Starship Asterisk*

Can't use my Bad Buoy wrote: Can we please have some demonstrative photos from anyone? So far everything demonstrates a non-uniform trail which has no segments even approaching the linearity of the Darwin event. We need at least one photo showing a uniform, fairly straight path of an insect for a duration consistent with the trail length:body width ratio in the Darwin event. And that insect should be capable of banking or 'showing its wings' in something approaching the orientation as photographed in Darwin.

Almost-straight lines are easy for "rods." I've got lots of images of them: http://opendb.com/sol/morerods.htm (and several pages linked from there).

hawaiianmike wrote:3) maybe the smoke trail and flash are not connected except by this picture, of which I am the leasd proponet but have been dismissed as too unlikely a co-incidence, even though a freakin' bug just happening to fly past Pryde's camera at THE EXACTLY CORRECT MOMENT TO BE CAUGHT IN 1/20th OF A SECOND is not as unlikely a co-incidence (whatever)--

Excluding the possibility that the pic is a hoax, the probability of the event occuring is exactly 1. We know this because we have a picture of it, so it must have happened.

Different question - what is the chance of me being able to reproduce this pic?

Quite high it seems. Why do I say that?

Well, what is the chance that if an insect flew close to the lens as I took a pic it would generate an image similar to the one the photographer posted? Quite high it would seem, based on the examples created experimentally and posted here so far.

What is the chance of me being able to find an insect in the area? Quite high, based on eyewitness accounts that report termite alates and bees in the spot the pic was taken.

What is the chance that if I caught a pic of a trail it would line up with something interesting on the pic? Not too bad; there are lots of 'interesting' things in the scene.

What is the chance that I would post a pic where the insect was easily seen for what it was? Or where it was extremely faint, or the blur went right across the pic, or just off one edge? Pretty small. (Why would I, it's not interesting? I can pick and choose which pic to post).

So that seems to bode well for me being able to reproduce a pic like the one seen (OK, maybe it wouldn't look like a contrail/meteorite, maybe it would look like an angel, or the Madonna, or Elvis eating a cheeseburger or something, but you get my point).

Now, what is the chance of you going out anywhere and taking a pic where not one, but two unrelated events occur simultaneously in time, as well as apparently or actually coinciding in space and aligning with any 'interesting' object in the scene?

Given that these two events do occur simultaneously in space and time, what is the further chance of a) neither of them being immediately identifiable as something known and b) neither of them leaving a trace 15 seconds later?

I can't do the calculations (I suspect the Bayesian approach would be best) but I'm guessing your chances they are lower than my chances.

That doesn't mean the answer is that the pic is an insect. It just means your chance of recreating it is lower if you postulate two events rather than one.

I have a pic of myself and another tourist (a stranger) standing together on a fort wall in Jaisalmere, India at sunset. What is the chance that all the various events of our separate lives coincided to have us be there together on that remote spot at the exact same moment? One possible answer is a probability of 1, as I have a pic to prove it (hoax excluded of course). Another plausable answer is less than 1 in a billion. Another is that it's a tourist spot at sunset, so there are tourists around and you didn't specify in advance that I should produce a pic of myself and that other guy at that particular spot, so the chances are quite high that it could happen.

My point is, it's misleading to look at a pic of an apparently rare event and ascribe a probability to it. We have subjective ideas about rarity, and the event has happened so the probability is 1.

MrMoon wrote:I gamma corrected it and I hope that you finally see and comment it

I see the loop in the during picture. I also see it in the before and after pictures. That means it's unrelated to the event. It does not show up in the difference pictures.

Deckham wrote:Couldn't find reference to this anywhere, so here's an observation just for info -

Look underneath the yellowish crane/derrick/thingy towards centre-left of the image. Beneath the crane nearly at the shoreline and slightly further left, there is a very clear image of a person.

In the 'first (or last)' frame, he is turned either directly towards, or away from the camera. In the other two frames, he is side-on.

My brother thinks it's a deer. If he thinks it's a deer, and you think it's a person, I don't think it's clearly anything. It vaguely looks like something.

Can't use my Bad Buoy wrote:

victorengel wrote:Facts not in evidence. To demonstrate this is the case, take a difference image, and show that in the difference image, the lamp post overlapping the putative insect is more clearly visible than other lamp posts. To my eyes, this is not the case at all. If you can demonstrate this, please show the pictures. Previously posted pictures that I've seen don't show this.

