Marty, I'm not portraying anything to anybody, I asked IF the theory is correct...
I'm glad to hear that you are not treating theory as fact.
I am not trying to look at this with 2011 eyes, I can tell you after working with my hands and my brain for the better part of half a century I can tell you that common sense is common sense, in this century or any other.
I deny the view that by looking into our heads to see what is "common sense" for us we will find out what was "common sense" for other centuries. Common sense varies from group to group and from time to time.
Does it make sense to anyone that IF the castaway(s) WAS/WERE AE/FN they would move to the other end of the island? Especially IF they were injured? What is it about the 7 site that would make it attractive?
The
wiki article on the Seven Site has a list of possible reasons.
IF the castaways landed on the reef and IF they died at the 7 site I will guarantee you that it WILL matter to someone WHY they did what they did. If TIGHAR proves the theory and tells the world about it, you can bet your bippy people WILL want to know.
"If wishes were horses then beggars would ride."
It doesn't matter how intensely you desire an answer to a question. In the absence of evidence, some questions are
moot.It's been my experience that part of understanding Anything is also understanding WHY something is done in certain ways. If questions like mine have no place, then why do we have the NTSB to look into accidents that happen today? Just so we can say "yup, it crashed"? THEY ask WHY something was done, so why shouldn't I?
If TIGHAR finds evidence about why the castaway made camp at the Seven Site (
IF, in fact, the castaway camp was at the Seven Site), I'm sure it would be happy to share it with the world. In the absence of evidence, the proper answer to your question is, "We don't know why the castaway camped there."
I asked a question that required an opinion. I am only trying to understand what it is I am reading here. ALL my questions are asked from the the premise that nothing has been proven by anyone. I don't subscribe to any theory regarding AE so I don't understand why it's bad science to ask IF something happened then WHY would you do something in reaction to that set of circumstances?
You've done more than ask questions. You have made claims ("Common sense then was the same as common sense is now. If I had landed near the Norwich City, I wouldn't have moved to the Seven Site; neither would they, especially if one were injured.").
The goal of reasoned inquiry is to give assent when the evidence warrants it and to withhold assent when the evidence is insufficient to overcome a
reasonable doubt.
In this case, my opinion is that we don't know for sure and probably will never know for sure why the castaway chose that end of the island for his or her campsite.