Discussions

I still have the photograph with the loose covering saved. Never found where my copy came from.

People are still replying. Not as many names I recognise though.

There is a later announcement from the same paper as well. Someone linked both in Paper Trails.

I came back because the neck argument was still bothering me. I know how that sounds.

I thought Voss was an old username until I actually opened the circus paper.

The third one pauses with the same foot off the ground as the first

They aren't moving at the same time. Why does the title make it sound like that

At what point does an instinct become a permitted word for a routine

There's a second ear movement in the middle clip. Don't cut it off at the end

Are we blaming Voss for sneezes now too

They picked an age and nobody remembered it was supposed to change

It could be another animal with the same name

Seventeen is the model, not the age

Found a 2009 one online. Same patch. Sent it to the poster

This site is ridiculous sometimes. Three leaflets get an age wrong and suddenly it's a robot.

I was looking at the man in front. The thing at the back is much taller than I thought

They were selling tickets while he was still putting it together

Do you have the bit with the date? My phone cuts the top off

the state of those shoes

I like that he actually went and asked about the lions

Edwin Voss is right there in the article. Somehow I missed the only actual name while zooming in on the wagon.

The giraffe doesn't need to look very convincing from that distance. Most of it is behind canvas.

Even if it was an ordinary camera, why is your mum's voice in their advert?

The picture is from inside the enclosure. Look where you are standing

They've always had a surveillance role. This wasn't the first time people were listened to at the gardens.

The signs probably say they film people

Video won't load now

The old link is unavailable. I heard it on Tuesday, before anybody starts saying it was always a dead player.

The original page never says which direction the pull is supposed to be. It would help to draw it.

If it has to spread its legs to get water, I do not see why we assume it has no balance problem when it is standing.

Their problem is using gravity to explain it. The ground does not need to pull anything for an object to stay on it.

Was there an image on the old page showing where they put the weight? I remember something beside this and cannot find the same copy.

If the earth is not flat, the flat-earth part of this is not a problem a giraffe has to solve.

This is close to what I meant in the state discussion. The argument begins when the institution gets to decide which question counts as reasonable.

I came back to this because the other threads keep treating the zoo as a neutral place to check the claim. That is the assumption being argued over here. Sending someone back to the enclosure does not answer it.

Commercial income and conservation are not necessarily incompatible. You have not established a contradiction just by putting the two descriptions next to each other.

A display selling tickets is not enough to establish a fabricated animal. That is the step I do not find in the financial argument.

Does Voss get a cut of the tickets or is that a separate conspiracy

They could have kept a model as well. A photograph from inside the hall would help.

And they could have stood a keeper next to the model. That wouldn't change what it was.

Why would they make another one when that one was already there?

Looks like canvas to me. I don't think you're looking at an animal being skinned. The folds are all going in the same direction.

There are at least two printed dots in the man's sleeve. Might be a newspaper picture rather than a glossy photograph. Can you tell whether that dark strip at the bottom is type?

I think it is bigger than the platform in the background makes it look. The person is standing on something. I keep trying to put the floor in the wrong place.

It would not need to record everything. Knowing who stops and who comes back could be useful on its own.

Tall enough to look at us over whatever fence they put around it.

A high place where equipment could fit is not evidence that equipment is there.

I haven't seen linen reply for a while.

People keep mixing up moth and me. I don't have another account.

There are new replies every day. I thought one of them was still around.

New replies from us. That's what they're asking.

You have put a quantity in the argument without measuring it. “A few branches” in one photograph is not the total food available.

The preceding habitat argument matters here. This paragraph takes that objection as established; it does not start by proving it again.

Why would an anti-climate group pick this animal? Would a small animal living on very little make the same point with less to explain?

I would take an old street picture more seriously than another animal portrait commissioned to show an animal.

There are photographs after batteries. That is the part I keep coming back to.

An old photograph can also have been commissioned. You need the history of the picture, not just a year in the filename.

The drinking position is the part I cannot stop looking at. Why do the front legs have to go that far apart?

Ducks manage to drink with their heads down as well. Why would that be impossible?

The little knobs could be protective, or something else. I have never seen a proper explanation of what they do.

Did anyone ever get the view from behind? The replies keep going back to the front.

