KiplingKat872: intelligent comment below: KiplingKat872: "Surrounded?"

You want to try again?


Are you serious or just dumb?

Angeles National Forest, Malibu, Topanga, Point Mugu, Mt. Baldy, Arrowhead, Big Bear, San Jacinto, Joshua Tree, you want more?

Pt. Magu is a wee spit of land between PCH and the sea, it was a beach, and Joshua tree was a three hour drive, so was Big Bear. Angles National Forrest, where you can "go hiking" with the yuppie joggers from the neighboorhood built smack up against it. Those paths got as much traffic as the 3rd street promenade.

Living in LA was an endless wall of stuccoed suburbia.

Sooo beach, desert, forest, and mountains all within 3 hours.. sounds good to me.

lolol at when america had balls.

and subby would last there for 15 min, and has to farking clue what balls are

bhcompy: KiplingKat872: intelligent comment below: KiplingKat872: "Surrounded?"

You want to try again?


Are you serious or just dumb?

Angeles National Forest, Malibu, Topanga, Point Mugu, Mt. Baldy, Arrowhead, Big Bear, San Jacinto, Joshua Tree, you want more?

Pt. Magu is a wee spit of land between PCH and the sea, it was a beach, and Joshua tree was a three hour drive, so was Big Bear. Angles National Forrest, where you can "go hiking" with the yuppie joggers from the neighboorhood built smack up against it. Those paths got as much traffic as the 3rd street promenade.

Living in LA was an endless wall of stuccoed suburbia.

Sooo beach, desert, forest, and mountains all within 3 hours.. sounds good to me.

I now look out my window at a real deep green forest under a smogless sky and wake up and walk my dogs in a nature preserve, all to ourselves, every morning. A three minute drive from my home and I'm in rolling farmland alternating with pinewoods.

Way better than L.A.. Way.

bhcompy: KiplingKat872: intelligent comment below: KiplingKat872: "Surrounded?"

You want to try again?


Are you serious or just dumb?

Angeles National Forest, Malibu, Topanga, Point Mugu, Mt. Baldy, Arrowhead, Big Bear, San Jacinto, Joshua Tree, you want more?

Pt. Magu is a wee spit of land between PCH and the sea, it was a beach, and Joshua tree was a three hour drive, so was Big Bear. Angles National Forrest, where you can "go hiking" with the yuppie joggers from the neighboorhood built smack up against it. Those paths got as much traffic as the 3rd street promenade.

Living in LA was an endless wall of stuccoed suburbia.

Sooo beach, desert, forest, and mountains all within 3 hours.. sounds good to me.

Did I mention I get to see Great Blue Heron and Canadian Geese everyday? Deer about once a week. A flight of nine Ibis passed overhead one morning last week. I've seen foxes, rabbits, beaver, coyotes, wild turkeys, and hawks, just on my morning walk.

You could not pay me enough to move back to L.A..

And no liberals, you forgot that one subby

KiplingKat872: intelligent comment below: KiplingKat872: "Surrounded?"

You want to try again?


Are you serious or just dumb?

Angeles National Forest, Malibu, Topanga, Point Mugu, Mt. Baldy, Arrowhead, Big Bear, San Jacinto, Joshua Tree, you want more?

Pt. Magu is a wee spit of land between PCH and the sea, it was a beach, and Joshua tree was a three hour drive, so was Big Bear. Angles National Forrest, where you can "go hiking" with the yuppie joggers from the neighboorhood built smack up against it. Those paths got as much traffic as the 3rd street promenade.

Living in LA was an endless wall of stuccoed suburbia.

Sounds like you're just picking the busy weekend and thinking you're going to have the place to yourself. You were proven wrong and now you're just playing semantics. You never said the parks were busy, you said there were none.

KiplingKat872: bhcompy: KiplingKat872: intelligent comment below: KiplingKat872: "Surrounded?"

You want to try again?


Are you serious or just dumb?

Angeles National Forest, Malibu, Topanga, Point Mugu, Mt. Baldy, Arrowhead, Big Bear, San Jacinto, Joshua Tree, you want more?

