i redact my article regarding the updated list of the best birds
it was gruff towards my colleague
harrison im sorry pls forgive me
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
Sunday, March 22, 2020
The Truth About The Beatles
You've all heard of the Beatles: John, Paul, George and Ringo, The Fab Four, the most influential band of all time. But how much do you really know about them? Today we'll explore three theories about this Lonely Hearts Club Band, and I'll let you decide what's real.
Theory 1: Faul (Fake Paul)
Of the four men who formed the group, two have passed on. John Lennon was famously killed by some phony in December of 1980. George Harrison, the greatest Beatle, was taken by lung cancer in November of 2001. But Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney are still alive, and still performing to this day. Or so we're told. In reality, it may be that Ringo has already secured his place as both last to join the band, and last to leave this earth. Paul, the real Paul, died in a car wreck in November of 1966, at the height of Beatle-mania. Not wanting to let their fans down, the band chose to soldier on with a body double, a man by the name of Billy Shears.
In 2015, the World News Daily Report declared the following in an article:
In an exclusive interview with the Hollywood Inquirer, Mr. Starr explained that the “real” Paul McCartney had died in a car crash on November 9 1966, after an argument during a Beatles’ recording session. To spare the public from grief, the Beatles replaced him with a man named William Shears Campbell, who was the winner of a McCartney look-alike contest and who happened to have the same kind of jovial personality as Paul.”When Paul died, we all panicked!” claims Ringo, obviously very emotional. “We didn’t know what to do, and Brian Epstein, our manager, suggested that we hire Billy Shears as a temporary solution. It was supposed to last only a week or two, but time went by and nobody seemed to notice, so we kept playing along. Billy turned out to be a pretty good musician and he was able to perform almost better than Paul. The only problem was that he couldn’t get along with John, at all.”
The band would leave numerous clues about this old fashioned switcheroo throughout their later works. The cover of Abbey Road, for example, depicts the band in a funeral procession for Paul. Billy, playing the part of Paul, the dead man, wears no shoes. John wears white and leads the way, representing the priest. Ringo, in all black, represents the undertaker. And George, at the end of the line and wearing a blue collar denim affair, represents the grave digger. This theory is just the tip of the iceberg, and I would urge all of our readers to look deeper into this very serious public deception.
Theory 2: Klaatu, the Beatles reborn
In 1976, the album 3:47 EST was released by Capitol Records. No identifying information was known about the artist, nor was any offered, except for the name "Klaatu." People around the world took one listen and immediately saw the truth: it had been six years since the Beatles' tumultuous breakup, but they had gotten back together, and were once again making music together under the name Klaatu. Obviously they had changed their name to avoid the kind of press and fame that had ultimately led to their falling out the first time around. This time, they wanted the focus to remain on the music. Now, there are those who claim that Klaatu was not the Beatles reborn, but merely a trio of men from Canada (Terry Draper, John Woloschuck, and and Dee Long), but I defy you to listen to "We're Off You Know" and tell me that's not the Beatles.
Theory 3: The Beatles Never Existed
Ok this one may be the greatest conspiracy yet. You've all heard of the 2019 film Yesterday. It revolves around the premise of a struggling young musician who wakes up from a serious accident to find that he is the only one in the world who remembers the Beatles. No one else has any knowledge of their existence. Well here is a theory which posits that this is a near example of art imitating life, except that in real life, the inverse is true. That is to say, we all remember the Beatles existing, when they never did in the first place. I'll give you a moment to let that sink in.
Ok have you picked your jaw up off the floor? Good. So basically this theory boils down to the idea that the Beatles were really just a rotating cast of artists, playing the characters of "John" "Paul" "George" and "Ringo." There were also a series of clones involved. Eventually, the band became a sort of musical version of Finland (see our previous post), so governments and corporations everywhere agreed to maintain the ruse. One brave soul learned the truth and attempted to spread the news, via the website thebeatlesneverexisted.com, but the site was taken down and has never been restored. On can only assume that the poor creator is locked up in Guantanamo, subjected to daily bouts of water torture. The very fate, I fear, that awaits myself as I attempt to share the truth with you all through this blog. But it is a fate I willingly accept, because this site is just that great, and you, my dear readers, deserve this high tier, top notch content that I produce for you.
