OT - Louis L'Amour/Jubal Sackett

[shooter]

Jubal Sackett is one of my favorite L'Amour novels, and I love the historical accuracy L'Amour brings to the table in his writings. I was thinking about the account of Jubal and his companions having a run in with a Mastodon/Mammoth in that book. While I realize it is a fiction novel, L'Amour uses historical Native American accounts of hunting these animals into the late 1600's/1700's. How feasible is this idea that those animals were still alive at that time? I can't seem to find much info other than L'Amour's accounts of the oral traditions of the Indians.

I think it's perfectly plausible. The vast majority of the country was uninhabited at the time other than the bands of natives scattered about, and they didn't take up much space. It was virtually unexplored at the time, and I'm not one to discount every oral tradition as totally bogus. I also think that if there is any evidence that contradicts with the common scientific beliefs that it is hidden and not publicized. Scientists are very good at hiding evidence that contradicts what they think.

I just thought I'd try to get your takes on the subject, and I am also looking for more information or documentation on the subject. If any of y'all know anything more, or where I can do some more research, I'd appreciate you sharing with me.

[Griff]

Like many western writers, Mr. L'Amour wasn't above stretching the truth or changing a fact when his story warranted it. His locales are excellent, geography well researched, but other tidbits... not so much. Mostly good tho'.

[AJMD429]

If you like L'Amour, you might love James Alexander Thom - http://www.jamesalexanderthom.com/ - he writes historical fiction that is simply awesome.

Lots of it available - Thom at Amazon.com

[Griff]

Terry C. Johnston is another.

[Rusty]

I'd find it perfectly believable. My wife has read most all the L'Amour books several times. Jubal she has read 3 times. She says L'Amour brings up the oral history of the indians in several different books where they talk about the dinosaurs.
I know if you go to the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Tx run by Dr. Carl Baugh he has sheets of fosilized riverbed that have dinosaurs footprints and man's footprints in the same strata.

[Batman1939]

Partial Quote from Shooter:
"I think it's perfectly plausible. The vast majority of the country was uninhabited at the time other than the bands of natives scattered about, and they didn't take up much space. It was virtually unexplored at the time, and I'm not one to discount every oral tradition as totally bogus. I also think that if there is any evidence that contradicts with the common scientific beliefs that it is hidden and not publicized. Scientists are very good at hiding evidence that contradicts what they think. "

Scientists who "hide evidence that contradicts what they think" are not really scientists. Science is based upon the observable evidence and the application of logical reasoning to come to "tentative" conclusions. When further evidence comes to light that tends to refute these conclusions, then theories are modified. I don't have time nor the desire to elaborate beyond these short remarks.

This is one reason why science has nothing to say about a God--there is no observable evidence for one- and the existence of a Creator is taken strictly upon faith. I know this will likely raise some hackles, but the point is worth remembering.


Addendum: I read almost everything that Louis L'Lamour wrote starting about 1972 when recovering with a broken ankle. Great Storyteller--many of his characters are true to life (or larger than life)--but they are, after all, just stories.

[Catshooter]

Shooter,

Who knows? I sure don't but I could certainly see it. This country was very sparsly inhabited, that's no lie.

Anyone who thinks there aren't scientists who wouldn't/don't/haven't hidden data are either not paying attention to life around them or a scientist themselves and are whistling in the graveyard.

He was a wonderful writer.


Cat

[shooter]

Scientists who "hide evidence that contradicts what they think" are not really scientists. Science is based upon the observable evidence and the application of logical reasoning to come to "tentative" conclusions. When further evidence comes to light that tends to refute these conclusions, then theories are modified. I don't have time nor the desire to elaborate beyond these short remarks.

This is one reason why science has nothing to say about a God--there is no observable evidence for one- and the existence of a Creator is taken strictly upon faith. I know this will likely raise some hackles, but the point is worth remembering.


Addendum: I read almost everything that Louis L'Lamour wrote starting about 1972 when recovering with a broken ankle. Great Storyteller--many of his characters are true to life (or larger than life)--but they are, after all, just stories.

No hackles raised here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions/beliefs. I think there are real scientists that report the facts and evidence they find, and then I think there are scientists that have an agenda. Nobody wants to be proven wrong. If you have a scientist that has "discovered" something and then later realizes it to be false, it takes a lot of courage to admit mistakes. I don't think a whole heck of a lot of people have that kind of courage, especially in the "intellectual" community. This is why you have many different theories about the same event/subject even though the evidence presented is the exact same for each party involved. Each party wants the notoriety of "discovering" something or having the correct theory.