Facts still not in evidence. What you need is to show a difference image in which several lamp posts are showing and where the one obscuring the flash is clearly different from the others. You have not done this. The lamp posts will show up in the difference images because the jpeg artifacts will vary from frame to frame.

You make the slight deviations on the fairly straight path sound as though they fully account for insect aerobatics.

What insect aerobatics? How much do you think an insect can do in 1/20 second? Seriously!!!! This question has been asked many times. Yet people still insist the path is not circuitous enough. I ask you, if you expect a more circuitous route, please back up the expectation with something.

I at least cited a program on TV where they used radar to determine bumblebees flew in straight lines. Sure, the radar doesn't have much precision.... It also doesn't take much in the way of personal observation using your eyeballs to see insects traveling very straight. I really don't know where the notion of insects flying crazily comes from.

And that insect should be capable of banking or 'showing its wings' in something approaching the orientation as photographed in Darwin.

I'm waiting for a replay of Spy on the Wild so I can record the super slow motion bumblebee frames. Of course there is a problem even with that -- the bumblebee is not at cruising speed in the super slomo shots. I think it would be EXTREMELY difficult to photograph insects at cruising speed, which is what I think we have in Payne's photo.

I'm surprised no one has posted an aerial view of the scene to get a better perspective of what the scene looks like from above. It's surprising.



The above photo is of the Wharf at the Port of Darwin, Australia. In the photo, the camera would have been located to the upper right and aimed to the lower left. At top center (far right in Pryde photo) is the Iron Ore Wharf. The thing that looks like a bridge that cuts across the image is actually an iron ore conveyor that starts at the near end of the iron ore wharf and terminates on land at a point in front of the white structure. There is a vehicle bridge that connects perpendicularly to the iron ore wharf on the right (in Pryde photo) to land on the left (in Pryde photo). It's not exactly clear, but it appears from the aerial photo at the light pole may, in fact, be much farther away than what it appears, possibly as far away as the Fort Hill Wharf off in the distance. In the photo above, the Fort Hill Wharf has a ship docked and is shown in the far lower left corner. Furthermore, there does not appear to be water behind the pole. Visit http://www.darwinport.nt.gov.au/dpa/port_darwin.html for more photos. There's also a PDF that contains a graphic diagram of the scene.

I'm also surprised no one has created a movie of the images to take advantage of "blink comparing" the images. This is an old technique used by astronomers to detect objects that move between two different images. It's how Clyde Tombaugh discovered the planet Pluto. Anyway, I created such a movie using Paint Shop Pro and noticed a few things. The first thing that becomes apparent is movement of the trees and plants and rippling of the water -- there was evidently enough wind to make the trees sway. Which would explain how smoke could disappear between images (in 15 seconds). I was hoping the movie would allow me to pick up subtle shading variations between images that otherwise are not apparent, suggesting that the smoke remained visible in the "after" image. The movie does not show any traces. Finally, there are at least two people on shore on the left side of the image. One was referenced already in this discussion. The other one is standing next to a car under the trees directly below the white structure. Whether this helps is anybody's guess.

I'm not making any conclusions. I'm simply trying to look at the evidence from a different angle to promote more discussion.

Mike Sommars
St. Louis, MO

I found this all very hard to follow. I would say this, though. Your images show huge exaggerations in the jpeg artifacts. It's likely that some of what you're describing is just jpeg artifacts, although, since I don't really follow you, I can't say for sure. For example, despite rereading your post several times, when you say dark, I don't know if you mean light or dark, since you're pictures are really negatives. Also, I don't know what you're referring to when you talk about a dark appendage. It's good that you made diagrams, but it would have been better to have the diagrams labeled. Maybe use letter labels to keep things small....

DC wrote:wow, lots of posts I've not read since I was on yesterday.

Looking at the original images with my improvised color filters, there seems to be some extra structures that need to be explained. The structures are clearly there, but they are also mixed with JPG artifacts. I will describe the structures in relation to the following image which I posted earlier.



I notice three additional features in my images:

1- I am finding that the lower "wing" turns upward at exactly the point where the image intersects the pole, and continues upward until about the level of the bottom of the "abdomen." I'll call this the upswing.

2- It seems to cross under a dark appendage which extends diagonally downward from the "abdomen." I'll call this the dark appendage.

3- The "abdomen" has a large dark area associated with it, centered almost exactly on the top of the pole. I'll call this the dark area.