Theory 1: Faul (Fake Paul)
Of the four men who formed the group, two have passed on. John Lennon was famously killed by some phony in December of 1980. George Harrison, the greatest Beatle, was taken by lung cancer in November of 2001. But Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney are still alive, and still performing to this day. Or so we're told. In reality, it may be that Ringo has already secured his place as both last to join the band, and last to leave this earth. Paul, the real Paul, died in a car wreck in November of 1966, at the height of Beatle-mania. Not wanting to let their fans down, the band chose to soldier on with a body double, a man by the name of Billy Shears.
In 2015, the World News Daily Report declared the following in an article:
In an exclusive interview with the Hollywood Inquirer, Mr. Starr explained that the “real” Paul McCartney had died in a car crash on November 9 1966, after an argument during a Beatles’ recording session. To spare the public from grief, the Beatles replaced him with a man named William Shears Campbell, who was the winner of a McCartney look-alike contest and who happened to have the same kind of jovial personality as Paul.”When Paul died, we all panicked!” claims Ringo, obviously very emotional. “We didn’t know what to do, and Brian Epstein, our manager, suggested that we hire Billy Shears as a temporary solution. It was supposed to last only a week or two, but time went by and nobody seemed to notice, so we kept playing along. Billy turned out to be a pretty good musician and he was able to perform almost better than Paul. The only problem was that he couldn’t get along with John, at all.”
The band would leave numerous clues about this old fashioned switcheroo throughout their later works. The cover of Abbey Road, for example, depicts the band in a funeral procession for Paul. Billy, playing the part of Paul, the dead man, wears no shoes. John wears white and leads the way, representing the priest. Ringo, in all black, represents the undertaker. And George, at the end of the line and wearing a blue collar denim affair, represents the grave digger. This theory is just the tip of the iceberg, and I would urge all of our readers to look deeper into this very serious public deception.
Theory 2: Klaatu, the Beatles reborn
In 1976, the album 3:47 EST was released by Capitol Records. No identifying information was known about the artist, nor was any offered, except for the name "Klaatu." People around the world took one listen and immediately saw the truth: it had been six years since the Beatles' tumultuous breakup, but they had gotten back together, and were once again making music together under the name Klaatu. Obviously they had changed their name to avoid the kind of press and fame that had ultimately led to their falling out the first time around. This time, they wanted the focus to remain on the music. Now, there are those who claim that Klaatu was not the Beatles reborn, but merely a trio of men from Canada (Terry Draper, John Woloschuck, and and Dee Long), but I defy you to listen to "We're Off You Know" and tell me that's not the Beatles.
Theory 3: The Beatles Never Existed
Ok this one may be the greatest conspiracy yet. You've all heard of the 2019 film Yesterday. It revolves around the premise of a struggling young musician who wakes up from a serious accident to find that he is the only one in the world who remembers the Beatles. No one else has any knowledge of their existence. Well here is a theory which posits that this is a near example of art imitating life, except that in real life, the inverse is true. That is to say, we all remember the Beatles existing, when they never did in the first place. I'll give you a moment to let that sink in.
Ok have you picked your jaw up off the floor? Good. So basically this theory boils down to the idea that the Beatles were really just a rotating cast of artists, playing the characters of "John" "Paul" "George" and "Ringo." There were also a series of clones involved. Eventually, the band became a sort of musical version of Finland (see our previous post), so governments and corporations everywhere agreed to maintain the ruse. One brave soul learned the truth and attempted to spread the news, via the website thebeatlesneverexisted.com, but the site was taken down and has never been restored. On can only assume that the poor creator is locked up in Guantanamo, subjected to daily bouts of water torture. The very fate, I fear, that awaits myself as I attempt to share the truth with you all through this blog. But it is a fate I willingly accept, because this site is just that great, and you, my dear readers, deserve this high tier, top notch content that I produce for you.
Saturday, March 21, 2020
Questions Without Answers
Do you ever wake up in the middle of the night with a sudden burning question in your mind? One that you can't stop thinking about, and try as you might you just can't fall back asleep?
I remember a little while back this happened to me. The question was "Why do nearly all animals have 5 'fingers' and 'toes'?" obviously things like birds or dolphins or dogs don't really have digits in the same sense as humans or monkeys, but I recalled seeing skeletons of those animals showing what appeared to be 5 phalanges. After rolling in bed for a couple hours, I eventually started googling. I found that the reason was simple enough- given that all living things are connected via one huge evolutionary tree of life, the obvious-once-you-know-it explanation is that one common ancestor evolved the 5-phalange pattern before branching off into mammals and birds and reptiles etc. I never did really find why 5 was the magic evolutionary number though. Like I remember hearing the theory of dogs having four legs because in the wild, it is not uncommon to lose a leg, and three legs is the minimum needed for them to walk normally. I like this theory because it has a concrete mathematical basis- 3 points define a plane, so for a dog to remain upright on a defined plane, it needs three legs. Obviously two legs is a possibility (see: human legs), but that requires balancing, which is far more difficult for dogs given the shape and structure of their feet compared to ours. So to me, the four leg theory makes prefect sense from an evolutionary standpoint: the minimum number required to function, plus one extra, given that the world is rough and if a man's gonna make it he's gotta be tough, and is therefore likely to lose a leg at some point. The animal with an extra leg is by default more fit to survive than the one without. Meanwhile, the one with two extra legs is probably just redundant, and given that five is an uneven number, it leads to a necessary asymmetry. Since we no nature loves symmetry (see: eyes, ears, fins, flower petals, pinnate leaves, etc.), five legs is probably a no go. and six legs would mean a) twice as many legs as necessary, and b) a rather extreme genetic mutation to lead to such a divergent phenotype. So I'm very happy with the four leg reasoning. I get why many animals have four legs (probably a mix of divergent and convergent evolution), and I get why the magic number is four. The five finger reasoning is a little less satisfactory- I see why all different animals share the trait (divergent evolution), but five being the magic number is still something of a mystery to me. If anyone knows, please let me know.
But I digress. This post is because last night, I once again awoke with a burning question: why are lakes named the way that they are? Ok hear me out. Let's name some bodies of water that aren't lakes. Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Hudson Bay, San Francisco Bay, Bandon Bay, Panama Canal, Suez Canal, Mediterranean Sea, Adriatic Sea, South China Sea, Black Sea, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, Puget Sound, Long Island Sound, Mississippi River, Amazon River, Nile River, Zambezi River, Yellow River, Vulga River, Rhine River, etc.. Notice the order of all these titles: (name) followed by (body of water). There are a handful of non-rivers that are in reverse, but all that I can think of are qualified with an 'of' : Gulf of Mexico, Bay of Biscay, Gulf of Thailand, Gulf of Oman, Bay of Bangkok, Strait of Gibraltar, Strait of Magellan, etc. And some lakes also follow this convention: Crater Lake, Laguna Lake, Crystal Lake, Great Salt Lake, etc. But the overwhelming majority are reversed, and with no 'of' to be seen: Lake Chad, Lake Tahoe, Lake Nicaragua, Lake Titicaca, Lake Michigan, Lake Baikal, Lake Winnipeg, Lake Victoria, Lake Mercer, Lake Mead, etc. So my question is, why? Why flip the naming convention for what seems to be the majority of lakes around the world? One answer on Quora postulates that it is because of differing grammar rules in other languages, so when we translate the names of lakes to english, the order is flipped. But that's a load of crap. If that were the case, why is the same not true for other bodies of water? For example, the Amazon River, in it's local Spanish, would be Rio Amazonas- River Amazon. But we had to problem flipping that order to fit with english naming conventions. And Lake Mead was man-made, created by Americans when we built the Hoover Dam, yet it too has the inverted naming scheme. So why is it are lakes different? I need to know. I've been awake for two and a half hours now thinking this over. Throw me a bone here people.
I remember a little while back this happened to me. The question was "Why do nearly all animals have 5 'fingers' and 'toes'?" obviously things like birds or dolphins or dogs don't really have digits in the same sense as humans or monkeys, but I recalled seeing skeletons of those animals showing what appeared to be 5 phalanges. After rolling in bed for a couple hours, I eventually started googling. I found that the reason was simple enough- given that all living things are connected via one huge evolutionary tree of life, the obvious-once-you-know-it explanation is that one common ancestor evolved the 5-phalange pattern before branching off into mammals and birds and reptiles etc. I never did really find why 5 was the magic evolutionary number though. Like I remember hearing the theory of dogs having four legs because in the wild, it is not uncommon to lose a leg, and three legs is the minimum needed for them to walk normally. I like this theory because it has a concrete mathematical basis- 3 points define a plane, so for a dog to remain upright on a defined plane, it needs three legs. Obviously two legs is a possibility (see: human legs), but that requires balancing, which is far more difficult for dogs given the shape and structure of their feet compared to ours. So to me, the four leg theory makes prefect sense from an evolutionary standpoint: the minimum number required to function, plus one extra, given that the world is rough and if a man's gonna make it he's gotta be tough, and is therefore likely to lose a leg at some point. The animal with an extra leg is by default more fit to survive than the one without. Meanwhile, the one with two extra legs is probably just redundant, and given that five is an uneven number, it leads to a necessary asymmetry. Since we no nature loves symmetry (see: eyes, ears, fins, flower petals, pinnate leaves, etc.), five legs is probably a no go. and six legs would mean a) twice as many legs as necessary, and b) a rather extreme genetic mutation to lead to such a divergent phenotype. So I'm very happy with the four leg reasoning. I get why many animals have four legs (probably a mix of divergent and convergent evolution), and I get why the magic number is four. The five finger reasoning is a little less satisfactory- I see why all different animals share the trait (divergent evolution), but five being the magic number is still something of a mystery to me. If anyone knows, please let me know.
