You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
mutilated cattle anyone?
- Thread starter Xevious
- Start date
John MacNeil
Registered Senior Member
Exactly what journals are you talking about, Hans?
I just listed a book written by a high official in the pentagon, which includes U.S. government documents released through the FOIA, and of which the forward was written by the long serving U.S. Senator, Strom Thurmond. Instead of just calling 'Fake!' to what everyone writes, why don't you go and read the book and then tell us whether or not you believe the people in authority and your reasons for whatever opinion you will then have.
I just listed a book written by a high official in the pentagon, which includes U.S. government documents released through the FOIA, and of which the forward was written by the long serving U.S. Senator, Strom Thurmond. Instead of just calling 'Fake!' to what everyone writes, why don't you go and read the book and then tell us whether or not you believe the people in authority and your reasons for whatever opinion you will then have.
Exactly what journals are you talking about, Hans?
Nature, Lancet, New Scientist, etc.
Those independent scientists at NIDSCI, if they have made some qualified research, that is the way to get it internationally recognized: Publish the report where other scientists can read it, review it, and possible verify it. Thats the way the scientific world works, didnt you know?
*snip* which the forward was written by the long serving U.S. Senator, Strom Thurmond. Instead of just calling 'Fake!' to what everyone writes, why don't you go and read the book and then tell us whether or not you believe the people in authority *snip*
Im a little puzzled here: First you say that the government is covering up, unreliable, and full of fraud, next you say I must respect the authority of a long servicing Senator ..... which is it?
Hans
John MacNeil
Registered Senior Member
You must have missed the part where I said the government wants to "gradually" release information. Meaning they want to do it slowly so that people will have time to adjust to the idea that the government actually was keeping secrets about some events and now they don't want to be quite so secret anymore. If they published in Nature and New Scientist and other such publications, then that would be a "rapid" release of information, which must not suit their purposes just yet.
If you see the information that they do let out, like Col. Corso's book about reverse engineering recovered material from Roswell, astronaut Edgar Mitchell saying in an interview that they saw alien spacecraft when they were in space, and President Jimmy Carter saying on Larry King Live on CNN that he saw a UFO when he was governor of Georgia, then the pieces start to make a recognizable picture.
If you see the information that they do let out, like Col. Corso's book about reverse engineering recovered material from Roswell, astronaut Edgar Mitchell saying in an interview that they saw alien spacecraft when they were in space, and President Jimmy Carter saying on Larry King Live on CNN that he saw a UFO when he was governor of Georgia, then the pieces start to make a recognizable picture.
Im not talking of government, Im talking of those independent scientists.
"Gradually" reveal they've been lying??? Come on, you cant be a little bit pregnant. Once you admit you've been lying thats it. ---- I still dont know if you think government people are reliable sources or not. If they've gradually stopped lying, how do you know which ones to trust?
But, forget it, I'm not meaning to troll you, let's instead discuss the logic of this; do you say these aliens travelled all the way through deep space to snip parts off random cattle?
Hans
"Gradually" reveal they've been lying??? Come on, you cant be a little bit pregnant. Once you admit you've been lying thats it. ---- I still dont know if you think government people are reliable sources or not. If they've gradually stopped lying, how do you know which ones to trust?
But, forget it, I'm not meaning to troll you, let's instead discuss the logic of this; do you say these aliens travelled all the way through deep space to snip parts off random cattle?
Hans
John MacNeil
Registered Senior Member
The independent scientists are the ones who work for independent research firms like www.nidsci.org/ . And, by the way, all scientists can review nidsci's work and read their published material. What makes you think they can't?
The scientists you are referring to are the least independent scientists. If they want to keep their jobs and research grants then they must follow the rules and sign non-disclosure contracts. The journals you quoted are owned by the largest publishing conglomerates in the world, so they are certainly not independent. Nature, for instance, is owned by the Macmillan Publishers Ltd. That Harold Macmillan who owned it was the Prime Minister of England, so you could hardly say it was without bias. There are five people who own virtually all the major print publishing in the world, which includes everything from science books, and school textbooks to newspapers and magazines and everything in between. That means that a handful of people who are directly associated with the government control all the media that just about everybody reads. So you can be sure that if you are hearing about regulated releases of information from the mainstream media that relate to alien spaceships, then that is their plan to release the information in such a moderated fashion.