(I use the word "exactly" for the benefit of the pole theorists)

In filtering for a more bluish wavelength, the dark area becomes apparent, the upswing become highlighted, and the dark appendage appears as a shadow. In filtering for a more reddish wavelength, the dark appendage becomes more highlighted and the upswing and also the initial downward "wing" become a shadow.

The top left image is an inverse of the usual diff image. The top right image is a pre filtered diff which highlights the upswing very clearly, as well as the shadow of the dark appendage. The middle left image shows the dark area, which I diff against a filtered (before + After)/2 to try to show the size of the dark area more clearly in the middle right image. Note that the middle right image is intended to show pixels getting darker, and clip out pixels getting lighter compared with the BefAft image. The middle left image also shows the upswing and shadow of the dark appendage with only color filtering and no contrast enhancement. The bottom image is in a more reddish wavelength as mentioned with no contrast enhancement.

Don't ask me what it means.

BefAft = (before + after)/2;
filter1 is on color vector 60/53/49
"Pos" means negative results clipped out.
Top row images have enhanced contrast, also the second middle row image.

Top Row
1- invert(Pos(BefAft - Event)
2- Invert Pos((Event - Filter1(Event)) - (BefAft - Filter1(BefAft)))

The second frame of the top row

MiddleRow
1- BluishFilter(Event).
2- BluishFilter(BefAft) - BluishFilter(Event) -- as I recall.
The middle row first frame shows a larger dark area with its center at the top of the pole. The second frame is a contrast enhanced Pos Diff with the same wavelength filter of BefAft, with the intent to highlight the size of the dark area.

Bottom row:
ReddishFilter(Event)

Not Likely wrote:

victorengel wrote:

Not Likely wrote:If this really an insect caught by a flash, why are the plants near the camera dark on the side nearest the flash?

These plants are the only objects that would be lit by a flash and I see no evidence of any additional light.

How close are the plants to the camera? How close is the insect to the camera? I don't think you can answer either of these questions. The plant question could be answered with a bit of work, using the known focal length of the camera, sensor size, and plant species. As far as I know, nobody has done this work.

In my opinion, this is the biggest flaw of the insect theory. However, it could be a nonissue depending on what the actual distances turn out to be. If the distance to the plants is long enough, then the flash would not be visible.

The working range of the flash is 0.7 - 5.0m. It looks like they're well within 5m, but the flash is collimated by a light guide and could have been set to a minimum. Nevertheless, I would expect to see something if it had such a significant effect on an insect at an approximately similar distance.

I don't want to sound too supportive of the insect answer but have people considered the possibilty of a firefly. They exist in Darwin, they flash every few seconds, it's getting dark, and they're 5 to 25mm in length. On the negative side is that their flashes are 150ms and up, so it would have to be caught as the shutter closed.

The trees in question are about 15 metres from the camera suggesting the camera was on partial zoom for them to appear so close. that is why they do not show in the flash. As I have stated in a previous post there are plenty of termites flying in the area and the angle of flight and quantity of them, at least twenty per minit make them the ideal culprit. at least two trees flowering behind make a honey bee a possibility as well. The chances of anybody having a missile privately or even getting on to the secure wharf area are minimal. So can be discounted Imediately. Australia has very tight gun control laws so forget about this as impossible.

mlsinstl wrote: I'm also surprised no one has created a movie of the images to take advantage of "blink comparing" the images. This is an old technique used by astronomers to detect objects that move between two different images.

Much easier (if you have a reasonably fast PC) is to open all 3 images in 3 maximised browser windows (or just tabs in Firefox) and hold down Alt-Tab/Ctrl-Tab or Alt-LeftArrow/RightArrow - this causes the pictures to be displayed in sequece (at least under Linux/X11/FVWM/Firefox and Windows2000/Firefox or IE).

victorengel wrote:

Deckham wrote:Couldn't find reference to this anywhere, so here's an observation just for info -

Look underneath the yellowish crane/derrick/thingy towards centre-left of the image. Beneath the crane nearly at the shoreline and slightly further left, there is a very clear image of a person.

In the 'first (or last)' frame, he is turned either directly towards, or away from the camera. In the other two frames, he is side-on.

My brother thinks it's a deer. If he thinks it's a deer, and you think it's a person, I don't think it's clearly anything. It vaguely looks like something.

There was a post long ago clearly showing it was big-foot. Clear proof, I mean!

mlsinstl wrote:I'm surprised no one has posted an aerial view of the scene to get a better perspective of what the scene looks like from above. It's surprising.

That photo was posted something like in pages 10 to 20 ages ago!

