A really bad day. Attacked by sharks and lions.

Picture it, the coast of Angola around 1993.

So this guy is surfing and he gets bitten by sharks twice.

He makes it back to the shore, and crawls back to his car.

Then he starts driving, and after hours he feels de-hydrated.

So he sees some water, and lies on a rock.

Then he gets attacked by a male lion.

He fights it off with a stick, but on the way to the car he gets attacked by a whole pride of lions.

Anyway, here the story:

This also bothered me, as far good days/bad days are concerned.

So I'm entering the cue, which is more like a sugar addict's maze at the pharmacy.
So yeah, going through the passage, and the next thing, an elderly lady with a trolley.

And she moves a bit, but there's not enough space for me to pass.
To compound this, there's also a wire-shelf between her trolley and the wall.

I'm looking at her like she's nuts (which I think she was).
So I squeeze through, but to no avail, my rucksack threw some Chocolate pencils or whatever on the floor.

I still picked them up, while she loudly crowed: "What's Your Problem"?

Just keep walking.

a reply to: halfoldman

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't have responded to her either, but I'm sure I would've given her a dirty look. (which is something I've been accused of when I was just looking at someone normally, so an actual dirty look probably comes across pretty good to a stranger.)



Regarding the shark/lion attack guy: It may have been a bad day, but it sure does seem like he was pretty dam lucky.

The main question I have about that is: Why the hell didn't he have water in his car? I always have water in my car. Especially if I'm going somewhere remote and alone, I'll have enough water for a couple days..... just because.

a reply to: halfoldman

That's a bit like taking the car to get cigs on a cold morning and get overrun by a silent EV that does not see you because of the exhaust gases from your combustion powered car that obfuscates you.

"Oh stop being such a drama-queen.

It could have been much worse.

You're lucky there weren't any crocodiles".

Any reason to believe this story?

originally posted by: whereislogic
Any reason to believe this story?

A guy re-telling an outrageous story he heard at some point, about some guy he doesn't know, that happened a long time ago, and even though it involves a couple different locations, there were no witnesses...... Of course it happened exactly as stated.




However, I would have liked to hear the 'victims' wife's version of events during that time period. It almost sounds like the type of story some guy might tell his wife after he disappeared for a couple days on a drunken bender. He may have gone to a strip club and blew all his money, ended up getting lost and sleeping in the desert, then repeatedly injured himself falling down hills while trying to pee. But of course he couldn't actually remember all of the precise details so he filled in the blanks with some slight exaggerations.

OK we get it, narratives are questionable, just like Genesis or Revelations.
But we're just chitty-chatty.
Cookie anyone?

a reply to: halfoldman

What about the Bhagavad-Gita?
Oh that is absolutely true, or we can't be friends.

originally posted by: halfoldman
OK we get it, narratives are questionable...

ALWAYS. That's why we're here.

originally posted by: halfoldman
Picture it, the coast of Angola around 1993.

So this guy is surfing and he gets bitten by sharks twice.

He makes it back to the shore, and crawls back to his car.

Then he starts driving, and after hours he feels de-hydrated.

So he sees some water, and lies on a rock.

Then he gets attacked by a male lion.

He fights it off with a stick, but on the way to the car he gets attacked by a whole pride of lions.

Anyway, here the story:

Hey, i found that channel some months ago, i love that channel man.

a reply to: everyone

Everyone says, that particular narrative is fake.
But knowing the unbeaten tracks, and how quickly one can be in the bush here, it sounds very plausible to me.

a reply to: halfoldman

I agree. It is in Angola and he was a 1 hour drive away from any help. If anyone goes for a hour long walk over there in the middle of nowhere then it is not unlikely that you end up walking into the path of a Lion and its family.

I guess it is just to easy to say that its not real.

originally posted by: halfoldman
a reply to: everyone

... it sounds very plausible to me.

I had a feeling that was the main reason for you, or that that was what someone was going to point out after raising the obvious question.

I of course was just sharing my first impression, the first thought that came to my mind after briefly skimming through the video to see if there might have been another reason and reading the comments to see if anyone else was wondering the same thing or expressing some skepticism.

edit: I actually read the comments first, then began wondering why nobody seemed* to question the story in that manner, and whether there was a reason for that in the video (other than it sounding plausible). Because the video was rather long, I figured I'd raise the question for those who had seen the whole video, in case I missed something. *: maybe someone did (for themselves) but it felt uncomfortable expressing any doubts (perhaps because of previous reactions on ATS to those type of doubts or expressed skepticism regarding something someone else has posted, who may feel that those kind of doubts are unwelcome, or otherwise unpleasant or unbecoming).

Since the topic came up (pardon if it's too off-topic), has anyone noticed that skepticism regarding the Genesis narrative may be more welcome in some circles than regarding certain other narratives, such as the evolutionary narrative (including what is termed cosmic evolution and the chemical evolution of life, a.k.a. abiogenesis, as it stands in contrast to the Genesis narrative). Take for example the so-called Skeptic Society, I've seen some videos on youtube concerning meetings of these self-styled skeptics, but they never seem to be as skeptical about the evolutionary narrative as they are about the Genesis narrative, or concerning the topic of the existence of God. I've never seen them raise the type of questions regarding the evolutionary narrative as you would get from those writing articles such as these (I'll bold some of the questions with a bit of background, if it's not a question, the bolding is from the article; the numbers are references that I won't list now, likewise, I won't do all the footnotes):

Evolution—Myths and Facts (Was Life Created?)

“Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist.16 Of course, experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?

Before answering that question, we need to clear up something. Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. For example, humans can selectively breed dogs so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears.* Some scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.”

However, evolutionists teach that small changes accumulated slowly over billions of years and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men. These proposed big changes are defined as “macroevolution.”

Charles Darwin, for example, taught that the small changes we can observe implied that much bigger changes​—which no one has observed—​are also possible.17 ...

...

Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations​—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—​can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19

The facts. ... Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection​—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—​could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany.* Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”20 In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species.

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.”21 And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.”* [Mutation experiments repeatedly found that the number of new mutants steadily declined, while the same type of mutants regularly appeared. In addition, less than 1 percent of plant mutations were chosen for further research, and less than 1 percent of this group were found suitable for commercial use. However, not one entirely new species was ever created. The results of mutation breeding in animals were even worse than in plants, and the method was abandoned entirely.]

Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

...

Who Designed It First? (Was Life Created?)

In recent years, scientists and engineers have, in a very real sense, allowed plants and animals to instruct them. (Job 12:7, 8) They are studying and mimicking the design features of various creatures​—a field known as biomimetics—​in an effort to create new products and improve the performance of existing ones. As you consider the following examples, ask yourself, ‘Who really deserves the credit for these designs?’

...

Now consider these facts: Highly trained researchers crudely mimic systems in nature to solve difficult engineering problems. Yet, some would attribute the genius of devising the original idea to unintelligent evolution. Does that sound reasonable to you? If the copy requires an intelligent designer, what about the original? Really, who deserves more credit, the master engineer or the apprentice who imitates his designs?

...

How Would You Reply?

Does it seem logical to you to believe that the brilliant engineering evident in nature came about by accident?

How would you answer the claim that life only appears to be designed?
...

If the copy requires a designer, what about the original?

...

For a better perspective regarding the questions in that last article (because I skipped so much):Molecular Machinery of Life (playlist: Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories)

originally posted by: halfoldman
a reply to: everyone

Everyone says, that particular narrative is fake.
But knowing the unbeaten tracks, and how quickly one can be in the bush here, it sounds very plausible to me.

I never said it wasn't plausible.

originally posted by: whereislogic
edit: I actually read the comments first, then began wondering why nobody seemed* to question the story in that manner, and whether there was a reason for that in the video (other than it sounding plausible). Because the video was rather long, I figured I'd raise the question for those who had seen the whole video, in case I missed something. *: maybe someone did (for themselves) but it felt uncomfortable expressing any doubts (perhaps because of previous reactions on ATS to those type of doubts or expressed skepticism regarding something someone else has posted, who may feel that those kind of doubts are unwelcome, or otherwise unpleasant or unbecoming).

As an example of the bolded remark, there is a thread in the Aliens & UFO's subforum called:

The skeptics catch 22 when it comes to U.F.O.'s

In it, various complaints are raised regarding what the OP refers to as "pseudoskeptics" (which in itself is already a complaint about behaviour that is according to the OP unbecoming), according to him and others agreeing there, they are simply not openminded enough. The OP also says:

I can't respect the illogical position of the pseudoskeptic who acts like there isn't any evidence.
...
The illogical catch 22 of the pseudoskeptic has to act like there's no evidence at all and everything's explained as a bird, weather balloon or fake C.G.I.

The OP also responds to someone saying:

That comment right there covers a lot of subject, not just UFOs. Looking at you Political forum.

With:

Exactly!

There's this built in blind and illogical catch 22 in many forums.

Another complained:

One of my big peeves is (with psuedoskeptics) the false logic that "this is woo paranormal therefore it cannot exist"
But what if it isn't?

...

ETA there is also a lot of half-reading I see on here sometimes... where someone reads a post and responds but misses out on key elements of the post and only responding to the part that elicited their reaction, so they go on claiming to have debunked the whole smash when they missed a key part.

That last part contains a clue why I was making sure I wasn't missing anything in the video in this thread.

Another even expressed the following suspicion regarding a self-styled 'skeptical' site concerning the topic of aliens & UFO's:

I joined a couple of them and quit as the owner to me is either an extension of USA black hats or is an ET himself.

It does seem some people do not appreciate the expression of skepticism regarding topics they strongly believe in, considering or describing that behaviour as something "unpleasant or unbecoming" (the terms I used earlier).

Also, when looking for a thread title in the aliens & UFO's subforum that was clearly skeptical regarding that topic (to see what kind of responses that thread would have and if I could quote some of those in this comment), I had a hard time. I got up to page 3 until I found the one linked above, which was not skeptical in itself, but I remembered commenting in that one and that it had the examples I actually was thinking of when deciding to elaborate on my earlier remark from my previous comment (why I thought that reluctance to express doubts anywhere on ATS* may possibly be an effect of those types of commentary and responses when someone does). *: still talking about expressing doubts specifically regarding something someone else is posting about (not doubts in general), especially when it is a popular belief (rather than an unpopular belief in this system of things, such as belief in the Genesis narrative, God's existence, especially the one described in the Bible, or the other unpopular things spoken of and taught in the Bible, including those things the Bible teaches that contradict the theological doctrines they have been taught as being based on what the Bible teaches, such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of an immaterial immortal soul, both of which are quite popular doctrines and beliefs, but the Bible teaches something quite different, which you can see if you click those links).