Flat Giraffers

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

They put the eating on a separate control

You haven't posted a moving clip

The mouth is unsettling in both of them honestly

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.

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.

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.

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.