerial and sub-surface processes in a periodically wet or
water-saturated, dark depositional environment that experienced stable
temperatures."

"Limited weathering (physical and chemical) indicative of sub-aerial,
sub-surface processes in a periodically wet or water-saturated, dark
environment (Figure 10) indicate that the bones were never exposed to the
earth's surface and elements (the sun and rain) outside the cave (Lyman
and Fox, 1989; Backwell et al., 2012; Junod and Pokines, 2013)."

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> "The skeletal assemblage of H. naledi displays little variation in surface
> structure and condition, indicating that the hominin material has been
> exposed to a limited range of environmental fluctuation during its
> depositional history.

[blah, blah, blah-blah, blah]

All of this is quite consistent with animals drawn in by the cool, damp air
in search of a water source, like during a draught, only to be trapped in
the darkness & die.

It's an excellent argument AGAINST intentional burial, as the animals
depositing the dead deep within the pitch black depths of the cave
would then have to find their way out...

Just look at their call for team members! They advertised for small
people with climbing experience. And that's now, in the modern word,
when we have lights, night vision, ropes., cameras and communications.

What did Naledi have?

It's like a giant lobster trap: They went in, they got stuck. They couldn't
find their way back out.

Nothing is consistent with burial.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/667178430374215680

On Monday 8 November 2021 at 07:52:43 UTC, I Envy JTEM wrote:

> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> "The skeletal assemblage of H. naledi displays little variation in surface
>> structure and condition, indicating that the hominin material has been
>> exposed to a limited range of environmental fluctuation during its
>> depositional history.
>
> [blah, blah, blah-blah, blah]
>
> All of this is quite consistent with animals drawn in by the cool, damp air
> in search of a water source, like during a draught, only to be trapped in
> the darkness & die.
>
> It's an excellent argument AGAINST intentional burial, as the animals
> depositing the dead deep within the pitch black depths of the cave
> would then have to find their way out...

I've never done anything like that, but
I presume that if you had a long rope (or
even a thin cord) which you laid out as
a trail, you could follow it back IN THE
DARK to the entrance. They'd have had
torches but, on occasion (or even fairly
often), they'd all have gone out and re-
lighting them in such damp conitions
was probably impossible. Also, they
would have operated in teams, and
'rescuers' with torches would, after
some agreed interval, have sought
out members who had not returned
on time.

The operation of transporting a body
to that remote chamber would probably
have needed multiple trips, so a semi-
permanent rope guide might have been
installed..

> Just look at their call for team members! They advertised for small
> people with climbing experience. And that's now, in the modern word,
> when we have lights, night vision, ropes., cameras and communications.
>
> What did Naledi have?

Torches, rope, small size, a life-time's
practice and a cultural inheritance.

> It's like a giant lobster trap: They went in, they got stuck. They couldn't
> find their way back out.
>
> Nothing is consistent with burial.

Except the use of special far-distant
chambers for multiple bodies.

Paul Crowley wrote:

> I've never done anything like that, but
> I presume that if you had a long rope (or
> even a thin cord) which you laid out as
> a trail, you could follow it back IN THE
> DARK to the entrance. They'd have had
> torches but, on occasion (or even fairly
> often), they'd all have gone out and re-
> lighting them in such damp conitions
> was probably impossible. Also, they
> would have operated in teams, and
> 'rescuers' with torches would, after
> some agreed interval, have sought
> out members who had not returned
> on time.

Their brain size overlapped Chimpanzees. They certainly had no larger
brains than habilis, if even that large.

There are claims, but between the atrocious accuracy of the information
fed to us and the claim that their larger brains being based on a single
example, don't bank on anything.

So there's ZERO evidence for fire use, ZERO evidence for rope, the screaming
obvious fact that they're already claiming that these were adapted to the
trees in a way that Chimps are today, which makes ropes redundant...

Google Occam's Razor.

Either you build a tower of suppositions so high it teeters towards collapse,
or you conclude that they are as primitive as they look and weren't
intentionally burying their dead.