Anonymous wrote:

MrMoon wrote:I gamma corrected it and I hope that you finally see and comment it

Are you sure that loop isn't just part of the base of the cloud that's crossed by the trail?

Yes, the loop you point out is interesting though faint. Unfortunately it doesn't appear in any of the diff pictures posted to date. In those the trail is apparent and fairly straight. That would suggest that most of the elements which make up the loop are also present in the before and after photos.

I must congratulate you hazeii in that you are doing excellent work utilizing your meager though adequate resources in support of the insect postulation.

Before we wrap this up I'd like to comment on the other two most probable events:

The exploding bulb
Earlier speculation that a bulb does not explode, but implodes is true. Even a high pressure sodium, which may be in use here, is relative to the strength of the vacuum in other bulbs - not a high positive pressure. But the implosion, on the rare occasion it occurs does rebound [Big Bang] and act as an explosion. No matter - the gas is vented. But not symetrically as seen in the Darwin photo. I don't believe the bulb was physically breached but was just 'burned out'.

Though the color hue of the Omega segment is consistent with an electric arc, and the optics [lamp lens] could have projected the brilliant, death arc, but upon what? The reflection(?) does appear to begin just to the left of the pole, directly under the globe, and fade to the right [the initial flare is just to the right of the camera's optics] as the reflection recedes from us into the distance - but remains equally exposed.

The trail element has no logical explaination which has been remotely demonstrated to a lamp burnout. 'Shadow' sounds most probable but lack of divergence is the best arguement against it. The washing exposure necessary to leave a shadow might actually be in the frame as there is a differing exposure in all three photos coinciding with the setting of the sun. That decreasing light may not have decreased as much as it would have if the lamp exposure hadn't added to it except where we faintly see a shadow.

The arriving meteor
Though some have stated that a meteorite will have no horizontal velocity other than that imparted by the wind does not explain this small, fresh crater at Mbale which appears to indicate a substantial horizontal velocity component:


Additionally, those who speak of friction stripping away meteor material (some even calling this 'vaporization' though vaporization is not merely a misting of the liquid state but a change of the rock state to a true vapor) have not recently studied meteor science. I have discovered much myself these past couple weeks. For instance, the heat necessary to melt the meteor's outer skin is not derived from its friction with the atmosphere, but instead from radiant and conductive heat from the atmospheric shock front ahead of the meteor. The distance between the shock front and the meteor is dependent upon the object's size and is termed standoff shock. This is the science the space tiles are dependent upon. They are extremely fragile and cannot tolerate alot of direct friction with the atmosphere themselves.

And if we had a meteorite of the size at Peeksgill

and traveling at a terrestial speed, though still supersonic, such that the kinetic energy release upon water impact is enough to supply a brief, underwater flaring event with most of the energy transferred to steam. This would have been conciderably less than at cosmic speeds and an annihilating explosion. The effects will be transitory and no effect need be apparent 15 sec. later other than a widening ripple on the water's surface and lost in surface noise from our vantage.

Allow again that there is really very little on actual meteorite arrivals other than to find the remnants years later. New research on meteorites is expanding our knowledge of their composition. As to their transition through the atmosphere, only a few scenarios have, so far, been investigated. The Darwin Event, if it were a meteorite, arrived without much noise, though few are around to hear one brief 'rifle report' announcing its supersonic arrival. Likewise the less than half second event existence of arrival to full stop barely below the water's surface does not seem to have registered enough with anyone to have reported it. Nor is the wisp [whether a trail of material or its light blocking arrival] apparently diminishing into the distance as normal perspective would suggest [unless as the insect theory suggest, the path is much shorter than assumed], though mach speed would mandate a trail something on the order of 1056 feet or greater. (A dark, nighttime arrival may have been dimly luminescent). And noting the impact point is about the same distance offshore as the motorboat, the flare size must be at least 10 feet in diameter. It is noted that the less kinetic energy a projectile has, the larger will be the splash associated as it occurs more shallow than a heavier or faster projectile.

There may be an intact meteorite, a strewn field of smaller fragments, or a piece of air/space craft debris on the bottom directly under this event or for a short distance in its direction of travel. A SCUBA search, formal or recreational, should be undertaken of this area at the earliest convenience of whoever's available.

