Second Trump Administration Will Benefit Environment
56 minutes ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction5 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought5 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係9 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
15 comments:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/31/britain.lochness.ap/index.html
EDINBURGH, Scotland (AP) -- Like tartan, bagpipes, and shortbread Scotland's Loch Ness Monster is as much an emblem as a tourist draw.
And now Nessie's back.
An amateur scientist has captured what Loch Ness Monster watchers say is among the finest footage ever taken of the elusive mythical creature reputed to swim beneath the waters of Scotland's most mysterious lake.
"I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this jet black thing, about 45-feet (15 meters) long, moving fairly fast in the water," said Gordon Holmes, the 55-year-old a lab technician from Shipley, Yorkshire, who took the video this past Saturday.
He said it moved at about 6 mph (10 kph) and kept a fairly straight course.
"My initial thought is it could be a very big eel, they have serpent-like features and they may explain all the sightings in Loch Ness over the years."
I still believe ivory-billed woodpeckers are out there. I can't stand the thought of such a bird being extinct.
Yeah, that's real scientific.
" Some folks believe the ivory-billed still exists, because they've seen it, not just ordinary woods walkers, but “scientists”. "
I love the highly appropriate quotes around "scientists"
In April 2005, Cornell released a video of an ivory-billed in the Big Woods area of Arkansas. Some critics discount it because the bird looks too static, as though it were dead.
I just LOVE it! "Critics" "discount" the video of a flying bird because it "looks too static, as though it were dead." Perhaps she's a bit confused between the Luneau video of April 2004 and the Lewis photos of 1971?
And this person has a job as a professional writer? Hasn't she ever heard of fact checking?
One kayaker bumped into a tree and saw two large birds that looked like female ivory-billed woodpeckers flush from the tree.
They didn't move until the kayak rammed their tree? So much for their famed wariness.
Because of previous heavy collecting, some experts suggest the ivory-billed woodpeckers carry a genetic memory of fear of humans.
Insert "self appointed" in front of "experts".
This article is a steaming pile of guano.
Just looked up the latest Loch Ness sighting. Great parallels with the Ivory-bill story. Lousy videos and photos supposedly backing up "reputable" sightings. Heck, even a SAINT has seen it. It must be true! Surely all these people can't be wrong.
Here's a youtube video of The Monster. Same link, one split in two to make sure it won't be truncated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=aB_c2RwpbXU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB_c2RwpbXU
"Insert "self appointed" in front of "experts" "
or better yet simply add much-needed parens around "experts" as she remembered to do for "scientists"
Because of previous heavy collecting, some experts suggest the ivory-billed woodpeckers carry a genetic memory of fear of humans.
What? This is a spoof, right?
Because of previous heavy collecting, some experts suggest the ivory-billed woodpeckers carry a genetic memory of fear of humans.
Missed that. Who are these "some experts" and what are there credentials?
"Because of previous heavy collecting, some experts suggest the ivory-billed woodpeckers carry a genetic memory of fear of humans."
Are these real memories or recovered memories?
So will my descendants carry a genetic memory of a fear of True Believers? Or is it just the emotional baggage from the "IBWO rediscovery" that I will pass on to them?
They claim to have heard loud rapping two knock sounds and saw a large bird flying away with lots of white on its back wings.
That's all well and good, but what about it's front wings
This is like a ten-man SWAT team descending on a kid who's just pocketed a candy bar. Williston is a very small town in northern Florida (just got its second traffic light in the past year) and the Pioneer, a very small paper, depends for its copy on volunteers like Nancy Oakes, who is neither a scientist nor a journalist. Justyn Stahl's talk was obviously just a jumping-off point for an opinion piece, an effusion. Shouldn't you guys choose more substantial targets?
No doubt that "genetic memory of fear of humans" was handed off to them by the last Carolina Parakeet.
Shouldn't you guys choose more substantial targets?
No puny, idiotic, or weird source is too small for us.
By definition, substantial targets are too easy to hit. And all of the really substantial targets have gone into hiding. It is the foot soldiers or those who want to commit professional suicide that are the only ones now exposing themselves to scrutiny.
Post a Comment