As for the space people coming all this way to demonstrate advanced surgical techniques on animals in such a manner that no one can figure out how they are doing it? I think it must be part of an acclimatization process. While we think it's a long way to travel to visit a planet with life on it, to them it is probably just regular travel. Just a hundred and fifty year ago it was a big deal for people to travel to the next town. Now we fly around the world in the same day.
You just have to keep things in perspective. For all we know the space people might have a base in the moon or a space station behind Jupitor, so maybe they aren't doing so much travelling back and forth. How are we supposed to tell? We haven't gone back to the moon in thirty year. Is there a reason for that? I read someplace that the astronauts were scared away from the moon by something. Is there some other reason why they wouldn't cruise out there in the space shuttle? If they could go out there several time in a tiny capsule, then they should be able to zip out there in comfort in the space shuttle. You can be sure the only thing to do in space isn't to keep flying around the planet growing crystals.
The scientists you are referring to are the least independent scientists. If they want to keep their jobs and research grants then they must follow the rules and sign non-disclosure contracts. The journals you quoted are owned by the largest publishing conglomerates in the world, so they are certainly not independent. Nature, for instance, is owned by the Macmillan Publishers Ltd. That Harold Macmillan who owned it was the Prime Minister of England, so you could hardly say it was without bias. There are five people who own virtually all the major print publishing in the world, which includes everything from science books, and school textbooks to newspapers and magazines and everything in between. That means that a handful of people who are directly associated with the government control all the media that just about everybody reads. So you can be sure that if you are hearing about regulated releases of information from the mainstream media that relate to alien spaceships, then that is their plan to release the information in such a moderated fashion.
As for the space people coming all this way to demonstrate advanced surgical techniques on animals in such a manner that no one can figure out how they are doing it? I think it must be part of an acclimatization process. While we think it's a long way to travel to visit a planet with life on it, to them it is probably just regular travel. Just a hundred and fifty year ago it was a big deal for people to travel to the next town. Now we fly around the world in the same day.
You just have to keep things in perspective. For all we know the space people might have a base in the moon or a space station behind Jupitor, so maybe they aren't doing so much travelling back and forth. How are we supposed to tell? We haven't gone back to the moon in thirty year. Is there a reason for that? I read someplace that the astronauts were scared away from the moon by something. Is there some other reason why they wouldn't cruise out there in the space shuttle? If they could go out there several time in a tiny capsule, then they should be able to zip out there in comfort in the space shuttle. You can be sure the only thing to do in space isn't to keep flying around the planet growing crystals.
John wonders:
We haven't gone back to the moon in thirty year. Is there a reason for that? I read someplace that the astronauts were scared away from the moon by something. Is there some other reason why they wouldn't cruise out there in the space shuttle?
http://www.johncscifisite.com/augpics/bigtycho.jpg
We haven't gone back to the moon in thirty year. Is there a reason for that? I read someplace that the astronauts were scared away from the moon by something. Is there some other reason why they wouldn't cruise out there in the space shuttle?
http://www.johncscifisite.com/augpics/bigtycho.jpg
As for the space people coming all this way to demonstrate advanced surgical techniques on animals in such a manner that no one can figure out how they are doing it? I think it must be part of an acclimatization process.
What space people? You are assuming a priori that there ARE space people, then fitting observations to that. Those "impossible to understand" techniques were also reported in the US, till some people made some serieous reserach on the cases, then it turned out they weren't that mysterious after all. Now they moved to Brazil (isnt it Brazil?). What I'm saying is that I miss evidence that there ARE space people involved, and I am waiting for verification that these new mutilations are so mysterious.
--- I dont think we're gonna get much further with this-
Hans
John MacNeil
Registered Senior Member
I hope you don't take this in the wrong way, Hans, but are you dyslexic? Or partially dyslexic?
You seem to ignore all the real evidence and focus on the trivial. Like a skeptic. Or like someone who's job it is to act like a skeptic. I'm sure that comparison is just a coincidence, though, since no one would bother wasting their time trying to convince intelligent people that scientific evidence isn't scientific evidence. Seeing that you are ignoring all the real evidence, why don't you tell us exactly who these people are who did "serious research" so we can straighten you out on that. And you might as well include the cases they studied, while you're at it, so we can compare them to real cases and reinforce our position.