[AJMD429]

THIS is another interesting 'historical fiction' book, though no mention of mastadons...

The Devil Colony: A Sigma Force Novel

[KirkD]

I have a whole raft of Louis L'Amour books on my iPad and I started reading another one tonight at the skating arena while my daughter skated. As for the possibility that a small declining population of Mammoths or Mastodons survived in the eastern foothills of the Rockies up until as recently as the late 1600's I would have to say that it is plausible. I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but on the other hand, I wouldn't write off the Indian accounts as bogus either. It is one of those tantalizing things to think about around a campfire late at night in a remote area of the eastern Rocky foothills.

[JB]

My money would be no mastadons. It would be easy enough for scientists to date any fossils.

I actually watched the Cisco Kid on TV shoot 15 rounds from a revolver without reloading once, so I know that one is true!

[Whit Spurzon]

A geologist I know told me that he was doing a project on the Olympic Peninsula (WA) and had spoken with some tribal Elders about the area he was working. The Elders said they knew the area and there was an outcropping where their ancestors used to spot and hunt mastodons from. At the time he though 'yeah right' but during their soil survey they dug up some Mastodon bones within sight of that rock... Don't know they guy well enough to fully trust him but don't reckon there was much reason to make that up either.

[KCSO]

I researched and there is a Ponca legend of a big long nosed animal being hunted back when. What it really was and WHEN it was hunted who knows. Can anyone say ceolocanth?

[2571]

I'm a native American. I've been listening to aboriginal stories for 60 years..

My favorite is our tale about encountering the white people , defeating them in a great battle, & forcing them back to someplace from which they have never returned.

Yeah, right.

Second favorite is the story about the only three good things the white man have given us -- the Christian religion, the aluminum canoe & the leveraction rifle. That story is worthy of belief. Caulking birchbark is a real pia.

[Catshooter]

Don't forget a good sixgun too!


Cat

[KirkD]

My favorite is our tale about encountering the white people , defeating them in a great battle, & forcing them back to someplace from which they have never returned.

It is possible that the story does some basis in history, depending upon how old it is. The Spaniards may have come up from Mexico in the 1500's or early 1600's. How far up into the western USA they came I do not know, but it is plausible that there was a battle, or more than one battle between early Spaniards and some western Native American tribes that ended the northern Spaniard incursion. Here in Canada, we have found the remains of a Viking settlement that dates to about 1,000 years ago. Something happened that ended that incursion from Europe almost 1,000 years ago. We do not know how many times Europeans came to America before Columbus, or how far they penetrated into the continent, or what ended those settlements and sent them packing.

On the other hand, there are crazies in every culture and people who want to believe them, so one has to figure out someway to separate myth from facts.

[2571]

Mine are not trans-Mississippi natives. We have had no contact with hispanics until the last 10-15 years. :>)

What y'all did out west with John Wayne , Dudley DooRight , et al, never affected us.

Personally, I will not concede even a possibility that anybody, white red or other, was hunting mastadons in the 1600's. Or, rather, if they were so hunting , they didn't find any.

[2571]

Don't forget a good sixgun too!


Cat

Never thought about that. Next time I tell that story, I will include the the SAA. Thank you. It's always good to keep the stories relevant. :>)

[KirkD]

In the extinction phase, small isolated populations can survive for an extensive period of time. The Wollemi Pine, for example, was thought to be extinct for about 65 million years but a few specimens were found still surviving in two remote valleys in Australia in 1994. There are less than 100 surviving trees in the wild, although they are being rapidly bred for domestic or landscaping purposes since 1994. I purchased a book while at a conference at Cornell University early this summer that has many similar examples. Because there are stories of the Mastodon among several Native American tribes, and because some remains were found in the 1700's that did not seem to have been there for much more than a hundred years (the Shawangunk, NY, Mastodon skeleton found in the 1700's still had a great deal of hair scattered over the ground all around the bones .... many other bones in other areas were found in the top few inches of soil, or laying right on top, in the late 1700's and first decade of the 1800's), I would say that it is at least plausible that the occasional rare, small family group of Mastodon's may have survived here and there in isolated pockets up into the 1500's or even 1600's. The key word is 'plausible'.

