• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

So: Many experts now agree ... some birds use fire as a weapon.

National Geographic said:
...The Aboriginal concept of Dreamtime is comparable to the creation stories of other religions and cultures, but there’s an important difference. When the ancestral beings from the stories returned to the spirit realm, they kept their life-giving power, which they continue to release into to the world, as long as people followed the rituals and other directions that they left behind. In that sense, Aboriginals view the Dreamtime myths not just as the past, but as part of a cosmic order of things that includes the present and future as well...
Click to expand...

http://channel.nationalgeographic.c...ticles/australian-aboriginal-creation-stories
 
macdoc said:
.......How big a stretch do you think it is for a hungry bird to learn to carry a burning twig for a fresh feast ……geez. :boggled:......
Click to expand...

A big one. I think it highly improbable. Fire is a killer, and animals.........just about all animals.......have an innate fear of it. Having said that, there is lots of improbable stuff in the animal world, so if this happens I will change my view and just say (again) wow, they're even more interesting than we thought.

My daughter has just had her first paper published*. It's on bird behaviour. It's astonishing how much more intelligent and interesting birds which are thought of as particularly stupid really are. However, as a specialist in the field, she has said (up thread) that there is no selective pressure for this behaviour and that innate fear of fire is a big thing. Given this, I really can't see why anyone wouldn't remain cautious until there is evidence. You, macdoc, appear to have have made up your mind that there is, at least at a level to satisfy you, but the thing about evidence is that it should be testable, falsifiable, and repeatable. So non-trained observers reporting something in the field is interesting, and the kicking off point for evidence gathering, but of itself doesn't rise to the level of being acceptable as evidence.

*I'd include a link, but I'd be doxxing myself.
 
EHocking said:
Ah well, whether you do or not,
Aboriginal people accept that their oral traditions about their Dreamtime is, in fact, their religion.......
Click to expand...

So? What's that got to do with their stories about animal behaviour? You've just added "about their dreamtime" to completely change the argument. We're talking here about uncle so-and-so said he saw a bird carrying a flaming twig, which has sod-all to do with dreamtime or religion. Honestly, claiming or accepting that everything aboriginals say is from their dreamtime is ridiculous, and is tantamount to saying that any and every aboriginal story, expression or idiom is religious, which is total poppycock.
 
MikeG said:
So? What's that got to do with their stories about animal behaviour? You've just added "about their dreamtime" to completely change the argument.
Click to expand...
You seem more interested in hearing your own argument than actually reading other posts in this thread.
See thread post #4 below,
"...And that is all they have at the moment. Religious belief and hearsay evidence from believers and those that know of the belief."
We're talking here about uncle so-and-so said he saw a bird carrying a flaming twig, which has sod-all to do with dreamtime or religion. Honestly, claiming or accepting that everything aboriginals say is from their dreamtime is ridiculous, and is tantamount to saying that any and every aboriginal story, expression or idiom is religious, which is total poppycock.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should look a little closer to the article linked in the OP.
... “Most accounts and traditions unequivocally indicate intentionality on the part of three raptor species,” they wrote.​

The paper quoted most certainly attempting to link their Dreamtime stories (I even linked to an example of this story).
Perhaps, also, you might try reading the actual content of my posts, you might even see that we agree these are merely unverified anecdotes.

Thread Post #4
EHocking said:
...Of course if you are an eye witness to behaviour that appears to support your religious beliefs or merely your knowledge of this belief, you might not pay that much attention to the details. Typical of confirmation bias.
And that is all they have at the moment. Religious belief and hearsay evidence from believers and those that know of the belief.

I’m not dismissing it out of hand, but even the researcher has skin in the game to “prove” a religious belief is factual, so I remain fairly sceptical of this “truth”.
Click to expand...

Post #77
EHocking said:
...This is the confirmation bias I was talking about. The researchers are taking Dreamings literally. Let us just examine the firebird Dreaming for a second.

(this from a workshop on the mythologies)
...
[/INDENT]Are we really meant to take this literally?...
These are Dreaming stories.
...
But of course, this is not about direct observations of a phenomenon, but "researchers" forcing fireside (hah!) stories to fit their confirmation bias.
...
Click to expand...