You seem to ignore all the real evidence and focus on the trivial. Like a skeptic. Or like someone who's job it is to act like a skeptic. I'm sure that comparison is just a coincidence, though, since no one would bother wasting their time trying to convince intelligent people that scientific evidence isn't scientific evidence. Seeing that you are ignoring all the real evidence, why don't you tell us exactly who these people are who did "serious research" so we can straighten you out on that. And you might as well include the cases they studied, while you're at it, so we can compare them to real cases and reinforce our position.
I hope you don't take this in the wrong way, Hans, but are you dyslexic? Or partially dyslexic?
No, dont worry John, it takes more to make me personally offended. I just take it that its your nature to abuse people who disagree with you. I was going to refer you to the beginning of this thread, where much of the references are, thinking that you were a newcomer, but reviewing it, I notice that you were here from the start, so you must just have overlooked the reference to the FBI report that is mentioned already in the title of the thread. But I dont mind repeating it for you:
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0597/romindex.htm
Lets say you read it and return with comments about where you find it unscientific, then in the meantime, I read more of the NDIS reports, and I will comment on them (I may need a couple of days).
That aside lets see :
You seem to ignore all the real evidence and focus on the trivial. Like a skeptic. Or like someone who's job it is to act like a skeptic. I'm sure that comparison is just a coincidence, though, since no one would bother wasting their time trying to convince intelligent people that scientific evidence isn't scientific evidence. Seeing that you are ignoring all the real evidence, why don't you tell us exactly who these people are who did "serious research" so we can straighten you out on that. And you might as well include the cases they studied, while you're at it, so we can compare them to real cases and reinforce our position.
Skeptic: I reread the definition you were kind enough to provide somewhere, and I agree I'm probably a skeptic, at least I dont accept everything simply because its "common knowledge". Lots of things that used to be "common knowledge" has been proved wrong over the years.
I dont know what you mean by "ignore evidence", I have specifically pointed out evidence.
Scientific evidence is scientific evidence, but not all evidence is scientific.
OK, I supplied you with the references (again), please read it before you "straighten me out".
Hans
OK, I have now been through some of the NIDS material. I cant quite make up my mind about these people. Despite the official-sounding name, NIDS is a purely private organisation, which can of course be fine, and they seem to have an educated and scientific attitude to their subject.
Perhaps some insight can be gained from looking at their mission statement:
I've made a few words bold: In plain language that means some thing like "finding evidence for ideas". Again there doesnt have to be anything wrong with that, but we're appoaching thin ice. The problem is that if you look for certain data, you are apt to overlook things that contradict your idea. This happens to everybody, even the best scientists, thats one reason the principle of peer-review has been introduced.
There are a number of case descriptions,and transscripts of questioning of witnesses. The testimony of those witnesses is rather incoherent and quite full of preconceived opinions, but to be fair, NIDS doesnt offer any conclusions directly based on it. Their interrogation methods are not entirely scientific, though, on several occasions putting answers into the mouth of the witness.
There is a page trying to sum up facts, but they tend to jump to conclusions or hint at conclusions for which there is really no basis. For example:
Ehhh, where do lasers come into the picture? What instrument is better for making surgical incisions than a good, sharp knife?
Then when there is no new evidence, there is always the old:
Talk about whipping a dead horse. That Idaho horse keeps popping up. Isnt there something newer? BTW the Idaho horse
is being dealt with in the FBI report I have linked to elsewhere.
Anecdotical science? This is very interesting, but anecdotical information is not and will never be science. The phrase "anecdotical reports indicate --" translates into "based on hearsay, we assume --"
Without some documentation, thats anecdotical too. And how can you categorically rule out theft?
Well for their final conclusion, there's some sober and sound scientific statements, no problem there --- except that the short for the above is: "There hasnt really been collected any reliabla data, so any serious conclusions must wait pending further investigation." And not even a hint about extraterristials.
So it is not even clear if we have a cattle mutilation phenomenon. Once that eventually gets cleared up, and is positive, then we need to speculate about who is doing it. Then, only then can we speculate about aliens; but that requires that we have also collected some data that makes it at least probable that we are being visited regularly and secretly by aliens.