Pt. Magu is a wee spit of land between PCH and the sea, it was a beach, and Joshua tree was a three hour drive, so was Big Bear. Angles National Forrest, where you can "go hiking" with the yuppie joggers from the neighboorhood built smack up against it. Those paths got as much traffic as the 3rd street promenade.

Living in LA was an endless wall of stuccoed suburbia.

Sooo beach, desert, forest, and mountains all within 3 hours.. sounds good to me.

Did I mention I get to see Great Blue Heron and Canadian Geese everyday? Deer about once a week. A flight of nine Ibis passed overhead one morning last week. I've seen foxes, rabbits, beaver, coyotes, wild turkeys, and hawks, just on my morning walk.

You could not pay me enough to move back to L.A..

I look out my window and see protected wetlands. I see herons, cranes, pelicans, hawks, rabbits, field mice, snakes, and other fauna. No canadian geese, though, thank god, since they shiat all over everything. The ducks shiat enough as it is.

Gdalescrboz: And no liberals, you forgot that one subby


Relying on big bad government handing out land and protection rackets plus subsidised farming and mining contracts? Sounds like everyone was a Socialist back then.

You know you are spitting the truth when intelligent common graces us with his incoherent ramblings

Indians...0. Mexicans...

also this was when you were still good at genocide.

Godscrack: Those were the days.

When men were men, and women were men.

Yeah! And when Riflemen were Riflemen. Who liked to show their large wood to boys, for some reason...



/awkward.

intelligent comment below: KiplingKat872: intelligent comment below: KiplingKat872: "Surrounded?"

You want to try again?


Are you serious or just dumb?

Angeles National Forest, Malibu, Topanga, Point Mugu, Mt. Baldy, Arrowhead, Big Bear, San Jacinto, Joshua Tree, you want more?

Pt. Magu is a wee spit of land between PCH and the sea, it was a beach, and Joshua tree was a three hour drive, so was Big Bear. Angles National Forrest, where you can "go hiking" with the yuppie joggers from the neighboorhood built smack up against it. Those paths got as much traffic as the 3rd street promenade.

Living in LA was an endless wall of stuccoed suburbia.

Sounds like you're just picking the busy weekend and thinking you're going to have the place to yourself. You were proven wrong and now you're just playing semantics. You never said the parks were busy, you said there were none.

And claiming Pt. Magu as a big area of nature wasn't playing semantics? And Los Angeles National forest was still at least 45 minutes from where I lived in Carson. Trying to claim that makes Los Angeles into a nature lovers paradise is like claiming Central Park does the same thing for NYC. The greater L.A. is one of the worst cases of urban sprawl in the U.S. where you get to hear of your co-workers daily two hour one-way commute because they had to move to a decent suburb they could actually afford.

Magorn: Granted these are not color photographs, but I'm really struck by some of the pictures of the Native Americans who seem to have a skin color that simply doesn't exist anymore:




Did we simply crossbreed that complexion completely out of existance?

Yes.

TXEric: Absolutely spectacular. I can't imagine the wonder that those explorers from back east felt when they saw this stuff. I love the feeling of these old prints, but I would love to see an updated, color version of some of them from the exact same vantage point.

I know, some are probably "ruined" by modern society in some way or another, but I'll bet many are close to the way they are depicted here.

Grant proposal?

/best to get crackin' on that.
//really.

Nadie_AZ: tommydee: Mark Twain's 'Roughing It' is pretty interesting as well, and about the same time period.

And funny, too. I loved his little venture working in the silver mill as well as his time working for the newspaper.

Wiki:"Roughing It illustrates many of Twain's early adventures,including a visit to Salt Lake City..."

So, he was a partial witness to the birth of mormonism? I'm unfamiliar with their timeline.

Free online:
http://www.mtwain.com/Roughing_It/inde x.html

/Thanks for the link subby. My dad was a self taught geologist/prospector running around loose out west in a Willy's Jeep with an aftermarket altimeter, lots of water and gas cans and a Geiger counter. He actually found uranium, secured mineral rights and had two active mines running before the feds nationalized the land and gave everbody 2¢ an acre.

These pictures gave me a warm fuzzy remembering the 40's and 50's black and whites I grew up looking at. Along with the surveyor maps and assay samples. Your link provides special meaning.

A while back, casually Googling uranium stories, found an article about a family uranium mine far away that has remained open all these same decades. Never did call to find out how they did it. Anybody care to hazard a guess?

Fantastic pictures, but subby's headline is stupid.

SweetSilverBlues: Beowoolfie: Magorn: Granted these are not color photographs, but I'm really struck by some of the pictures of the Native Americans who seem to have a skin color that simply doesn't exist anymore:
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 640x580]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 640x391]

Did we simply crossbreed that complexion completely out of existance?

tl;dr: I don't think you should trust the relative lightness/darkness of skin tones in b&w photos as anything more than rough approximations.

I worked a lot with black and white back in the 1970s. Even the films available then didn't respond much like the human eye does to color. For example, green things always looked too dark and red things too light. I may have that memory backwards, as B&W photographers spent an awful lot of time working with the negatives. :)

I remember reading that this problem was much worse with earlier films.

Next, it was a common technique to play with this effect by putting colored filters in front of the lens. I don't know if that was done in 1870, but it was heavily used by Ansel Adams' time. Orange filters are great for portraits of white people, for example, because they make all our blemishes less visible. Red makes the sky look really dark so the clouds "pop", and so on.

Finally, B&W photos are often individual works of art, where the photographer puts at least as much care into making the print as he/she did into taking the photo. Specific parts are lightened or darkened at the photographer's whim, done by his hands on that one specific print. Even contrast and perspective are just artistic variables to play with. As a teen in my old darkroom I could have made those skin tones anything I wanted, from ghost white to ebony black.

I hope this was helpful.

// makes me nostalgic for the days of innocently soaking my hands in nasty chemicals for hours at a time. When I said "by his hands", I really meant it. I'd use my body heat to warm up parts of the print as it developed to make those parts come out darker. Good times!

I find that stuff fascinating, although I am more at the trivial knowledge stage than anything really in depth.

Verra cool, thanks for sharing!

I stand corrected. That was the best explanation of darkroom photography I've ever read. Concise and thorough are a rarity. Thank you.

nicoffeine: MayoSlather: Stupid native americans living in harmony with their environment. Good thing we came along to show them how sophisticated folk live.

Oh, yeah. They lived in harmony with their environment, all right. And if any other people, red faced or white, came along and killed the same thing they killed, for food or clothing, they lived the hell out of them. Harmoniously, even.

Saints in moccasins.

Killing was totally invented when white people arrived. They got the idea right then. Out of the magic sky.

No, stupid. Humans have always killed each other. What MayoSlather said was that the native peoples of the continent lived in harmony with their environment. This means not overfishing an area until all the fish were gone, or dumping crap into the rivers until nothing could live there, or chopping the trees down until they were all gone, or hunting all the bison until they were gone, or digging up and poisoning the earth until nothing could grow on it... that kind of thing.

They took what they needed, and no more. Not out of greed, but out of need. Had whites followed the same thought process, we wouldn't even need national parks, as there would be plenty of natural areas which remain untouched by machines, oil wells, dredges, dams, fences, chainsaws and other destructive human inventions. But then how else would they have acted, coming here after destroying millions of acres of forest in europe, destroying habitat and hunting animals to extinction on a regular basis for food and sport for hundreds of years.

Not saints, just people... but a lot more respectful toward the earth as a whole than the whites that came later. I think it's because they saw something that europeans are just now rediscovering... the earth is the SOURCE of our life, our existence... not simply to be used and subjugated, but to be cared for as it cares for us. This is where we live, and for now we have no other place to go.

None of which has anything to do with your response to MayoSlather's post.

Fissile: The environmental damage they did was mitigated by the fact that they were stone age nitwits who never even managed to invent the wheel. You really need to pull your head out of your ass.

1. They didn't invent the wheel because they had no need for it. Why use a wheel when you don't need a cart OR have draft animals to pull it, OR have more possessions than a couple of people could carry, dumbass. Every civilization that had the wheel, from the Chinese to the Egyptians, had animals to pull their wheeled vehicles. Native americans came here on foot over a land bridge with NO animals, and there are no draft animals native to the americas. No animals = no wheel.