[piller]

Part of being scientific is to not discount possibilities until there is overwhelming evidence against them. My Physician recently got his Masters Degree in Genetics, and was told by one of his professors that there was a possibility of having a patient who had the +2/+2 gene for the Cytochrome P450 2C19 system, but that they would never see it as it was so rare. There are at minimum of 5 of us. My Physician was rather shocked. Anomalies do exist.
I have seen the footprints in stone from Glen Rose. When I was a Kid, there was a Moody Institute of Science film showing it, too. The human footprints have to be kept hidden from the public as there have been Evolutionists who have tried to take hammers and destroy the fossils. According to one of the park personnell whom I spoke to, there are quite a few human footprint fossils in the same rock strata, and they could only have been made within hours of the dinosaur prints based on geology.

Did Wooly Mammoths or Mastodons live within the time frame of the white man on this continent, I don't know. The evidence does not show it in such a way that there is overwhelming proof of either side. I will keep my opinion, and that is all it is, until there is enough proof. Since there are supposedly extinct species which have been re-discovered, I will wait.

[Catshooter]

Never say never. Remember the Black Swans . . .


Cat

[MrMurphy]

The auroch survived in Europe up till the 1600s, despite heavy population AND intentional hunting.

Maybe it was the 1500s.

As fairly empty as the American continent once was, i could easily see this as possible.

[Batman1939]

Part of being scientific is to not discount possibilities until there is overwhelming evidence against them. My Physician recently got his Masters Degree in Genetics, and was told by one of his professors that there was a possibility of having a patient who had the +2/+2 gene for the Cytochrome P450 2C19 system, but that they would never see it as it was so rare. There are at minimum of 5 of us. My Physician was rather shocked. Anomalies do exist.
I have seen the footprints in stone from Glen Rose. When I was a Kid, there was a Moody Institute of Science film showing it, too. The human footprints have to be kept hidden from the public as there have been Evolutionists who have tried to take hammers and destroy the fossils. According to one of the park personnell whom I spoke to, there are quite a few human footprint fossils in the same rock strata, and they could only have been made within hours of the dinosaur prints based on geology.

Did Wooly Mammoths or Mastodons live within the time frame of the white man on this continent, I don't know. The evidence does not show it in such a way that there is overwhelming proof of either side. I will keep my opinion, and that is all it is, until there is enough proof. Since there are supposedly extinct species which have been re-discovered, I will wait.

Friend Piller and Others: While I personally remain unconvinced about "late occurrences" of mammoths and mastodons here in North America-I don't find much credible evidence for them. That said, it is really very difficult to prove a negative, that is-that no such animals did exist up until the arrival of european man.

Also, with regard to my first post on this topic--I did say something like: scientists follow the evidence. That of course is the "ideal"--but mine was a foolish statement because, upon reflection, I can think of at least one individual who built his career upon what I believe is largely fabricated data. While I'm pretty certain of this, based upon comments of students working in his lab and my personal knowledge of his work, it would be time-consuming and difficult to "prove" to the scientific community's satisfaction that his work was in error. I do know of a way to do this, but don't have the energy or interest to pursue it.

Everyone here is an adult and can choose to believe whatever they wish.

[piller]

Unfortunately, with biology or with geology, it is sometimes difficult to prove negatives. As far as I know, oral history can carry information for long periods of time with accuracy as to the event but not when it occurred. I am leaving open the possibility that this could be the answer. That is not the only possibility that I am leaving open, but, without written records and any bones to carbon date, it is difficult to prove anything. Makes for an interesting discussion. Kind of like telling about the horse breed developed in Ireland for which the hobby/rocking horse is made to imitate the motion of riding. That horse breed is extinct, and it is not well documented when it exactly died out. Not exactly the same, but similar.

[rjohns94]

had to look up auroch's. it was the 1600's. interesting

[DixieBoy]

Neat discussion.

On the subject of being skeptical of "scientists," I think there is perhaps no better example than the great Ales Hrdlicka vs. "N--ger" George McJunkin story, from the first decades of the 1900's. I first read about this in a strange place, a little book that Tony Hillerman wrote called "The Great Taos Bank Robbery and other stories."

Later, I read up some more about these two men, and found that Hillerman had the story spot on. Hrdlicka was the preeminent anthropologist in the world during the early decades of the 20th century, and was curator of the Smithsonian exhibit on early man. He was also adamant that modern man, homo sapien, had only been in North America for, at most, 2000 years. His research methods appeared to be impeccable, and in his sphere of influence, his word on the subject was like the word of God.