> The operation of transporting a body
> to that remote chamber would probably
> have needed multiple trips, so a semi-
> permanent rope guide might have been
> installed..

Or they were every bit as primitive as they look and just got trapped deep
inside a cave searching out a water source.

> Torches, rope, small size, a life-time's
> practice and a cultural inheritance.

So a massive dung heap of baseless suppositions.

> > Nothing is consistent with burial.

> Except the use of special far-distant
> chambers for multiple bodies.

That's circular. You conclude that they were intentionally laying their
dead to rest and then claim that the fact that they laid their dead to
rest is evidence for their doing so.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/667412542217502720

I Envy JTEM wrote:
>
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> "The skeletal assemblage of H. naledi displays little variation in surface
>> structure and condition, indicating that the hominin material has been
>> exposed to a limited range of environmental fluctuation during its
>> depositional history.
>
> [blah, blah, blah-blah, blah]
>
> All of this is quite consistent with animals drawn in by the cool, damp air
> in search of a water source, like during a draught, only to be trapped in
> the darkness & die.

Cite previous examples for this hypothesis ->

> It's an excellent argument AGAINST intentional burial, as the animals
> depositing the dead deep within the pitch black depths of the cave
> would then have to find their way out...
>
> Just look at their call for team members! They advertised for small
> people with climbing experience. And that's now, in the modern word,
> when we have lights, night vision, ropes., cameras and communications.
>
> What did Naledi have?
>
> It's like a giant lobster trap: They went in, they got stuck. They couldn't
> find their way back out.
>
> Nothing is consistent with burial.

>
https://elifesciences.org/articles/09561

"With the exception of six avian bones and isolated non-diagnostic rodent
elements, all identifiable, macro-skeletal specimens recovered to date from
the Dinaledi Chamber are clearly hominin..."

"The skeletal assemblage of H. naledi displays little variation in surface
structure and condition, indicating that the hominin material has been
exposed to a limited range of environmental fluctuation during its
depositional history. "

"None of the bone fragments studied preserve evidence of bleaching,
cortical exfoliation, delamination or deep patination, indicating that the
bones were not affected by solar radiation (Lyman and Fox, 1989, 1997);
that is, no bone fragment was exposed to weathering on surface outside
the cave, which is consistent with sedimentation patterns observed in the
chamber."

"The matrix sediments surrounding the fossils do not present evidence for
sedimentation processes that involved significant water action able to
transport coarse-grained material including bone fragments."

"No evidence is noted of vertebrate modifications such as those caused by
carnivores, rodents or other hominins. The specimens were assessed for
evidence of edge polish from repeated gnawing, tooth pits or punctures
perpendicular to the surface of the bone, tooth scores, striations and/or
furrows (V or U-shaped in cross section), and traces of gastric corrosion
(Haynes, 1983; de Ruiter and Berger, 2000; Pickering et al., 2004; Pokines
and Symes, 2013; Supplementary file 2). There is no evidence of stone tool
inflicted cuts, scrapes, impact or chop marks (White, 2014). Tooth scores
and pits, crenulated edges and splintered shafts associated with carnivore
damage (Kuhn, 2011) are absent. None of the specimens are burnt (Stiner
et al., 1995) or shows signs of trampling other than limited incidental recent
breakage by cavers that is readily evident (Behrensmeyer et al., 1986)."

"Overall, weathering patterns of the bone surfaces are consistent with the
effects of sub-aerial and sub-surface processes in a periodically wet or
water-saturated, dark depositional environment that experienced stable
temperatures."

"Limited weathering (physical and chemical) indicative of sub-aerial,
sub-surface processes in a periodically wet or water-saturated, dark
environment (Figure 10) indicate that the bones were never exposed to the
earth's surface and elements (the sun and rain) outside the cave (Lyman
and Fox, 1989; Backwell et al., 2012; Junod and Pokines, 2013)."

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> > All of this is quite consistent with animals drawn in by the cool, damp air
> > in search of a water source, like during a draught, only to be trapped in
> > the darkness & die.

> Cite previous examples for this hypothesis ->

Why? Are you honestly unable to think for yourself? If you don't have some
priest tell you that God approves of an idea then you can't think it?

Impure thoughts?

And is Google broken?

Name one single source that talks about prepared burials in Africa more
than 200,000 years ago.

There are none. The owners of Naledi(tm) invented the notion.

> "The skeletal assemblage of H. naledi displays little variation in surface
> structure and condition, indicating that the hominin material has been
> exposed to a limited range of environmental fluctuation during its
> depositional history. "

And you mistakenly believe this to mean... what?

> "Limited weathering (physical and chemical) indicative of sub-aerial,
> sub-surface processes in a periodically wet or water-saturated, dark
> environment (Figure 10) indicate that the bones were never exposed to the
> earth's surface and elements (the sun and rain) outside the cave (Lyman
> and Fox, 1989; Backwell et al., 2012; Junod and Pokines, 2013)."

So they died in the cave, not on the surface. That's all your cite is saying. You
don't understand it. Clearly. But it's not saying anything to support intentional
burial. It's just saying that the bones didn't wash in from the surface, or fall in.
It's even implying that the animals weren't the victim of predators.

But it's not saying that they were buried.

As a matter of fact, given the number of animals represented... Wiki says 15.
Smithsonian says that too. OVER 100,000 YEARS! But lets call it 150 individuals.
Let's call it 300. Heck, let's call it 500 individuals:

One died and was buried every 200 years?

Let's make it 1,000 individuals "Buried" in the cave: So one single member of the
population died every century, and was buried in the cave.

It's stupid. It's a glaringly obvious STUPID claim.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/667888698881458176/the-right-wing-isnt-very-warm-cozy-with-gay

Naledi simply died where it lived,
google "naledi verhaegen PPT"

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> Naledi simply died where it lived

Considering the length of time represented here -- they're claiming
that the remains are spanning maybe 100,000 years -- there just
aren't enough of them for that. Which is why I favor the "Drawn in
by cool, moist air in search of a water source."

This cave was a giant roach motel where Naledi went in but they
didn't come out.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/668269425555898368

Op zaterdag 20 november 2021 om 03:57:28 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:

> > Naledi simply died where it lived

> Considering the length of time represented here -- they're claiming
> that the remains are spanning maybe 100,000 years -- there just
> aren't enough of them for that. Which is why I favor the "Drawn in
> by cool, moist air in search of a water source."
> This cave was a giant roach motel where Naledi went in but they
> didn't come out.

No, the cave didn't exist when they lived,
google "naledi PPT verhaegen"

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

The Royal JTEM said:

> > Considering the length of time represented here -- they're claiming
> > that the remains are spanning maybe 100,000 years -- there just
> > aren't enough of them for that. Which is why I favor the "Drawn in
> > by cool, moist air in search of a water source."
> > This cave was a giant roach motel where Naledi went in but they
> > didn't come out.

> No, the cave didn't exist when they lived,
> google "naledi PPT verhaegen"

I know Wiki isn't exactly the most trustworthy citation but the traditional
30 second Google search found a Wiki article on the cave claiming it to
be no more than 3 million years old... roughly 10x the age of Naledi.

Other cites said that the entrance hasn't changed much if at all since the
fossils were deposited.

Either way, it seems that there isn't a great case to be made for the cave
having formed only after Naledi died there.

This strongly implies, in my mind, the Roach Motel model, as opposed to
a burial chamber or even just residents dying.

If it was just them dying where they lived, there should be many times
more. Even at a population of say, say, 10 members, given a life as long
as 30 years we should be seeing more than 10x as many fossils, given
the age range they attribute to the finds.

The Roach Motel model does fit the evidence though. We would expect
only a fraction of their number to get stuck deep inside the cave, and
only rarely though perhaps at something of a pattern where the most were
lost during droughts/unusually hot periods...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/668269425555898368

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Naledi simply died where it lived,
> google "naledi verhaegen PPT"
>

Google taxonomy. Place of death does not correlate 100% with lifestyle.
Otherwise,
any creature that drowned would be aquatic in aa land.

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Naledi simply died where it lived
>
> Considering the length of time represented here -- they're claiming
> that the remains are spanning maybe 100,000 years -- there just
> aren't enough of them for that. Which is why I favor the "Drawn in
> by cool, moist air in search of a water source."

Water?

https://elifesciences.org/articles/09561

"The matrix sediments surrounding the fossils do not present evidence for
sedimentation processes that involved significant water action able to
transport coarse-grained material including bone fragments."

> This cave was a giant roach motel where Naledi went in but they
> didn't come out.

Why didn't they turn around in the chamber?

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> I Envy JTEM wrote:

> > Considering the length of time represented here -- they're claiming
> > that the remains are spanning maybe 100,000 years -- there just
> > aren't enough of them for that. Which is why I favor the "Drawn in
> > by cool, moist air in search of a water source."

> Water?

Yes. There's a drought on, the animals are suffering from great thirst
and they are drawn deep into the cave by the cool, moist air in search
of water.

> "The matrix sediments surrounding the fossils do not present evidence for
> sedimentation processes that involved significant water action

Tell me, WHERE THE FUCK do you find anything in my words suggesting
that they found their water, or found anything but a slow death within the
bowels of the cave?

Jeeze! Get some frigging reading comprehension...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/669133117028745216

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op zaterdag 20 november 2021 om 03:57:28 UTC+1 schreef I Envy JTEM:
>
>
>>> Naledi simply died where it lived
>
>> Considering the length of time represented here -- they're claiming
>> that the remains are spanning maybe 100,000 years -- there just
>> aren't enough of them for that. Which is why I favor the "Drawn in
>> by cool, moist air in search of a water source."
>> This cave was a giant roach motel where Naledi went in but they
>> didn't come out.
>
> No, the cave didn't exist when they lived,

Yes, it did. Otherwise, the fossils would show signs of being worked on by
the elements,
animals, etc

https://elifesciences.org/articles/09561

"None of the bone fragments studied preserve evidence of bleaching,
cortical exfoliation, delamination or deep patination, indicating that the
bones were not affected by solar radiation (Lyman and Fox, 1989, 1997);
that is, no bone fragment was exposed to weathering on surface outside
the cave, which is consistent with sedimentation patterns observed in the
chamber."

"Limited weathering (physical and chemical) indicative of sub-aerial,
sub-surface processes in a periodically wet or water-saturated, dark
environment (Figure 10) indicate that the bones were never exposed to the
earth's surface and elements (the sun and rain) outside the cave (Lyman
and Fox, 1989; Backwell et al., 2012; Junod and Pokines, 2013)."

Read also the section "The Rising Star cave system" as well as
"Sedimentology" under the results.

Op maandag 29 november 2021 om 07:36:37 UTC+1 schreef Primum Sapienti:

> > Naledi simply died where it lived,
> > google "naledi verhaegen PPT"

> Google taxonomy. Place of death does not correlate 100% with lifestyle.
> Otherwise,
> any creature that drowned would be aquatic in aa land.

1) Naledi has 0 to do with "aa land" (aq.ape?).
Probably the same fools who believe their ancestors ran after antelopes also believe Naledi was Homo.
Most likely, naledi was Pan naledi, fossil subgenus Australopithecus,
google "ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

2) Naledi was probably aquarboreal: bipedally wading & vertically climbing in swamp forests.
They didn't drown, but when they died they fell into the mud -> mudstone -> fossilisation,
google "naledi verhaegen PPT".

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>> I Envy JTEM wrote:
>
>>> Considering the length of time represented here -- they're claiming
>>> that the remains are spanning maybe 100,000 years -- there just
>>> aren't enough of them for that. Which is why I favor the "Drawn in
>>> by cool, moist air in search of a water source."
>
>> Water?
>
> Yes. There's a drought on, the animals are suffering from great thirst
> and they are drawn deep into the cave by the cool, moist air in search
> of water.

Moist? See the next paragraph...