Hans
Perhaps some insight can be gained from looking at their mission statement:
The National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) is a privately funded, private sector research organization focusing on empirical and hypothesis-based scientific exploration of aerial phenomena that expand conventional knowledge.
I've made a few words bold: In plain language that means some thing like "finding evidence for ideas". Again there doesnt have to be anything wrong with that, but we're appoaching thin ice. The problem is that if you look for certain data, you are apt to overlook things that contradict your idea. This happens to everybody, even the best scientists, thats one reason the principle of peer-review has been introduced.
There are a number of case descriptions,and transscripts of questioning of witnesses. The testimony of those witnesses is rather incoherent and quite full of preconceived opinions, but to be fair, NIDS doesnt offer any conclusions directly based on it. Their interrogation methods are not entirely scientific, though, on several occasions putting answers into the mouth of the witness.
There is a page trying to sum up facts, but they tend to jump to conclusions or hint at conclusions for which there is really no basis. For example:
In some instances, the edges of the remaining skin looked so regularly serrated that it could not be caused by a predators’ bite or tearing.(8) For example, portions of 20-25 cm skin edges were straight and regularly serrated, which suggests the use of an instrument. What kind of surgical instruments could have been used to leave this kind of cut?
In some cases, it was suspected that laser beams were used.(7,8) However, with currently available laser technology, cutting a 3-5 mm thick cow hide would require equipment weighing several thousand pounds. How could that equipment have been deployed and used in usually remote areas without being seen or leaving tracks in the surrounding environment?
Ehhh, where do lasers come into the picture? What instrument is better for making surgical incisions than a good, sharp knife?
Then when there is no new evidence, there is always the old:
Some reports have stated that blood was missing from the body or was only present in small amounts. In 1971, an Idaho veterinarian necropsied a purportedly mutilated horse and found that all internal organs, including the heart and the lungs, had been completely desiccated.(8) At necropsy, by compressing parenchymal tissues such as liver, lung, and kidney, one would expect that a certain amount of blood is expressed even if post-mortem coagulation or hemolysis had occurred. This is true under normal conditions when animals die without being exsanguinated. If massive ante-mortem bleeding had taken place, these organs would appear pale and the amount of blood obtained by compression is significantly reduced. But if there is no indication of extensive internal or external hemorrhage which is capable of draining blood from the circulatory system, then the lack of blood looks peculiar.
Talk about whipping a dead horse. That Idaho horse keeps popping up. Isnt there something newer? BTW the Idaho horse
is being dealt with in the FBI report I have linked to elsewhere.
Anecdotal reports from ranchers indicate that after an animal has been mutilated the rest of the herd behaves strangely and will keep their distance from the carcass for days. They look afraid and are in visible distress. A Utah rancher reported that the horse he was riding became very nervous when it saw a mutilated cow. The horse started to snort and would not go near the cow.
Anecdotical science? This is very interesting, but anecdotical information is not and will never be science. The phrase "anecdotical reports indicate --" translates into "based on hearsay, we assume --"
In the last couple of years, there have been some reports of disappearance of large numbers of animals under circumstances in which theft was ruled out by authorities.
Without some documentation, thats anecdotical too. And how can you categorically rule out theft?
In order to answer these questions, thorough clinical, morpho-pathological and laboratory examinations need to be conducted. Only by carefully analyzing the results of such scientific research can pertinent conclusions be drawn. By looking for intimate changes in tissues from mutilated animals, down to cell and molecular levels, can valuable findings be correlated to help us define what in fact had happened to these animals. The first requirement to accomplish such a goal is to have necropsies performed as soon as possible after the animals’ death, and to have proper tissue samples collected for complex laboratory analyses. The second requirement is to perform an expanded array of tests when the animal tissue samples are in pristine condition. No matter what the outcome of an in-depth research on animal mutilations would be, economic losses and ranchers’ worries make searching for the answers to these questions perfectly justified.
An important conclusion from a recent National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) survey indicates that necropsies were never performed and samples were not collected for laboratory analysis on any of the reported animal mutilation cases. This suggests an urgent need for veterinarians involvement in investigating animal mutilations.
Well for their final conclusion, there's some sober and sound scientific statements, no problem there --- except that the short for the above is: "There hasnt really been collected any reliabla data, so any serious conclusions must wait pending further investigation." And not even a hint about extraterristials.