Post #78
EHocking said:
Depictions of Firehawk Dreaming should not be taken as direct observations in nature.
Click to expand...

MikeG said:
So? What's that got to do with their stories about animal behaviour? You've just added "about their dreamtime" to completely change the argument.
Click to expand...
My objection to this "science" has not changed since my first post in this thread.
You would know this if you actually read the posts in this thread.

Hell, you done even seem to read your own posts, or the argument put forward by your own daughter that you quote.
MikeG said:
Here is my daughter's response to the paper:Here is my daughter's response to the paper:
...In the case of these hawks they seem interested in aboriginal stories and how the story is represented in certain ceremonies.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
She agrees that the paper is interested in linking aboriginal stories/ceremonies i.e., Dreaming, to anecdotal "evidence".
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
“Aboriginal fairy tales.” Bloody lovely.
Click to expand...


How would you describe oral stories that (allegedly) are 40,000 years old? As expert eyewitness reports?

macdoc said:
Implausible to your set in concrete mindset ....nice bit of bigotry in addition. :rolleyes:

One thing I can pretty much guarantee....no level of observation will satisfy you ......that = dogma.
Click to expand...


You don't appear to have any problems with jumping to conclusions about the "level of observation" that it will take to satisfy me, but let me remind you that a video with a heron using bread as bait to catch fish is very different from a video of birds picking up burning sticks and starting new fires.
At a court of law you wouldn't get very far with a video of a shoplifter if your point was to prove that X killed Y. OK, so people are obviously capable of committing crimes, but that is really not the point that you were asked to prove!
You don't seem to notice that everybody in this thread is aware of some of the amazing things that certain birds are able to do. But likewise we are also aware of the way that people embellish on their stories and alleged observations. For instance, most of us don't believe the reports of little green (or even grey) men coming out of landing UFOs, and even though it might be gross, we would also like to see footage of the anal probes before we believe in them.
We are probably much more likely to believe the stories of birds deliberately spreading fires (I know that I am!), but we would still like to see more than alleged observations. The aboriginal stories really don't help make the claim seem more reliable. On the contrary.
But thank you for making it so obvious which "level of observation will satisfy you."
 
Many people begin a perfectly good sentence with an unnecessary 'so', but this is the first time I have seen someone enhance that useless appendage with a colon.
 
You add zero to the dialogue, just ill informed commentary. That's not skepticism ...it's simply being ill informed.
...and definitely polemic with comments on little green men offered as a parallel to diminish the credibility of those reporting this behavior across three species of raptor ...how puerile ???

As expert eyewitness reports?
Click to expand...
Well the article provides a number of eye witness sources that satisfy a trained scientist enough to publish......
You don't even consider a fire ranger "expert" so you have set your own absurd standard of dismissal.....that's how I "know". Perhaps you require to a kite to drop a burning twig to chase the head lice...even then you'd proclaim it accidental :rolleyes:
As I said " dogmatic".

The scientist has a series of observed behaviour across three species of raptors and an explanation for the behavior that would not in the least be out of character for bird intelligence ....even tho it may be rare behavior.
It's also eminently possible we haven't been looking for it.

I find that more than sufficiently credible to entertain ...and I'm coming from a lifetime of birding and seeing raptors gather around outback fires in search of prey.

Some supporting info...that go back further than the current topic of the week.
https://blogs.crikey.com.au/northern/2011/06/28/birds-of-the-week-firehawks-of-the-top-end/

And I certainly have no doubt black cockatoos ( red tailed ) are smart enough pull off a "firebird" trick even tho they are not specifically mentioned.
 
Last edited:
JJM 777 said:
Though no evidence exists, despite efforts to detect the said phenomenon. But tales, yes.
Click to expand...

Photograph & video evidence and "scientist's" "official" opinion are NOT the ONLY type of evidence ...

Aboriginal oral history, IS evidence ... legal evidence that CAN and has stood up in court of law for example ...eye witness accounts ARE evidence, (as seen in a murder trial for example) ...

The fact birds drop burning branches is not up for debate ... there's too many reports from credible eye witnesses ... weather or not they are doing it purposely to gain an advantage in food procurement, is somewhat up for debate.