Someone has found that old Expose Giraffes site again. New thread here. I remembered this post first, then spent half an hour trying to find a bookmark in a browser I no longer have.

There is another jump here. A neck being capable of a movement and an animal using that movement to hide are separate claims. Which one is the alleged omission?

I am not conceding the ostrich premise yet. The picture and the sentence are being treated as though they establish the same thing.

The fold is clearer in the full photograph. The edge turns under his hand.

I thought the covering was hanging from his shoulder when I first saw it.

Save the whole picture, not just that section. The man is standing on a platform.

When there is one somewhere else it is described as an escape. That puts it back inside the zoo explanation even while it is outside the zoo.

No report and no animal are not the same observation. But I agree that a map of reported sightings would be more useful than repeating “Africa”.

And put ticketed places on that map differently. It is still a claim about where somebody was allowed to look.

Are we counting places without them, or places nobody here has checked? Those are not the same list.

The Professor introduction says the facts were permitted only as satire. That is their claim about the recording, not a caption I added.

I was looking for the Anonymous message, so the separate links help. The screenshots all seem to start halfway through.

A joke made in a video does not prove that the people presenting it elsewhere believe it.

The neck is the convenient feature every explanation gets to use. It is apparently wrong to infer too much from it until the next explanation needs a very clear example.

Rejecting a theory does not erase the things it tried to explain. An observation can remain useful even if the account attached to it was wrong.

The original goes further than the diagram question: it calls the observations alleged. If you defend that sentence, the question is what was observed, not merely how well it was drawn.

Being a useful illustration does not make it an invented animal. Otherwise every very recognizable shape becomes suspicious.

A sign with a scientific name makes people stop asking who chose the picture.

I have definitely used a label as reassurance before looking at the thing below it. I do it in museums as well.

There is still a step between trusting a label and proving fabrication. I would rather see that step discussed than another list of imaginary animals.

People put the unicorn on things with a straight face. I don’t understand why this part bothers you more than that.

The animal-rights part explains the provocation. If the opponents go after the animal to make a point, they have let the other party choose what the point is about.

What I want to know is whether the vote is supposed to disappear because the person is absent, or because the hunt has become the whole political argument. We are still giving two explanations for one “instead”.

I would still need numbers before accepting the electoral result. How many people have to choose the hunt, and where are their votes being lost?

Most of the replies still argue about how much it eats.

I don’t agree with its conclusion. But I know exactly the crowd it means.

The sample still loads even though the book listing says sold out.

They put other names on the list. Even their own recording wouldn't account for that

I keep seeing this cropped at the certificate. The families at the bottom are the reason for the hearing

Was there another report after it?

is that the same Edwin Voss from the circus paper?

Closure notice. Says the animals were being transferred

Does somebody else use the land now?

That is worse somehow

The turn could have been added. Do you have anything longer?

I remember the gift shop. Never thought about what was behind that gate afterwards

The position is the stop on the public road. You can see the sign at the beginning.

someone tell Voss this park has been closed for years

They replaced the explanation with the photograph

Does the publisher say where the photo came from?

The date on the scan is when the scan was added. The dates on the title pages are the ones that matter here

If Voss was making the one in the circus paper, who decided that counted as finding the species again?

Maybe they started crossing something out and gave up

What's the blue mark in the bottom corner?

We didn't print those blue marks. The sample has the clean cover.

They put the eating on a separate control

You haven't posted a moving clip

The mouth is unsettling in both of them honestly

Is the uniformed giraffe on the actual cover?

The part about everyone taking photographs is better than the neck argument

I've read the sample. I disagree with most of it but at least it doesn't stop in the middle of the claim.

Post them next to each other when you find them. These descriptions could be several things

The shoulder is open in the other one

Still looking. It was in a folder of exhibition pictures.

Who actually said you were working for the government?

Does anybody still have an argument about the actual picture? That's why I opened this

The question about the picture is in the older thread. Leave people's details out of this.

You've picked one patch. The three little ones beside it don't match.

I had that first guide. The giraffe got half a page and the toilets got an entire foldout.

You could make this diagram for a person standing on a hill.

I am enjoying the giraffe building inspection.

The power notice says the service yard. It doesn't say they're disconnecting the giraffe.

I read this three times before noticing the notices are from two years ago.