>> "The matrix sediments surrounding the fossils do not present evidence for
>> sedimentation processes that involved significant water action
>
> Tell me, WHERE THE FUCK do you find anything in my words suggesting
> that they found their water, or found anything but a slow death within the
> bowels of the cave?
>
> Jeeze! Get some frigging reading comprehension...

Tell me, with no evidence of water, why go in?

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op maandag 29 november 2021 om 07:36:37 UTC+1 schreef Primum Sapienti:
>
>>> Naledi simply died where it lived,
>>> google "naledi verhaegen PPT"
>
>> Google taxonomy. Place of death does not correlate 100% with lifestyle.
>> Otherwise,
>> any creature that drowned would be aquatic in aa land.
>
> 1) Naledi has 0 to do with "aa land" (aq.ape?).
> Probably the same fools who believe their ancestors ran after antelopes also believe Naledi was Homo.
> Most likely, naledi was Pan naledi, fossil subgenus Australopithecus,
> google "ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".
>
> 2) Naledi was probably aquarboreal: bipedally wading & vertically climbing in swamp forests.
> They didn't drown, but when they died they fell into the mud -> mudstone -> fossilisation,
> google "naledi verhaegen PPT".
>

First you deny an aa component, then you say it's there. Such is the aa
just so story.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> I Envy JTEM wrote:

> > Yes. There's a drought on, the animals are suffering from great thirst
> > and they are drawn deep into the cave by the cool, moist air in search
> > of water.

> Moist? See the next paragraph...

I did. How are you misunderstanding it? In what way, shape or form are you
imagining it to contradict me?

> >> "The matrix sediments surrounding the fossils do not present evidence for
> >> sedimentation processes that involved significant water action

Again, because the emotional damage you suffered did not allow you to
register it the last time, if there had been standing water they would have
drank it, instead of delving further & further into the cave before becoming
trapped and slowly dying.

It's kind of a requirement, this lack of standing water...

> Tell me, with no evidence of water, why go in?

Tell me, I said "cool moist air" and you're pretending I said "It was filled with
water." Why's that?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/670452329660727296

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> I Envy JTEM wrote:
>
>>> Yes. There's a drought on, the animals are suffering from great thirst
>>> and they are drawn deep into the cave by the cool, moist air in search
>>> of water.
>
>> Moist? See the next paragraph...
>
> I did. How are you misunderstanding it? In what way, shape or form are you
> imagining it to contradict me?

Do you need it explained to you?

>>>> "The matrix sediments surrounding the fossils do not present evidence for
>>>> sedimentation processes that involved significant water action
>
> Again, because the emotional damage you suffered did not allow you to
> register it the last time, if there had been standing water they would have
> drank it, instead of delving further & further into the cave before becoming
> trapped and slowly dying.
>
> It's kind of a requirement, this lack of standing water...
>
>> Tell me, with no evidence of water, why go in?
>
> Tell me, I said "cool moist air" and you're pretending I said "It was filled with
> water." Why's that?

I quoted the paper about no water action. And if you look at a schematic
of the Rising Star
cave system

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Cross-section_of_the_Rising_Star_Cave_system_Dinaledi_Chamber.svg/388px-Cross-section_of_the_Rising_Star_Cave_system_Dinaledi_Chamber.svg.png>

going through the narrow channels make little sense in a search for water...

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Do you need it explained to you?

You're trolling. Go back under your bridge.

> > Again, because the emotional damage you suffered did not allow you to
> > register it the last time, if there had been standing water they would have
> > drank it, instead of delving further & further into the cave before becoming
> > trapped and slowly dying.
> >
> > It's kind of a requirement, this lack of standing water...
[...]
> > Tell me, I said "cool moist air" and you're pretending I said "It was filled with
> > water." Why's that?

> I quoted the paper about no water action.

Wow and I made it clear multiple times that NOTHING I said implied water. In
fact, my words EXCLUDED water! If there was water they would have drank it,
instead of being drawn BY THE COOL, MOIST AIR deeper & deeper into the
cave until they were trapped & died.

-- --

https://rumble.com/register/JTEM/