SO with that in mind ... if there WERE several videos of birds doing so ... that would not satisfy the skeptics ...

It'd just show what we already know happened ... Am I correct?
 
Sideroxylon said:
“Aboriginal fairy tales.” Bloody lovely.
Click to expand...

I support the fact that "Oral History" can and DOES reports facts and events that happened very long ago.

BUT with that in mind I think EVERYONE can agree ... old oral history is always mixed in with fairy tales and "crap that is totally made up" for lack of a better term :)

We only need to look the the "Holy Bible" to see that there is loads of crap in old stories :)

But just because I find a barrel full of rocks, doesn't automatically preclude there being some lumps of gold at the bottom ... it's always wise to sift through gifts to see what's underneath.
 
Yeggster said:
Photograph & video evidence and "scientist's" "official" opinion are NOT the ONLY type of evidence ...

Aboriginal oral history, IS evidence ... legal evidence that CAN and has stood up in court of law for example ...eye witness accounts ARE evidence, (as seen in a murder trial for example) ...

The fact birds drop burning branches is not up for debate ... there's too many reports from credible eye witnesses ... weather or not they are doing it purposely to gain an advantage in food procurement, is somewhat up for debate.

SO with that in mind ... if there WERE several videos of birds doing so ... that would not satisfy the skeptics ...

It'd just show what we already know happened ... Am I correct?
Click to expand...
Then Bigfoot does exist based on the things you are saying. Bigfoot appears to meet your criteria for being factual.

I don't actually know what you think about Bigfoot existence - but I'm just saying...
 
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Bigfoot is an extraordinary claim.

Birds being clever is not.

That it appears extraordinary to some says more about their lack of knowledge than the birds or the claim.
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
“Aboriginal fairy tales.” Bloody lovely.
Click to expand...

dann said:
How would you describe oral stories that (allegedly) are 40,000 years old? As expert eyewitness reports?
Click to expand...

I would describe them as cultural stories; myths if you like, handed down from one generation to another, relating to events that the original observers may not have understood.

Calling them "Aboriginal fairy tales" is a bigoted pejorative, an offhand dismissal based on personal prejudice.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Sorry SG, "anecdotal" and "evidence" shouldn't be used in the same sentence.
Click to expand...

Sorry LK, but you can easily be proved wrong.

Wiki (for convenience) Anecdotal Evidence
may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine. Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method.
Click to expand...
Yes, it has limits like retrospective studies have limitations.

Collected systematically with controls to rule out other variables, a lot of medical research relies on anecdotal evidence.

Unless you have another name for asking study subjects what they recall?

If you only read the knee-jerk dismissal like this beginning:
In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:

"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"[6]
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"[citation needed]
Click to expand...
and this end:
Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information.[10] Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.
Click to expand...

And don't read the middle or understand how anecdotal evidence is used in sciences like medicine:
Anecdotal evidence can have varying degrees of formality. For instance, in medicine, published anecdotal evidence by a trained observer (a doctor) is called a case report, and is subjected to formal peer review.[7] Although such evidence is not seen as conclusive, it is sometimes regarded as an invitation to more rigorous scientific study of the phenomenon in question.[8] For instance, one study found that 35 of 47 anecdotal reports of drug side-effects were later sustained as "clearly correct."[9]
Click to expand...
It's how people can misunderstand the value of anecdotal evidence.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Sorry LK, but you can easily be proved wrong.

Wiki (for convenience) Anecdotal EvidenceYes, it has limits like retrospective studies have limitations.

Collected systematically with controls to rule out other variables, a lot of medical research relies on anecdotal evidence.

Unless you have another name for asking study subjects what they recall?

If you only read the knee-jerk dismissal like this beginning:
and this end:

And don't read the middle or understand how anecdotal evidence is used in sciences like medicine:
It's how people can misunderstand the value of anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...

Now that's a botty smacking!
 
smartcooky said:
I would describe them as cultural stories; myths if you like, handed down from one generation to another, relating to events that the original observers may not have understood.

Calling them "Aboriginal fairy tales" is a bigoted pejorative, an offhand dismissal based on personal prejudice.
Click to expand...
Does the leprechaun fairy tale (folk tale) suddenly become a bigoted prejudice if you say that it is an Irish fairy tale?
 
Can we call them a tribe ??

First fire now music....:thumbsup:

Cockatoos use tools to make music

Jun. 30, 2017 , 9:45 AM
Cockatoos are already known for their wicked dance moves, but a new study reveals that they can create their own beat as well. Researchers observing 18 palm cockatoos (Probosciger aterrimus) in northern Australia discovered that, when courting a mate, male cockatoos grab a stick or a seedpod and start rhythmically whacking a hollow tree branch, producing a steady beat
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencemag.org/video/cockatoos-use-tools-make-music
 
William Parcher said:
Then Bigfoot does exist based on the things you are saying. Bigfoot appears to meet your criteria for being factual.

I don't actually know what you think about Bigfoot existence - but I'm just saying...
Click to expand...

You have multiple credible eye witness accounts of Bigfoot spread over the last 40 years?
 
No, they are not credible. This is what they have in common with the avian arsonist witnesses.
(By the way, would it improve the reliability of the Bigfoot reports if the witnesses were firefighters?)
Herrons using bread as bait? Highly likely. See video evidence!
Birds picking up and dropping burning sticks to make fires spread? Not so much ...

The prehistoric aboriginals are excused. They didn't all have cell phones back then.
 
I don't understand all this fuss about Aboriginal stories. Those were only cited as background material for the hypothesis, weren't they? Then 20 or so detailed anecdotes were collected (I don't want to review the study so by all means point out if I'm wrong). So no one is using 'stories' as evidence or if they are it is in addition to the reported observations.

This is not so uncommon. The 1700 Cascadia earthquake was supported by the geologic findings but also Japanese stories about the tidal wave including a painting I believe, and there were some Native American stories about the big quake. The Japanese tidal wave record gave researchers the exact date of the Cascadia quake.

In the Dec 2004 tsunami after the Banda Aceh quake, some indigenous people ran for higher ground when the ocean suddenly receded because they had a 'story' about such signs (something I still don't understand more people didn't have common knowledge of given I know that fact and I don't live in a tsunami zone).
The Nicobar and Andaman Islands are hit next, with an estimated 1,894 dead. The indigenous tribes living on the island had move to higher ground after the quake and escaped disaster.
Click to expand...

It's not like every single ancient story is the equivalent of "Coyote stole fire from heaven."
 
Last edited:
Exactly. One of the interesting and verifiable stories on the north west coast of Australia where I have a home are the aboriginal stories of Green Island being accessible and it certainly was some 14k BP when sea levels were low. This from a couple of disparate tribes.

Even currently many aboriginals are much closer aquainted with the bush and use bush tucker as part of their diet....particularly in Arnheim land.

One reason they are used as fire rangers. They will travel areas that arguably no westerner has ever seen other than from space or the air. When a major highway has flood posts indicating 3 ms for many km you know it is very wild and inaccessible for much of the year.
Yet they live there.

Think of the US with 5% of the people and only along the coast. That's Australia now and there is much still we don't know about it and the people that have been there for I think now 50,000 years is the latest dating.

As SG says...it's a good reference and helps complete a set of evidences for this behaviour.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't understand all this fuss about Aboriginal stories. Those were only cited as background material for the hypothesis, weren't they? Then 20 or so detailed anecdotes were collected (I don't want to review the study so by all means point out if I'm wrong). So no one is using 'stories' as evidence or if they are it is in addition to the reported observations.

This is not so uncommon. The 1700 Cascadia earthquake was supported by the geologic findings but also Japanese stories about the tidal wave including a painting I believe, and there were some Native American stories about the big quake. The Japanese tidal wave record gave researchers the exact date of the Cascadia quake.

In the Dec 2004 tsunami after the Banda Aceh quake, some indigenous people ran for higher ground when the ocean suddenly receded because they had a 'story' about such signs (something I still don't understand more people didn't have common knowledge of given I know that fact and I don't live in a tsunami zone).

It's not like every single ancient story is the equivalent of "Coyote stole fire from heaven."
Click to expand...