So it is not even clear if we have a cattle mutilation phenomenon. Once that eventually gets cleared up, and is positive, then we need to speculate about who is doing it. Then, only then can we speculate about aliens; but that requires that we have also collected some data that makes it at least probable that we are being visited regularly and secretly by aliens.
Hans
John MacNeil
Registered Senior Member
That link to "parascope" was such a childish work of fiction that I'm surprised they didn't hire a real science fiction writer to script it. An investigator with ten year experience battling the arch enemy Russians? Don't you guys ever get tired of using those same old cliches? The investigator told everything about himself except what he takes for constipation, and yet he didn't reveal his name? You guys should figure out that when you want an investigative report to be taken seriously, you make it concise and to the point. Your rambling, six chapter mini-fiction novel wouldn't hardly be accepted in the pulp fiction magazines, which is perhaps where the author of it hopes to eventually get published.
"The principle of peer review has been introduced."--Hans
Is that the same peer review which we've already linked to the highest echelon of government?
"What instrument is better for making surgical incisions than a good, sharp knife?"--Hans
Have you even read any of the reports at www.nidsci.org/ ? Or did you just pick out parts of the preamble that you thought might make you seem like you knew what you were talking about?
Maybe you should take a look at some of these before making your mind up completely about your revised view of cattle mutilation phenomena:
www.rense.com/general26/catmut.htm
www.rense.com/general26/200.htm
www.rense.com/general26/argentinecattle.htm
www.rense.com/general26/mains.htm
"The principle of peer review has been introduced."--Hans
Is that the same peer review which we've already linked to the highest echelon of government?
"What instrument is better for making surgical incisions than a good, sharp knife?"--Hans
Have you even read any of the reports at www.nidsci.org/ ? Or did you just pick out parts of the preamble that you thought might make you seem like you knew what you were talking about?
Maybe you should take a look at some of these before making your mind up completely about your revised view of cattle mutilation phenomena:
www.rense.com/general26/catmut.htm
www.rense.com/general26/200.htm
www.rense.com/general26/argentinecattle.htm
www.rense.com/general26/mains.htm
Last edited:
Have you even read any of the reports at www.nidsci.org/ ? Or did you just pick out parts of the preamble that you thought might make you seem like you knew what you were talking about?
. Your rambling, six chapter mini-fiction novel wouldn't hardly be accepted in the pulp fiction magazines, which is perhaps where the author of it hopes to eventually get published.
Well, I have to conclude that you didnt bother to read it, or else you dont know a thing about how investigation reports are done. Of course I cannot know if the report is pure fabrication, but that is true of everything we are dealing with here. Unless you have personally investigated a case, you have assume that reports are at least not intentionally untrue.
Is that the same peer review which we've already linked to the highest echelon of government?
You havent the slightest idea what I'm talking about, right? You dont know the first thing about how the scientific world works. While your childish style of using insults instead of argumentation dosnt bother me seriously, I find its a waste of time, so I wont bother to try to explain to you what peer review is. If you want to know, you can look it up, if not, its not my problem.
If you should ever want to discuss some subject in a serious manner, I'm ready, but I have better uses for my time than this.
Hans
John MacNeil
Registered Senior Member
Thanks for warning me about Rense, Xevious. I'll be sure to cross-check their articles until I know for sure what they stand for. I actually just came across them in the last few day while going through the abundance of material on the current wave of cattle mutilations in Argentina. I'll post a few more interesting links here on the subject and hope they are more acceptable.
The first is from Earthfiles.com and it is about the cattle mutilations in Argentina before the government began putting the lid on publication and the next one is from the same source after the government restricted information. The comaprison between the articles is informative as well as amusing.
www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=361&category=Environment
www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=366&category=Environment
What's interesting about that sequence is that it has happened before where at first the information gets out and then the censorship begins when the big boys get wind of it. Here's another example of people in official positions at first being cooperative.
www.ob1.com/fyfecow.html
The first is from Earthfiles.com and it is about the cattle mutilations in Argentina before the government began putting the lid on publication and the next one is from the same source after the government restricted information. The comaprison between the articles is informative as well as amusing.
www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=361&category=Environment
www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=366&category=Environment
What's interesting about that sequence is that it has happened before where at first the information gets out and then the censorship begins when the big boys get wind of it. Here's another example of people in official positions at first being cooperative.
www.ob1.com/fyfecow.html
Last edited:
Roswell was the same way. That's another reason why Hans, that I will take the word of say a New Mexico State Police Officer. He's not part of the big government - he's just in charge of his little courner.
