Hi everyone! Welcome to another weird week. We have some disturbing updates on past stories and news about interesting anomalies around the world. Attack rabbit, black line in the sky, big cat DNA evidence, meteorite strikes and more!
Very nice compilation this week, Sharon. From the Okay, I’m not going to lie. That was me dressed as an elderly man. And I also changed into the grim reaper just for grins.
Okay, I lied about not lying. 🤪
Seriously, how could people immediately jump to either of those conclusions? And how, in Westminster Abbey of all places, could people not immediately know that was a normal, everyday, average verger? They’re there pretty much all the time and always carry the rod during ceremonies!
I can almost see mistaking Sir Karl Jenkins for a mystery person. Unless you’re from the UK, where he’s one of the most famous living composers! He’s even wearing his Knighthood medal (which some moron doctored in the photo). Which reminds me, I need to give a listen to his wonderful Adiemus series again.
Either of these two “mysteries” should have been figured out before they finished the ceremony! 🤦🏼♂️
I did laugh out loud at the dangerous rabbit, and immediately thought of Monty Python and The Holy Grail. “That rabbit’s dynamite!”
The nurse who said that she was bitten by the rabbit wasn't worried about rabies and wasn't going to get any shots because, she said, the rabbit wasn't "frothing at the mouth." Rabies is exceeedingly rare in rabbits, but I don't think that not "frothing at the mouth" means anything. Rabid rabbits are said to sometimes get agressiive, though.
Oh, I know nurses who have less sense than her. One who fervently believes in ear candling and who also think “they’re” not trying to cure cancer because “they” make more money stringing sick patients along. Also, vaccines definitely cause several diseases and conditions, only one of which is autism. I’m happy to say she’s a retired nurse now.
Hell, I just had a nurse tell me that it takes 10 years to develop a vaccine. Not any more. They seem just as susceptible to woo as anyone else unfortunately.
The author of the article on eagles that can be dangerous to humans didn't know of any human fatalities caused by Harpy Eagles, but I do. In 1962, I was visiting with Miguel Alvarez del Toro, Director of the Tuxtla Gutierrez Zoo in the state of Chiapas, Mexico, and he told me about a Harpy Eagle that had escaped from his zoo and that had killed and partially eaten a small child. I asked him if he had ever published on this and he said no, that the event was just too horrible to dwell upon. I reckon that the story would not reflect well on his zoo, either. The article says that howler monkeys are the largest of the South American monkeys. They are not. The muriquis are the largest. Also, he writes about what he calls the "black vulture" as being exceeded in size only by the Andean Condor. I don't know what he means by "black vulture," but the bird that goes by that name in the New World is nowhere near that big.
If Haast's Eagle wasn't extinct we might have a lot more cases of kids being killed. They weighed an estimated 30+ pounds. And they preyed on birds up to 15 times their own weight – though I doubt they carried them off. 😁
There's no particular reason to believe that Haast's Eagle didn't kill and feed on the biggest moas but we have no evidence, as far as I know, that they actually did.
The advocate of the Haast's Eagle's having killed the largest moas is quoted as follows: "...we can imagine them swooping down on a moa, grabbing it with those huge talons and using its powerful beak to deliver the killing blow." Why yes, we can imagine that--me included as well as anyone.
It's always risky to rely on journalistic secondary sources when looking into scientific matters. It's always best to go to the original source published in peer reviewed scientific journals. The article that you linked to has some false statements in it--ones not present in the scientific publication in question--a publication which I am familiar with. Yes, Andean Condors feed mostly on large mammals (including whales) but they don't hunt and kill them. They are scavengers, which the original scientific article makes quite clear, and they are not a kind of eagle, as the article that you linked to says. Andean Condors do apparenty sometimes kill and eat smaller mammals such as rabbits, however. One can, on occasion, find statements online stating that they can cause problems with livestock, but, over the years I have never seen any substantiation of that claim and I very much doubt its validity. I don't find that claim even mentioned in the most reliable sources. It is common around the world for livestock owners to incorrectly claim damage to their flocks on the part of various animals (along with even the chupacabras and animal-mutilating aliens).
At any rate, there is nothing about the fact that Andean Condors exist that tells us whether or not Haast's Eagle killed the largest moas. I would not find it particularly surprising if they did, however, if there were some way of knowing that.
All you said is that you disagree with the article from the proceedings of the Royal Society. Which you somehow assume I haven't read. I posted the secondary source because I had no idea of the level of your comprehension. There are other sources that aren't quite so journalistic – such as the British Natural History Museum and New Scientist neither of which haven't taken issue with the journal article.
And you've provided no evidence to the contrary. In fact I'm not even sure you've read it, given your comments about condors. I can't see anything in there that says condors killed large prey for instance.
So what's the qualification you have which might substantiate your disagreement?
My point is that at present there is no way of knowing whether the Haast's Eagle killed the largest moas or not. So any statement that just takes it for granted that they did or just states flat out that that they did is uncalled for. We just don't know, although it would not be in the least surprising if they did and we had some way of finding that out. And we don't know what defensive behavior the largest moas may have had. Qualifications have nothing to do with this. It's just common sense.
Where did I express disagreement with the Proceedings of the Royal Society article? My disagreements were to the RNZ article that you provided the link for. And I said nothing about whether or not you had read the Proeedings article, I was just informing everyone here that they shouldn't rely on the RNZ article. And I made it clear that the Proceedings article said that the Condors are scavegers. Nowhere did I write that the Proceedings article said that Condors kill large prey. Again, my probems were with the RNZ article which you posted here for everyone to read, and which I thought they might and would be misled by it, as I made quite clear. Please reread what I wrote.
I once went to a talk by the University photography lecturer, who went through a whole range of "spooky" photographs and explain that they were all – without exception – an artefact of the camera itself. From double exposures to out of focus bugs. I would bet good money that the black line has something to do with the camera and the pole.
I think I may have posted this before, but a British documentary maker got the clever idea of importing an expert tracker and hunter from Canada to look at big cat sightings. They went to half a dozen places where the big cats had supposedly been, looked at the tracks, looked at the scat, looked at bite marks. His conclusion in every case was – dog. It deserves a mention because it's one of the few documentaries about this sort of thing these days that actually isn't out to promote some bullshit.
Very nice compilation this week, Sharon. From the Okay, I’m not going to lie. That was me dressed as an elderly man. And I also changed into the grim reaper just for grins.
Okay, I lied about not lying. 🤪
Seriously, how could people immediately jump to either of those conclusions? And how, in Westminster Abbey of all places, could people not immediately know that was a normal, everyday, average verger? They’re there pretty much all the time and always carry the rod during ceremonies!
I can almost see mistaking Sir Karl Jenkins for a mystery person. Unless you’re from the UK, where he’s one of the most famous living composers! He’s even wearing his Knighthood medal (which some moron doctored in the photo). Which reminds me, I need to give a listen to his wonderful Adiemus series again.
Either of these two “mysteries” should have been figured out before they finished the ceremony! 🤦🏼♂️
I did laugh out loud at the dangerous rabbit, and immediately thought of Monty Python and The Holy Grail. “That rabbit’s dynamite!”
Great stuff! Thanks!
Good stuff, Kiddo.
The nurse who said that she was bitten by the rabbit wasn't worried about rabies and wasn't going to get any shots because, she said, the rabbit wasn't "frothing at the mouth." Rabies is exceeedingly rare in rabbits, but I don't think that not "frothing at the mouth" means anything. Rabid rabbits are said to sometimes get agressiive, though.
Yeah, that was disturbing. A nurse, no less.
However, since rabies is very low in the state, she's playing the odds. Putting that in the public article was, nevertheless, very dumb.
Oh, I know nurses who have less sense than her. One who fervently believes in ear candling and who also think “they’re” not trying to cure cancer because “they” make more money stringing sick patients along. Also, vaccines definitely cause several diseases and conditions, only one of which is autism. I’m happy to say she’s a retired nurse now.
Hell, I just had a nurse tell me that it takes 10 years to develop a vaccine. Not any more. They seem just as susceptible to woo as anyone else unfortunately.
The author of the article on eagles that can be dangerous to humans didn't know of any human fatalities caused by Harpy Eagles, but I do. In 1962, I was visiting with Miguel Alvarez del Toro, Director of the Tuxtla Gutierrez Zoo in the state of Chiapas, Mexico, and he told me about a Harpy Eagle that had escaped from his zoo and that had killed and partially eaten a small child. I asked him if he had ever published on this and he said no, that the event was just too horrible to dwell upon. I reckon that the story would not reflect well on his zoo, either. The article says that howler monkeys are the largest of the South American monkeys. They are not. The muriquis are the largest. Also, he writes about what he calls the "black vulture" as being exceeded in size only by the Andean Condor. I don't know what he means by "black vulture," but the bird that goes by that name in the New World is nowhere near that big.
If Haast's Eagle wasn't extinct we might have a lot more cases of kids being killed. They weighed an estimated 30+ pounds. And they preyed on birds up to 15 times their own weight – though I doubt they carried them off. 😁
There's no particular reason to believe that Haast's Eagle didn't kill and feed on the biggest moas but we have no evidence, as far as I know, that they actually did.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/456971/haast-s-eagle-research-points-to-bird-being-carnivorous-predator
The advocate of the Haast's Eagle's having killed the largest moas is quoted as follows: "...we can imagine them swooping down on a moa, grabbing it with those huge talons and using its powerful beak to deliver the killing blow." Why yes, we can imagine that--me included as well as anyone.
It's always risky to rely on journalistic secondary sources when looking into scientific matters. It's always best to go to the original source published in peer reviewed scientific journals. The article that you linked to has some false statements in it--ones not present in the scientific publication in question--a publication which I am familiar with. Yes, Andean Condors feed mostly on large mammals (including whales) but they don't hunt and kill them. They are scavengers, which the original scientific article makes quite clear, and they are not a kind of eagle, as the article that you linked to says. Andean Condors do apparenty sometimes kill and eat smaller mammals such as rabbits, however. One can, on occasion, find statements online stating that they can cause problems with livestock, but, over the years I have never seen any substantiation of that claim and I very much doubt its validity. I don't find that claim even mentioned in the most reliable sources. It is common around the world for livestock owners to incorrectly claim damage to their flocks on the part of various animals (along with even the chupacabras and animal-mutilating aliens).
At any rate, there is nothing about the fact that Andean Condors exist that tells us whether or not Haast's Eagle killed the largest moas. I would not find it particularly surprising if they did, however, if there were some way of knowing that.
All you said is that you disagree with the article from the proceedings of the Royal Society. Which you somehow assume I haven't read. I posted the secondary source because I had no idea of the level of your comprehension. There are other sources that aren't quite so journalistic – such as the British Natural History Museum and New Scientist neither of which haven't taken issue with the journal article.
And you've provided no evidence to the contrary. In fact I'm not even sure you've read it, given your comments about condors. I can't see anything in there that says condors killed large prey for instance.
So what's the qualification you have which might substantiate your disagreement?
My point is that at present there is no way of knowing whether the Haast's Eagle killed the largest moas or not. So any statement that just takes it for granted that they did or just states flat out that that they did is uncalled for. We just don't know, although it would not be in the least surprising if they did and we had some way of finding that out. And we don't know what defensive behavior the largest moas may have had. Qualifications have nothing to do with this. It's just common sense.
Where did I express disagreement with the Proceedings of the Royal Society article? My disagreements were to the RNZ article that you provided the link for. And I said nothing about whether or not you had read the Proeedings article, I was just informing everyone here that they shouldn't rely on the RNZ article. And I made it clear that the Proceedings article said that the Condors are scavegers. Nowhere did I write that the Proceedings article said that Condors kill large prey. Again, my probems were with the RNZ article which you posted here for everyone to read, and which I thought they might and would be misled by it, as I made quite clear. Please reread what I wrote.
I once went to a talk by the University photography lecturer, who went through a whole range of "spooky" photographs and explain that they were all – without exception – an artefact of the camera itself. From double exposures to out of focus bugs. I would bet good money that the black line has something to do with the camera and the pole.
I think I may have posted this before, but a British documentary maker got the clever idea of importing an expert tracker and hunter from Canada to look at big cat sightings. They went to half a dozen places where the big cats had supposedly been, looked at the tracks, looked at the scat, looked at bite marks. His conclusion in every case was – dog. It deserves a mention because it's one of the few documentaries about this sort of thing these days that actually isn't out to promote some bullshit.