Skip to main content

Something down the bottom of the garden...



Thanks to Fortean Times. P.S. NOT filmed by me. Just for your amusement....

Comments

Fergus Gallagher said…
If it's not a fake (I think it is), I reckon two mating dragonflies.
February 24, 2010 at 8:57 PM
riotthill said…
My goodness it really looks like spring where you've filmed this Stephen. In Central Ontario, we still have a foot and a half of snow, we're 2-3 weeks away from maple syrup season.

I agree with Fergus, it might be mating dragonflies. We have many types on our property, ranging in size from 3/4" to as big as 4", in colour from leaf green, dark red to brilliant royal blue. They eat those pesky biting insects so we consider them our friends.
February 24, 2010 at 9:44 PM
Stephen Law said…
Hi - just to clarify I didn't film it. I am sure it's a fake. I just found it amusing....
February 24, 2010 at 9:55 PM
Paul Syms said…
Stephen,

Four possible explanations:

1. Occasionally you get insects that have extra body parts, such as five-winged butterflies; could this one have two abdomena? I've not heard of it, but I guess it's possible.

2. Mating - not unless they've just finished. Dragonflies mate one on top of the other, with the tips of their abdomena grasping each other at the tips to make a loop. It also appears to have only four wings, whereas a mating pair should appear to have eight at some stage.

3. Image manipulation: there are few frames that are actually clear enough to see what it is! Coindidence? I think not! (Definitely a conspiracy.)

4. The first ever photographic evidence of a real fairy ...

Funny how nobody who sees anything really unusual is a half-decent photographer! We should teach basic photography to everyone at school, so that when something odd happens, we get evidence that can be analysed ...

(I used to be an entomologist once ...)
February 25, 2010 at 12:11 AM
Anonymous said…
The unconvincing sound-effects told me it was fake straight away.
February 25, 2010 at 12:04 PM
Stephen Law said…
Hi riothill - the weather is like that here right now. That's because, despite being on same latitude as Toronto (I believe), we have the gulf stream to warm us up (for now).
February 25, 2010 at 12:29 PM
riotthill said…
I think I like Paul Syms answer (1st ever photo...) best --- now, if we all promise to believe in fairies, maybe one of them will bring the gulf stream affects to Ontario and we can enjoy your lovely mild weather.
February 26, 2010 at 12:20 AM
Unknown said…
That would be very entertaining post like this.......

Personal Injury Lawyer
February 27, 2010 at 7:31 AM
Anonymous said…
Two mating dragonflies seems the most accurate description to far.
March 7, 2010 at 2:13 PM
Unknown said…
If anyone finds this interesting go rent the movie "Pan's Labyrinth". All the dialogue is in spanish with subtitles but it's a must see film.
March 27, 2010 at 6:50 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

Sye - nowhere to run to, baby.

SYE RESPONDS TO MY PRECEEDING POST: @ Stephen, Alright, how about we go this way. Since you, and perhaps many of your cohorts are philosphically trained, why don't you show me how it's done. It would appear that your biggest problem with my proof is that you feel that the argument I offer "The impossibility of the contrary," for the truth of my premise that "God is the necessary precondition for intelligibiliy," is not, in fact, an argument. Alright in the format you are requesting of me: premise 1 premise 2 premise 3 (...) premise n Therefore: conclusion please prove to me, that "The impossibility of the contrary" is not an argument. Cheers, Sye MY RESPONSE TO SYE: Sye You misunderstand. I am not saying you don't have an argument. Maybe you do (though of course I don't think you have a good argument - for there are not the resources on the page behind the continue button to support your conclusion). I am saying I cannot figure out what th...
153 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more