Sherrifs are like that. At the standoff at Ruby Ridge for example, ATF and US Marshalls wanted to set up on the properties of nearby ranchers. Those that refused told ATF agents that they would be shot for tresspassing if they stepped foot on their properties, and the local Sherrif informed them that local police would protect the property owners if they did.
Even the Government has it's limits.
Sherrifs are like that. At the standoff at Ruby Ridge for example, ATF and US Marshalls wanted to set up on the properties of nearby ranchers. Those that refused told ATF agents that they would be shot for tresspassing if they stepped foot on their properties, and the local Sherrif informed them that local police would protect the property owners if they did.
Even the Government has it's limits.
John MacNeil
Registered Senior Member
Xevious,
I read through my previous post in this thread and noticed that the word 'cattle' was changed to the word 'crop' in one of the paragraphs. In Mr.G.'s thread in Science And Society, in which I am currently engaged in the discussion, Q pointed out to me that one of the addresses I posted was not working. I went back and changed that address with a different one and when I later went back to check to see if it was working still, it was different. So I am wondering, does anyone at Sciforums have the ability to change the wording of my posts without me knowing about it?
I read through my previous post in this thread and noticed that the word 'cattle' was changed to the word 'crop' in one of the paragraphs. In Mr.G.'s thread in Science And Society, in which I am currently engaged in the discussion, Q pointed out to me that one of the addresses I posted was not working. I went back and changed that address with a different one and when I later went back to check to see if it was working still, it was different. So I am wondering, does anyone at Sciforums have the ability to change the wording of my posts without me knowing about it?
I lived for years along the front slope of the Colorado Rockies. Lights were always seen in the sky on the nights of the mutilations. A sheriff, up near Greeley or Fort Collins, was so familiar with this one large particular light that he named it "Big Bertha." Mutilations always ensued.
I drove cross-country many times. In 1978, a busy period for mutilations, I was driving across Nebraska, heading east in the middle of the night. You could go hours without seeing another car or truck in those days. I happened to look out the driver's side glass(north) and noticed a particularly bright star, the brightest in the sky that close to the horizon. It seemed amusing as whenever I looked north, there was the exact same white, unblinking star, at the same position relative to the car window, while obviously moving eastward at the exact same speed I was(passing other stars and visible terrain)...after maybe an hour or 90 mins., I stopped the car right there on the shoulder of I-80 and exited the car. The light stopped moving, as well.I watched it stop... I started driving again (mint 1968 Buick Sportwagon-400 cubes), speeding up(100-120 mph) and slowing down, stopping a few times more, always with that damn light exactly at the same spot relative to my view out the side window. It got to the point, several hours into this strangeness, where I began trying to signal this thing with my headlights (brights, low-beams, off, blinking)and after, I can't really say, five hours minimum, I took a look out the window and it was gone, and my amusement was replaced with a permanent sense of weird awe.
I drove cross-country many times. In 1978, a busy period for mutilations, I was driving across Nebraska, heading east in the middle of the night. You could go hours without seeing another car or truck in those days. I happened to look out the driver's side glass(north) and noticed a particularly bright star, the brightest in the sky that close to the horizon. It seemed amusing as whenever I looked north, there was the exact same white, unblinking star, at the same position relative to the car window, while obviously moving eastward at the exact same speed I was(passing other stars and visible terrain)...after maybe an hour or 90 mins., I stopped the car right there on the shoulder of I-80 and exited the car. The light stopped moving, as well.I watched it stop... I started driving again (mint 1968 Buick Sportwagon-400 cubes), speeding up(100-120 mph) and slowing down, stopping a few times more, always with that damn light exactly at the same spot relative to my view out the side window. It got to the point, several hours into this strangeness, where I began trying to signal this thing with my headlights (brights, low-beams, off, blinking)and after, I can't really say, five hours minimum, I took a look out the window and it was gone, and my amusement was replaced with a permanent sense of weird awe.
Last edited: