|
Post by Freedom on Nov 14, 2009 13:02:51 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I6KJHWtib4&feature=related A really, really big flock of 300,000 birds created a wavelike cloud over Denmark. According to ornithologists, these feathered friends really do prefer to roost together, and the massive formations are a sort of pre-roost ritual that take on these odd shapes. Sort of like a Rorschach test in the air. Or a flying lava lamp. In short, mesmerizing. As long as they don't attack. Sorry, we just can't get "The Birds" out of our heads. See for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by maddogblues on Nov 15, 2009 0:17:27 GMT -5
That didn't look real to me. www.youtube.com/watch?v=81wFZavdhPU&feature=player_embedded A really, really big flock of 300,000 birds created a wavelike cloud over Denmark. According to ornithologists, these feathered friends really do prefer to roost together, and the massive formations are a sort of pre-roost ritual that take on these odd shapes. Sort of like a Rorschach test in the air. Or a flying lava lamp. In short, mesmerizing. As long as they don't attack. Sorry, we just can't get "The Birds" out of our heads. See for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by werewolf on Jan 8, 2010 1:19:09 GMT -5
Hi -
Unfortunately that video is no longer available.
Passenger pigeons were probably the most abundant birds ever. In the mid-1800's they flew in such enormous flocks that they were said to turn day into night.
"Alexander Wilson, the father of American ornithology, noted a flock he estimated to contain two billion birds. The artist and naturalist John James Audubon once observed a flock over a three-day period and estimated the birds were flying overhead at a rate of 300 million per hour."
Who could have believed that the last passenger pigeon in the world would die in 1914?
ww
|
|
|
Post by Freedom on Jan 8, 2010 2:35:28 GMT -5
Hi - Unfortunately that video is no longer available. Passenger pigeons were probably the most abundant birds ever. In the mid-1800's they flew in such enormous flocks that they were said to turn day into night. "Alexander Wilson, the father of American ornithology, noted a flock he estimated to contain two billion birds. The artist and naturalist John James Audubon once observed a flock over a three-day period and estimated the birds were flying overhead at a rate of 300 million per hour." Who could have believed that the last passenger pigeon in the world would die in 1914? ww Welcome to TME werewolf. Yes the video is down. Found this cool video with a hawk preying on a flock of starling. www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8eZJnbDHIg&feature=related
|
|
|
Post by maddogblues on Jan 8, 2010 18:07:49 GMT -5
The passenger pigeon was one the consumer went to war with, and also the whooping crane. We humans make thousands of species extinct every year because of the profit motive and for no other reason. www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html
|
|
|
Post by werewolf on Jan 9, 2010 11:11:07 GMT -5
No, not entirely "profit motive". The ferocious hairless carnivorous bipeds with the grotesquely enlarged heads on the planet Earth often kill for the sheer love of killing.
|
|
|
Post by werewolf on Jan 9, 2010 11:16:41 GMT -5
Freedom - That flock looks to me like the swarm of sentient nanoparticles in Crichton's book Prey!
I used to be friends with a feller called Hawk who used to dress up in a Robin Hood outfit and go out hawking with a hawk on his arm.
|
|
|
Post by maddogblues on Jan 9, 2010 22:42:23 GMT -5
No, not entirely "profit motive". The ferocious hairless carnivorous bipeds with the grotesquely enlarged heads on the planet Earth often kill for the sheer love of killing. I'm a little blitzed tonight, but I seem to recall that the vanity of female fashion resulted in the demise of one of those species.
|
|
|
Post by werewolf on Jan 11, 2010 20:27:53 GMT -5
Passenger pigeons never adorned the better class of ladies' hats.
ww
|
|
|
Post by maddogblues on Jan 19, 2010 19:53:04 GMT -5
Some do. I doubt that they are in the majority. Those that kill for enjoyment are generally allocated to the realm of sociopaths. So I have a problem with your use of 'often'. Now if you said that those with the big heads who are also sociopaths kill for fun I would agree. No, not entirely "profit motive". The ferocious hairless carnivorous bipeds with the grotesquely enlarged heads on the planet Earth often kill for the sheer love of killing.
|
|
|
Post by werewolf on Jan 22, 2010 11:01:01 GMT -5
I meant humans who have brains that are probably too big for their own good. The whole planet is based on a very violent plan. Predators need to kill their prey. If predators die out the prey animals overgraze their plant food and then everybody dies out. It's a rough world. You're lucky to get out of it alive. " The fashion of wearing bird feathers in women’s hats began in the court of Louis XVI of France when Marie Antoinette appeared in a headdress with feather plumes (Doughty 1975). The fashion gradually spread in Europe and later in the colonies of the United States. By 1850, the business of killing birds for the millinery trade was practiced on a large scale, involving the deaths of hundreds of thousands of birds in many parts of the world. Egrets were a prime target, especially birds in breeding plumage when their most elegant plumage was displayed. Hunters killed adult birds, leaving the chicks to die in the scorching sun. Sometimes feathers were pulled from wounded birds, which were left to die of exposure or starvation. Herons and other wading birds along the east coast and in the Everglades were slaughtered in huge numbers. Songbirds were also popular, and entire birds were stuffed and exhibited on the hats of Victorian women. The plumage of terns and gulls was commonly used, and entire breeding colonies numbering more than 10,000 birds were killed. One New York woman negotiated in 1884 with a Parisian millinery to deliver 40,000 or more bird skins; she hired gunners to kill as many terns as possible at ten cents a skin (Doughty 1975). In order to stop this disastrous trade, as well as the trafficking in wild deer and other animals for the meat trade, the Lacey Act was passed in 1900. .."www.endangeredspecieshandbook.org/legislation_lacey.phpww
|
|
|
Post by maddogblues on Jan 22, 2010 18:28:46 GMT -5
I meant humans who have brains that are probably too big for their own good. The whole planet is based on a very violent plan. Predators need to kill their prey. If predators die out the prey animals overgraze their plant food and then everybody dies out. It's a rough world. You're lucky to get out of it alive. " The fashion of wearing bird feathers in women’s hats began in the court of Louis XVI of France when Marie Antoinette appeared in a headdress with feather plumes (Doughty 1975). The fashion gradually spread in Europe and later in the colonies of the United States. By 1850, the business of killing birds for the millinery trade was practiced on a large scale, involving the deaths of hundreds of thousands of birds in many parts of the world. Egrets were a prime target, especially birds in breeding plumage when their most elegant plumage was displayed. Hunters killed adult birds, leaving the chicks to die in the scorching sun. Sometimes feathers were pulled from wounded birds, which were left to die of exposure or starvation. Herons and other wading birds along the east coast and in the Everglades were slaughtered in huge numbers. Songbirds were also popular, and entire birds were stuffed and exhibited on the hats of Victorian women. The plumage of terns and gulls was commonly used, and entire breeding colonies numbering more than 10,000 birds were killed. One New York woman negotiated in 1884 with a Parisian millinery to deliver 40,000 or more bird skins; she hired gunners to kill as many terns as possible at ten cents a skin (Doughty 1975). In order to stop this disastrous trade, as well as the trafficking in wild deer and other animals for the meat trade, the Lacey Act was passed in 1900. .."www.endangeredspecieshandbook.org/legislation_lacey.phpww I'm fairly sure I understand what you mean. I am not so certain you are interpreting it right. I'm not sure that I am either. One concept I hold, which I think is sound, is that life and death both have been described erroneously. As a result we have related to both in ways that are unrealistic. I further think that the misinterpretation is the result of the previous materialist scientific paradigm. Current views change with great difficulty. But they change and those suggesting the change, such as that involving Einsteins inability to accept the new quantum physics, are met with ridicule at first and then gradually acceptance. For instance now we understand that matter, hard things, do not exist as we once thought they did. I extrapolate this to all of that is able to be experienced. Suppose that instead of the world existing as a fixed set of solid objects you understood that everything is simply an ongoing flux of energy waves being continually reorganized maintaining what is known as the present by our consciousness. Experience may seem violent if we look at the present as representing some kind of permanence, something that must be maintained at all costs. Of course nothing is permanent, and to a biological materialist from a preceding paradigm this is the most awful thing imaginable. In the new scientific paradigm of thought what religion cannot convey, western religions anyhow, science does with great simplicity and elegance. The waterfowl (in the attachment) in my front yard live in the pond across the street, they have trained me to feed them. Why did I agree? I live on a thousand dollars a month. This month I've bought them 100 pounds of cracked corn and they caught on right away and now run, literally run across the street when they see me come out. How does this fit into your paradigm of life? I can conceive of myself as trapping one and eating it if it came down to it. It would not be a contradiction within my philosophy. But a biological materialist would say this demonstrates the world is full of viscous, malicious creatures. I do not interpret it that way. Personally I think that the definition / explanation of experience supplied by biological materialism requires a person who accepts that explanation to look at the life and death struggle going on around them as vicious and brutal. The way I see it the same thing happens, but I interpret it differently. The video below is rather lengthy but it describes the foundation of our reality. In my mind if you are building on a foundation you better build in harmony with that foundation or everything gets fucked up. This foundation is good enough for the present paradigm and I feel it can be trusted. Buy the book. I read it in the early 80's. It changed my life. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by werewolf on Jan 28, 2010 0:15:28 GMT -5
I watched part of that video last week, Dog. In some respects the more we learn the less we know - like when Walt Whitman walked out on "The Learn'd Astronomer" to stand outside and gaze at the stars.
|
|
|
Post by maddogblues on Jan 29, 2010 19:42:31 GMT -5
I watched part of that video last week, Dog. In some respects the more we learn the less we know - like when Walt Whitman walked out on "The Learn'd Astronomer" to stand outside and gaze at the stars. This is what my end of life understanding is coming down to. What you see is real. In zen that is the end of the story; now go about your business intelligently.
|
|
|
Post by werewolf on Feb 12, 2010 20:26:46 GMT -5
But...
The Australian aborigines believe that the dreamtime is real and what we see is but a dream.
Take this kiss upon the brow! And, in parting from you now, Thus much let me avow- You are not wrong, who deem That my days have been a dream; Yet if hope has flown away In a night, or in a day, In a vision, or in none, Is it therefore the less gone? All that we see or seem Is but a dream within a dream.
I stand amid the roar Of a surf-tormented shore, And I hold within my hand Grains of the golden sand- How few! yet how they creep Through my fingers to the deep, While I weep- while I weep! O God! can I not grasp Them with a tighter clasp? O God! can I not save One from the pitiless wave? Is all that we see or seem But a dream within a dream?
|
|