Certainly you've all read of the recent fish fall occurring for 2 consecutive days in Northern Australia.
How very Fortean.
Fact is, "raining fish" is a very, very old phenomenon, witnessed on numerous occasions all around the planet for centuries. Until the advent of
meteorological science, there was never really a plausible explanation.
Come to think of it, even meteorological science
can't explain it.
Because nobody has ever witnessed a tornado sucking up a body of water and casting its contents out upon the surface of the earth, for one thing. All
Science has is an
unsupported theory of how these fish falls occur.
Of course, it makes perfect sense, doesn't it, that a tornado might conceivably
vacuum a pond or small lake dry. It certainly has enough
pressurized force to accomplish such a feat.
HOWEVER... It makes
no sense whatsoever that these fish falls are, invariably, of only
one species of fish, and that the fish are
of all about the same level of maturity.
In this Australian fall, for instance, over a period of 2 days, there were no reports of
small fry (very young fish), but only of mature
live perch of one species.
Where were the
other species of fish? Where were the freshwater turtles, the freshwater insects, the freshwater aquatic plants? Why didn't
the entire living contents of a pond or lake come raining down from the sky?
Why just
one species of perch, and all of about the same level of maturity?
Science has a ready (if uninvestigated) explanation for that, as well.
They claim that organisms of
different mass will fall at different rates from the sky — for example, young adult perch will all fall
out of the sky in a
group because they all have, more or less, the same mass. The small fry fish, being much less massive than the adults,
will fall in a group
somewhere else, at a different time.
Except that the small fry are apparently
never recovered in these sky falls. They seemingly
never return to earth, they're
still up
there swirling about in the clouds.
Which is, of course, preposterous.
Charles Fort, the intermediatist, had just as preposterous a notion: He theorized that otherworldly forces
deposited living organisms
where
they were most needed on the Earth's surface.
That's ridiculous, and Fort
knew it was ridiculous, but it was no more ridiculous than the scientific explanation that had no evidence
whatsoever to back it up.
Another fact that is
very unusual is that the
same thing happened on 2 consecutive days in northern Australia. Same fish, same level of
maturity, and
ALIVE, fell out of the sky on 2 consecutive days.
Now, unless there was a
stampede of tornados, otherwise undetected and unwitnessed by
anyone, for 2 consecutive days,
HOW does
Science account for
living specimens of the exact same species (but no other species) falling out of the sky for 2 consecutive days?
And how does
any living organism of the same mass as these fish
fall out of the sky — let's just say, conservatively, from an
altitude of 5000 feet (fairly low altitude) — and
impact the surface of the earth, and then start flipping and flopping about?
How does that work?
Next time I'm in a light aircraft at low altitude, I'm going to
try tossing
live fish out of the window and
just see how many
of them
survive a 5000-foot impact on solid ground.
I think I can predict the results.
None will survive, because they'll hit the earth traveling at about 80 mph.
The whole question of
live terrestrial animals raining out of the sky — be they fish or crabs or frogs, all of which have
rained down
in the past — is a profound mystery that Science has never even investigated, much less satisfactorily explained.
They leave these mysteries uninvestigated and unexplained for a
reason... It's because
then they'd have to report their true
findings.
There
were no tornados, quite obviously. Live fish and frogs and crabs
do not fall out of the sky even at low altitude and
survive the impact, quite obviously.
Not according to
known physical laws.
Which would indicate that
unknown physical laws were at play. And Science
hates to admit that it doesn't even
partially
understand physical laws.
— Doc Velocity
[edit on 2/28/2010 by Doc Velocity]