Loudmouth Joe reveals his whitewash, denier stance. Having lunch with Kiefy Windschuttle soon are you Joe?

minotaur, "I also believe that many Aboriginal oral histories have value...something many in the scientific fields are now valuing too"

You should go ahead and do that. It is a discussion site. However, lets not lose the science that distinguishes the skeptic you say you are from the sloppy 'research' that always seems to find a place in the media and in government policy to placate noisy minorities.

Memories are being planted, wholesale, some might say. What about the 'Stolen Generation'? And 'that' long walk by girls that seems to be sold as fact in schools? Of course it had to be girls, a much more powerful image.(sic)

-While the commentariat led by the national broadcaster shun reporting and discussion of the inquiry that is presently going on in the UK into the awful cruelty that awaited 'child migrants' exported to Australia. Forced adoption too, another well proved cruelty presided over by the State, a nod in that direction by government and a quick dismissal, 'lets move on'.

There is every suggestion that the public are fed up with experts. There is gathering belief we live in a 'post-truth' society. Then again, the public and their political representatives are often ill-served by the seeming inability of good reliable, robust research to find its way into the public view as such. There seems to be so much slanted, sloppy research around and naturally enough, it is presented in such a way to be easily sensationalised as 'news'.

So maybe less bull on OLO which is one of the few opportunities for open communication and focus on empowering OLO readers at least to make informed decisions?

Since you find most aboriginal narrative (all sources are OK so long as indigenous?) is believable and you imply that academics are with you on that, you are going to have to confront the findings of psychologists on memory, just for starters,

Elizabeth Loftus,
http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory

Cook landed at Seaworld Gold Coast and the botanist was W@nks not Banks.

Hi Minotaur,

Yes, that would be great: we're from roughly the same part of Sydney (Bankstown: Canterbury) and the same age, so it would be good to catch up.

As for the gist of your comment, the culmination of your entire brilliance I presume, far from being a denier, let me try this bit of logic on you:

Trump declares that he has never had any relations with the Russians. That's his 'story'. Oh, okay then.

The Russians' story is that they never tried to influence the US elections. Oh, okay, if they say so.

Trump didn't organise to get a couple of Russian prostitutes to pee on him in his hotel room. Oh, okay, if that's his story, it must be true.

I'm fascinated with your hypothesis that all stories are true. Ipso facto, they don't need proof. We should take the say-so of the teller. Every story ever told by anybody is and was true. Falsehoods have been unknown in the world.

Sorry, I deny that hypothesis, UNLESS any particular story is backed up by some evidence. You may disagree, and believe every single story you ever hear, because, after all, you certainly seem like a pretty nice person who believes the good in everybody, even Trump. Sorry, but I'm more of a bastard: I won't believe without evidence. And the teller of the story is the one who has to provide it, not me. He/she who asserts must demonstrate.

Minotaur, I WANT to believe so much ! But this bastard gene or something prevents me. I want to sleep soundly, knowing that everything is just and content in the world, because someone said so. I don't like being friendless and alone, I want to be part of the mob. But this perverse request for proof keeps me awake, and cast out. Please think about coming over to my side and champion evidence over opinion :)

Cheers,

Joe

Yes, bullhead, we know that you are uneducated and uncouth, so no need to confirm it.
The question of the dna was never settled, up to the day of Thorne’s death
From your link:” "We could not, with better technology, repeat what the original study found and therefore the evidence that Aboriginal people were not the first Australians has no foundation."
That is weak and inconclusive, and would only be relied on by an uneducated black armband supporter. It deals only with the aspect of the DNA evidence.
Thorne, as an anthropologist, carried out excavations in China, and from his own experience identified Mungo man as a Chinese skeleton.
The aborigines were not the "first people".

Dear Leo Lane,

Perhaps this will help:

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2016/06/aboriginal-australians-were-definitely-first-inhabitants