There are plenty of stories throughout history that were dismissed by academia as fables, fairy stories and myths, which were later shown to be true. Troy was thought to be an entirely fictional place, until archaeologists Frank Calvert and Heinrich Schliemann discovered it. Some other legends and myths that turnout out to be either true or based in reality are...

The curse of Lake Nyos
The destruction of Pompeii
Emperor Qin Shi Huang's terracotta army
Kangaroos and Platypus
Giant California Redwood trees
Gorillas
The killing of King Kanauj and his entourage by giant hailstones
Early Norse settlements in North America

All of these were myths and stories disbelieved by academia until they had the evidence shoved in their faces.
 
Last edited:
When and where and for how long were kangaroos mythical creatures?!
Did everybody at the time carry around cell phones with cameras as they do now?
 
Last edited:
Do you have a point to make ?

The question Thylacine survival reprents an interesting case of extensive eye witness reports without definitive scientific conclusions.

'Sightings' of extinct Tasmanian tiger prompt search in Queensland ...
https://www.theguardian.com/.../tasmanian-tiger-sighting-search-thylacine-queensland...
Mar 28, 2017 - “Plausible” possible sightings of a Tasmanian tiger in northern Queensland have prompted scientists to undertake a search for the species thought to have died out more than 80 years ago. The last thylacine is thought to have died in Hobart zoo in 1936, and it is widely believed to have become extinct on mainland Australia ..
Click to expand...

One was a long-time employee of the Queensland National Parks Service and the other was a frequent camper in the north of the state.

Laurance said all the potential sightings to date had been at night. “In one case four animals were observed at close range – about 20 feet away – with a spotlight.”

Descriptions of their eyes, size, shape and behaviour were inconsistent with known attributes of other large species in north Queensland such as dingoes, wild dogs or feral pigs.

The sightings were at two separate locations on Cape York peninsula, but the specifics were being kept confidential, said Laurance. “Everything is being handled with strict confidence.”

He said people who claimed to have seen a thylacine were “very nervous about relating their tales for fear of being branded kooks or fringe types”.
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ighting-search-thylacine-queensland-australia

and Cape York is about as wild a region as it comes...this is very much a case of great claim requires great evidence...

There have been a few "rediscovered" considered extinct species in Australia but nothing like this....certainly worth an expedition and indeed there is one.
 
dann said:
When and where and for how long were kangaroos mythical creatures?!
Click to expand...

"Cryptids such as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and Mothman, are all urban legends, likely passed down by word of mouth or questionable “evidence” posted in obscure online forums. However, some very real creatures were once labeled mythical back in the day because no one had ever seen them before, which is exactly what happened to kangaroos in the 1700s."
Click to expand...

This is the source webpage...

http://modernnotion.com/kangaroos-mythical-creatures/

..but for some reason it is now not loading correctly for me, so if it does not work for you either, I have found a snapshot of it on Wayback Machine

https://web.archive.org/web/20151218073230/http://modernnotion.com/kangaroos-mythical-creatures/

..and here is Parkinson's drawing referred to in the website

http://www.nma.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0007/453607/Kangaroo-685.jpg
 
Yeggster said:
Good point ... I agree ... there is no reason to tip toe around aboriginal fairytales .. whats the difference?
Click to expand...
You can't lump all these apples, oranges and kiwi fruit together.

When you conflate everything and include some stories that might indeed have a kernel of truth in their origins with stories like Coyote stole fire from heaven and Péle is angry with someone so a volcano erupts; and, when you conflate every anecdotal report with classic sightings of ghosts, BigFoot, UFOs and Nessie that have more than sufficient evidence to rule those conclusions out, that is the difference.

In this case we have 20 or so observations that correlate with an Aboriginal story of a firebird.

That is not proof of anything. It is essentially a strong basis for an hypothesis that the birds are acting purposefully. Now we need a serious investigation. That's all, no more no less.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
You can't lump all these apples, oranges and kiwi fruit together.

When you conflate everything and include some stories that might indeed have a kernel of truth in their origins with stories like Coyote stole fire from heaven and Péle is angry with someone so a volcano erupts; and, if you conflate anecdotal reports with classic sightings of ghosts, BigFoot, UFOs and Nessie that have more than sufficient evidence to rule those conclusions out, that is the difference.