2. Most native americans saw the land as sacred. When resources were growing scarce they moved on and gave the area time to replenish and regrow unlike the europeans who used it until it was used up both here and in europe. Having "advanced" technology is still no excuse for acting like f*cking pigs.

3. Racist assholes like you give the rest of us americans a really bad name.

rewind2846: Fissile: The environmental damage they did was mitigated by the fact that they were stone age nitwits who never even managed to invent the wheel. You really need to pull your head out of your ass.

1. They didn't invent the wheel because they had no need for it. Why use a wheel when you don't need a cart OR have draft animals to pull it, OR have more possessions than a couple of people could carry, dumbass. Every civilization that had the wheel, from the Chinese to the Egyptians, had animals to pull their wheeled vehicles. Native americans came here on foot over a land bridge with NO animals, and there are no draft animals native to the americas. No animals = no wheel.

2. Most native americans saw the land as sacred. When resources were growing scarce they moved on and gave the area time to replenish and regrow unlike the europeans who used it until it was used up both here and in europe. Having "advanced" technology is still no excuse for acting like f*cking pigs.

3. Racist assholes like you give the rest of us americans a really bad name.

Hmm, apparently it's not a settled issue like I thought it was. I thought it was common knowledge that the myth of Native Americans being at one with nature and being all responsible with the environment was a myth. I certainly didn't know it was racist to think it was a myth. Oh well, c'est la vie.

precolumbianwheels.com

Fissile: factoid

Now that's what I call smart argument

Fissile: rewind2846

Racist? Come on, these are people of the land. The common clay of the North America.

LewDux: precolumbianwheels.com

Fissile: factoid

Now that's what I call smart argument

Fissile: rewind2846

Racist? Come on, these are people of the land. The common clay of the North America.

Thanks for finding this before I did. There's always some white power moron trying to prove his "aryan superiority" in threads like these with bullsh*t like this as an excuse for what europeans did to the peoples of the americas. Should have just posted that link or one like it myself and be done with the troll.

Fissile: Showing a small toy as "proof" is like showing a paper kite and claiming it's the equal of the Concorde.

Did the toy have wheels?
Did any of the other toys have wheels?
You say that a people didn't invent something, then point to what they invented and say that they actually didn't invent it.
A kite is a kite. An airplane is an airplane. A wheel is a wheel.
Did you bother to read the article?
Can you read at all?

Don't tear up the turf moving those goalposts, skippy.

Troll. Plonk.

Fissile: rewind2846: Fissile: Showing a small toy as "proof" is like showing a paper kite and claiming it's the equal of the Concorde.

Did the toy have wheels?
Did any of the other toys have wheels?
You say that a people didn't invent something, then point to what they invented and say that they actually didn't invent it.
A kite is a kite. An airplane is an airplane. A wheel is a wheel.
Did you bother to read the article?
Can you read at all?

Don't tear up the turf moving those goalposts, skippy.

Troll. Plonk.

===============

Hi! Me Redskin nitwit. Me inventum wheel, but only for toy. Using wheel to carry heavy load over ground not acceptable because me in touch with nature. Much more eco-freindly to use squaw as pack mule.

The reason many of the early peoples of the Americas didn't "invent the wheel" (or, perhaps more accurately, *use* the wheel as a tool in any way) is because they didn't need it.

They had slaves.

You cannot educate someone who wants to hold up "The Indian" as a shining example of the best of humanity. Nobody can live up to that ideal. It's inherently offensive. On behalf of my ancestors, I'm deeply offended. It's similar to the Victorian ideal of putting women on pedestals, holding them to a higher moral standing, as a way of keeping them from asserting themselves as complete beings.

If you try to reason with someone with that mindset, you will be accused of racism (or sexism, if the topic is women). They're coming from a place of emotion, not reason, which is understandable but pointless.

However, this is the first time I've seen someone devolve into accusations of "white power" and "Aryan superiority."

Again: As someone who is descended from the earliest human inhabitants of what we call North America, I'm deeply offended by the myth of the Noble Savage. And if someone can't discuss anything without falling into emotional flailing and name-calling, any effort toward enlightenment on either side is lost.

tl;dr

Fissile, you're wasting your time. Good effort, though, until you let your frustration get the better of you.