But thanks to hazeii's fine work I am rapidly moving from my favorite:


Pardon me for all the posts I miss while composing mine.

the thought of checking the floor of Darwin Harbour for meteorite particles is out of the question. No one is going to volunteer for this project without visiting the loony bin after. If the crocodiles or sharks dont get you the Box jellyfish will. Apart from that we are talking about a working wharf with security and live cattle ships loading 16000 head at a time Check here http://www.maldivesculture.com/maldives_dead01.html . With an average rise and fall of thirty foot of tide into a confined estuary. The current past the wharf is very strong, in the order of 8 knots and not anybody is going to get in the water. I think I have made a point, no one is going to check this for you, forget it.

hazeii3 wrote:So, broadly speaking, the kind of setup that gives a good streak-and-blob (in the case of my camera anyway) is an exposure around 1/20th second with the insect about 3 feet away doing 5mph, using 'synchro flash'. With the practice I've had, I can now produce the effect on the majority of pictures taken with my enormously sophisticated (cough) experimental setup...

Also, having now shot a couple of hundred pictures showing the effect, quite a few of them show odd highlights and blobs - for example, in the picture below, the blob just above the trail is a reflection of the flash on the upper wing of the wasp (the lower blob is glare off the supporting wire).

Will you, hazeii, here before the world avow that you are not demonstrating the most obvious solution and perpetrating a hoax upon us?

If so, you seem to have demonstrated the validity of all three elements in the insect theory.

Your family, sheep & pets
. . . . . .

Mr. Pryde was motivated enough to get his 3 photos into the Darwin newspaper, the tv news and APOD, yet is "too busy" to keep up with the
forums or provide further information. One observer to the scene described
flying ants "in plauge," or to that effect. There ere 35 other photos. Do they
show bugs and streaks? Is Mr. Pryde putting us on by showing just the one
that also looks like a trajectory and stike?

victorengel wrote:

Deckham wrote:Couldn't find reference to this anywhere, so here's an observation just for info -

Look underneath the yellowish crane/derrick/thingy towards centre-left of the image. Beneath the crane nearly at the shoreline and slightly further left, there is a very clear image of a person.

In the 'first (or last)' frame, he is turned either directly towards, or away from the camera. In the other two frames, he is side-on.

My brother thinks it's a deer. If he thinks it's a deer, and you think it's a person, I don't think it's clearly anything. It vaguely looks like something.

Well victorengel - I'd have to say that your brother forgets that there are no wandering deer in Darwin

I only posted that because I was flicking through the 3 images in rapid succession to help me see any oddities - and there a quite a few.

In fact, I started to post that the 'bug' frame is slightly sharper than the other two. I was convinced of this, and suspected doctoring. Then, I opened up trusty Photoshop, and made 3 zooms of various thin, vertical objects - but couldn't notice any difference. Which was a real downer, since I thought I was about to become a recognised genuis.

Instead, I wiped the acumulated sweat off my monitor, sat back, and played Tetris.

I guess that you are not a scientist. In a good scientific discussion
you should point out uncertainties in the evidence and the assumptions
that you are making.

Can't use my Bad Buoy wrote:

Ernst Lippe wrote:There are several possible explanations: and you give four

The important question here is: could a bug cause a picture like this.
It is not important which of these explanations is true. They are
all perfectly reasonable explanations and if you wanted to raise
a serious counter argument you should show that neither of them
can explain the observed effect.

most of us don't really know how a flying insect looks in a flash photo. that's why we need to continue this discussion with some simple, logical experiments

Not really, this picture is sufficiently similar to other pictures
of flying insects (especially the "flying rods").

Virtually all? insects can and do fly in straight lines. But most people will probably miss insects that are flying longer distances. Actually, the only time when there are not flying in straight lines is when they are searching (e.g. for food), and there is probably nothing interesting for an insect near the camera because it is located at the coast. if so uninteresting, why do any insects live at the coast at all?

Insects form the largest group in the animal kingdom, so it is very
difficult to make statements about "all" insects. Insects do live on
the coast of course, but in most cases they will avoid the sea. So
like migrating birds they tend to follow the coast line when they
encounter the sea on their journey.

Anyhow, the point is that insects can and do fly in
almost straight lines.

Anyhow the actual length of the streak is at most a few meters (and probably much less)

We don't know if the flash occured ...We still
don't know how fast the flash was. If it was indeed 1/1000 s the
movement blur should have been greater than it is in the picture (assuming
that the insect moves at a uniform speed demonstrations
needed).

No, some simple observations on the image are sufficient. The total
length of the streak is approximately 1100 pixels, when the flash
lasted 1 ms the length of the motion blur should be 22 pixels and
that is more than we see in the picture.