In this case we have 20 or so observations that correlate with an Aboriginal story of a firebird.

That is not proof of anything. It is essentially a strong basis for an hypothesis that the birds are acting purposefully. Now we need a serious investigation. That's all, no more no less.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree ... we tell our kids about Santa Clause and stores about how Grandpa used to work really hard to make living ... not ALL stories are fairly tales ... fully agree.
 
macdoc said:
Do you have a point to make ?

The question Thylacine survival reprents an interesting case of extensive eye witness reports without definitive scientific conclusions.




https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ighting-search-thylacine-queensland-australia

and Cape York is about as wild a region as it comes...this is very much a case of great claim requires great evidence...

There have been a few "rediscovered" considered extinct species in Australia but nothing like this....certainly worth an expedition and indeed there is one.
Click to expand...

You dont even have to go more than a couple of hours drive west of Sydney in some cases- When found they kept the exact site secret to stop sightseers destroying the only place left (its still a secret and only certain people are allowed to go there)- now you can buy them at most nurseries!

Wollemi pine
 
smartcooky said:
This is the source webpage...

http://modernnotion.com/kangaroos-mythical-creatures/

..but for some reason it is now not loading correctly for me, so if it does not work for you either, I have found a snapshot of it on Wayback Machine

https://web.archive.org/web/20151218073230/http://modernnotion.com/kangaroos-mythical-creatures/

..and here is Parkinson's drawing referred to in the website

http://www.nma.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0007/453607/Kangaroo-685.jpg
Click to expand...


Well, I can see why some people wouldn't believe them. I wouldn't have believed them myself.
Actually, I still don't! There is no such thing:

"stories began circulating through the ranks that there was a dog-like creature roaming around with legs like a rabbit and two heads."

With stories like that and no actual evidence to back them up, no wonder they were rejected.
However, they can be excused for not being able to show any footage of the two-headed creatures. The Australian bird watchers can't.

So I agree with one thing that Skeptic Ginger says: "Now we need a serious investigation. That's all, no more no less."

At least in the case of the firestarting birds, video footage can't be faked by men dressing up and flying around with burning sticks. :)
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
That is not proof of anything. It is essentially a strong basis for an hypothesis that the birds are acting purposefully. Now we need a serious investigation. That's all, no more no less.
Click to expand...

Spot on! No proof, but basis for a serious investigation. The fact that recent observations by rangers is supported by mythical stories does not diminish the credibility of the observations.
 
steenkh said:
Spot on! No proof, but basis for a serious investigation. The fact that recent observations by rangers is supported by mythical stories does not diminish the credibility of the observations.
Click to expand...

This, but you can't tell that to people who think myths are always just fairy stories.

The facts are that myths are sometimes (not often I'll grant) based on real observations that are either poorly made or misunderstood by the observer, who can only reference them to their own experience.

The kangaroo I mentioned earlier was a prime example. Cook's crew had never seen one before, but they could only describe it in terms of their own previous experiences...

"a dog-like creature roaming around with legs like a rabbit and two heads."

- the head of a kangaroo or a wallaby is somewhat dog-like
- the legs are similar in shape to that of a rabbit or a hare

But what about the two heads? Of course, they almost certainly saw a female carrying a well grown joey in her pouch. I doubt that any of Cook's crew would have ever seen a marsupial mammal before.
 
smartcooky said:
But what about the two heads? Of course, they almost certainly saw a female carrying a well grown joey in her pouch.
Click to expand...


That is obvious, and I don't blame them for not getting it right, but on the other hand:

there is a plaque that honors the discovery, which features a statue of Parkinson’s drawing with an inscription that reads, “Observed, Amazed, Described, Sketched, Shot, Eaten And Named Kangaroo!”
Click to expand...


If they got close enough to eat them, it can't have been that difficult to see that the two heads didn't belong to the same creature.
 
dann said:
That is obvious, and I don't blame them for not getting it right, but on the other hand:

If they got close enough to eat them, it can't have been that difficult to see that the two heads didn't belong to the same creature.
Click to expand...

And the period of time between them first seeing the creature and getting a full understanding of what they were looking at was........?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom