marl

bro needs a new computer 😂😭

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

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

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?

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

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

Then the day matters. A hunting trip at any other time does not replace a vote.

You can photograph something that is photographing you

It was your question about this paragraph.

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

A national symbol is not a biological claim. People can understand the unicorn as a symbol without believing it lives there.

The full clip is there. I can see it.

It doesn't. Different places, different days, same motion

I mean the ear flick after it stops. All three do it

And then the photograph became the explanation

Because they don't put model on the animal board

Seventeen is the model, not the age

The neck argument is still right

Then which one was the paying audience looking at

They were selling tickets while he was still putting it together

They put the eating on a separate control