But even a flash of 1/2000 s is short enough to be consistent with the observed motion blur experimentation needed. Now the minimum exposure time of this camera is 1/2000 s, and it seems reasonable to assume that the flash should also be able to handle this. 10usec to 1 millisecond

There is nothing unreasonable about this assumption, it fits very
well with other data about flash lengths.

We don't know the size of the insect, and it is also very difficult to say how far removed it was from the camera. experimentation needed

Why? It really does not matter whether this effect was caused by
a small bug at a short distance or by a larger bug at a larger
distance.

But even a very short
path (say 0.1 m) would cause the streak if the insect is close
enough.demonstration called for

This is obvious if you know enough about the physics involved in
photography.

We don't know the orientation of the insect.

But it does not really matter, in either orientation it is
possible that an insect could have caused this image.

Your comments were full of alot of what we don't yet know, assumptions, and 'what ifs'

But that is how true science works, it sounds as though you are not really
comfortable with it.

Anyhow, all of the assumptions of the bug theory seem perfectly reasonable,
unlike the assumptions of the rival theories.
There would only be a pressing need for further investigation
if some of these assumptions were very unlikely.

Ernst Lippe wrote:Anyhow, all of the assumptions of the bug theory seem perfectly reasonable, unlike the assumptions of the rival theories.
There would only be a pressing need for further investigation if some of these assumptions were very unlikely.

NOTHING is proven with assumptions
but we do see the insect theory to be highly probable.

Somebody asked for a fake image

I've done this in about 15 minutes from the "after" picture.
It's not perfect, but I wouldn't waste more time on that.

Can't use my Bad Buoy wrote:NOTHING is proven with assumptions
but we do see the insect theory to be highly probable.

Scientist never prove their theories, all they can do
is show that these theories are probable because they are
consistent with available data.

I am not a visible light expert at all. However, Being from Florida in the USA, we see many rainbows that form in front of cloud systems such as the one pictured. It could be that there is just enough sunlight to display light being broken apart from moisture in the atmosphere. However, with limited light passing through the water droplets, only a single piece of the dark end of the spectrum is visible. An alternative light supply could be if the light on the pole blew between frames, yet there was still just enough light to pass through the droplets when this frame was taken to display the same results.

Rob wrote:

Not Likely wrote:

victorengel wrote: How close are the plants to the camera? How close is the insect to the camera? I don't think you can answer either of these questions. The plant question could be answered with a bit of work, using the known focal length of the camera, sensor size, and plant species. As far as I know, nobody has done this work.

In my opinion, this is the biggest flaw of the insect theory. However, it could be a nonissue depending on what the actual distances turn out to be. If the distance to the plants is long enough, then the flash would not be visible.

The working range of the flash is 0.7 - 5.0m. It looks like they're well within 5m, but the flash is collimated by a light guide and could have been set to a minimum. Nevertheless, I would expect to see something if it had such a significant effect on an insect at an approximately similar distance.

I don't want to sound too supportive of the insect answer but have people considered the possibilty of a firefly. They exist in Darwin, they flash every few seconds, it's getting dark, and they're 5 to 25mm in length. On the negative side is that their flashes are 150ms and up, so it would have to be caught as the shutter closed.

The trees in question are about 15 metres from the camera suggesting the camera was on partial zoom for them to appear so close. that is why they do not show in the flash. As I have stated in a previous post there are plenty of termites flying in the area and the angle of flight and quantity of them, at least twenty per minit make them the ideal culprit. at least two trees flowering behind make a honey bee a possibility as well. The chances of anybody having a missile privately or even getting on to the secure wharf area are minimal. So can be discounted Imediately. Australia has very tight gun control laws so forget about this as impossible.

Thanks for finding the distance. I guess that would explain the lack of a visible effect.

I have no idea what your statement about missiles has to do with this post and I am well aware of Australia's gun control laws, etc. It seems this comment was related to another post somewhere in the 100 and such pages.

Anonymous wrote: Well victorengel - I'd have to say that your brother forgets that there are no wandering deer in Darwin

Yes, I know. Actually, I should have said he thinks it looks like a deer. He knows very well there are no deer in Australia.

victorengel wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Well victorengel - I'd have to say that your brother forgets that there are no wandering deer in Darwin

Yes, I know. Actually, I should have said he thinks it looks like a deer. He knows very well there are no deer in Australia.

Actually there are a few species of deer in Australia - all are introduced. But none around Darwin. The termites eat them all.