Then, there's old George McJunkin. The son of slaves, he came west during the late 1800's, learned to work cattle, and over the years established a reputation for hard work and honest dealings. He was made a ranch foreman in New Mexico sometime in the early 1900's. Neat thing about this guy, he came west illiterate; it was cowboys who taught George how to read. This was just what McJunkin had been wanting, because this was a man with a powerful curiosity about the natural world that he lived in. He devoured all that he could find on the subjects of astronomy, paleontology, and anthropology.

McJunkin liked to go out after heavy rainstorms and hunt for fossils in the arroyos. He knew that the flash floods often eroded corners, chunks of earth, and exposed all kinds of things. It was on such an outing that McJunkin found a large bone with a spear point in it. He had an idea of what he'd found, and took it to the store he hung out at for the owner to look at, and possibly contact someone to look at it.

What followed took years, but eventually McJunkin's find proved the existence of Folsom Man, and pushed back the accepted date for the arrival of modern man in North America by more than 10,000 years. For his part, Ales Hrdlicka, back east, lashed out at any and all who dared to question his "firmly established" date of 2,000 years. Quite a few academic careers were ruined, when honest and scientifically curious men dared to challenge the scientific orthodoxy on this. McJunkin went to his grave not knowing the magnitude of what he'd found. Hrdlicka died more than 10 years later, thoroughly discredited and bitter.

Hillerman enjoyed the fact that for more than 15 years, the boys gathered around the pickel barrel at the general store with George McJunkin, a self-educated son of slaves, knew more about the history of early man in America than the great academic Ales Hrdlicka.

Dad might have said that I took the long way around the barn to say this, but I think that a very healthy skepticism of conventional wisdom, especially academics, is a good thing.

By the way, if I do run in to a Mastodon around here, where do I place my shot with my Marlin 1895 in .45 -70 ? Just in case. - DixieBoy

[shooter]

I'm not saying by any means that I believe there were such animals here in the last 500-1000 years. I just think that the possibility is an interesting discussion and I wouldn't rule it out. I am skeptical by nature. I guess it's just the way God made me. I was really just wanting to know where I could get more information about the subject. So far I haven't really been able to find anything. Maybe there's nothing to it and Louis L'Amour made it up to be able to make this part of the story seem more plausible? Who knows?

I am very skeptical of science and what happens to things that contradict the majority opinions in the scientific community. There are things that have been discovered that pose very difficult questions for evolutionists to answer. The human tracks mixed with the dinosaur tracks in the same strata in Glen Rose is just one example.

I do not believe in evolution, but don't hold it against someone if they do. The same evidence is available for both creationists and evolutionists. I think it has a lot to do with bias and the person's beliefs as to how they interpret that same evidence. Neither side has all the answers to all the questions. It's impossible. The sooner the evolutionary scientific community would admit that and open their minds to other possibilities, the better off they'd be. Creationists have a bad habit of plugging God in wherever they have trouble explaining their view of the natural world. Sometimes this is acceptable, and is the only answer there is for now, but it shouldn't be the default. On the other hand, science totally discredits the possibility of God where they don't have any answers.

Sorry to go rambling on like that. Just kinda typing out as I think. The talk about evolution in this thread started a whole thought process for me and some of it got transcribed to this post. Thanks for everyone's input on the subject. I love "what if" discussions like this.

[L_Kilkenny]

I'm not one to buy into "scientific opinion" just because some pinhead scientist says something is so. But there are so many know, undisputed facts that would make claims like these about impossible. First is the timetable. We aren't talking about a decade, a century or even a millennium when we are talking about the extinction of these animals. They've been gone so long that simple biology takes over. If some had survived there would of been more than one or even a handful. You take a small population of animals including us humans and population either goes up or down, it doesn't remain stagnant for 1000's of years. Next is the fact that the land here wasn't empty. While the Indians weren't the most plentiful there were substantial numbers. They traveled a lot, hunted a lot, and as a whole lived in what we would now call wilderness. You can bet they knew dang well what was in their own backyard. And that doesn't take into account the Spanish and Norse as already mentioned. There were enough folks running around that you can be dang certain that there would of been more than one or two sightings and truth be told, they would of sought out critters like these to kill, eat or at least see. The story would of spread like wild fire. No government then to keep it secrete.

I'm a big fan of Louis L'Amour, have been since I was a kid and have one of his short story collections sitting on my night stand as we speak. But I'm with Griff here. His geographic history in his books is fantastic, his story lines are bunk. Good reading and fun but bunk. BTW, not a fan of most of the Sackett books. Don't know why, just not.

LK