But I digress. This post is because last night, I once again awoke with a burning question: why are lakes named the way that they are? Ok hear me out. Let's name some bodies of water that aren't lakes. Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Hudson Bay, San Francisco Bay, Bandon Bay, Panama Canal, Suez Canal, Mediterranean Sea, Adriatic Sea, South China Sea, Black Sea, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, Puget Sound, Long Island Sound, Mississippi River, Amazon River, Nile River, Zambezi River, Yellow River, Vulga River, Rhine River, etc.. Notice the order of all these titles: (name) followed by (body of water). There are a handful of non-rivers that are in reverse, but all that I can think of are qualified with an 'of' : Gulf of Mexico, Bay of Biscay, Gulf of Thailand, Gulf of Oman, Bay of Bangkok, Strait of Gibraltar, Strait of Magellan, etc. And some lakes also follow this convention: Crater Lake, Laguna Lake, Crystal Lake, Great Salt Lake, etc. But the overwhelming majority are reversed, and with no 'of' to be seen: Lake Chad, Lake Tahoe, Lake Nicaragua, Lake Titicaca, Lake Michigan, Lake Baikal, Lake Winnipeg, Lake Victoria, Lake Mercer, Lake Mead, etc. So my question is, why? Why flip the naming convention for what seems to be the majority of lakes around the world? One answer on Quora postulates that it is because of differing grammar rules in other languages, so when we translate the names of lakes to english, the order is flipped. But that's a load of crap. If that were the case, why is the same not true for other bodies of water? For example, the Amazon River, in it's local Spanish, would be Rio Amazonas- River Amazon. But we had to problem flipping that order to fit with english naming conventions. And Lake Mead was man-made, created by Americans when we built the Hoover Dam, yet it too has the inverted naming scheme. So why is it are lakes different? I need to know. I've been awake for two and a half hours now thinking this over. Throw me a bone here people.
Friday, March 20, 2020
The Bachelor
Hey Birdos.
So recently I watched the Bachelor for the first time. Watching Peter try to find love this season has given me a lot to think about. About the show, and its viewers, and love, and life. Here are some of my thoughts:
- Why is Peter so dense?
- Why are we supposed to be rooting for Peter?
- Why are we supposed to be entertained by this show?
- Why would someone create a show who's very premise is so uncomfortable to even think about, let alone see with our own eyes?
- Why does no one want to bang me as bad as Peter wanted to bang what's-her-name?
- Why did Peter think that having a scar from running into a golf cart was cool?
- Why did what's-her-name wreck marriages for fun?
These are just a few of my thoughts. I'd love to hear some of yours in the comments below. Until next time, here's hoping they cancel the Bachelor.
So recently I watched the Bachelor for the first time. Watching Peter try to find love this season has given me a lot to think about. About the show, and its viewers, and love, and life. Here are some of my thoughts:
- Why is Peter so dense?
- Why are we supposed to be rooting for Peter?
- Why are we supposed to be entertained by this show?
- Why would someone create a show who's very premise is so uncomfortable to even think about, let alone see with our own eyes?
- Why does no one want to bang me as bad as Peter wanted to bang what's-her-name?
- Why did Peter think that having a scar from running into a golf cart was cool?
- Why did what's-her-name wreck marriages for fun?
These are just a few of my thoughts. I'd love to hear some of yours in the comments below. Until next time, here's hoping they cancel the Bachelor.
Saturday, October 12, 2019
Seagull Soup
There is an old riddle, which goes like this:
A man arrives in a port from a ship, and the first thing he does is go to the local pub and order seagull soup. He eats one bite, then goes outside and kills himself. Why?
The answer:
The man had just been rescued from a deserted island, where he had been shipwrecked along with other passengers.
The survivors ate seagull soup provided by the ship's cook to survive, but as the number of survivors dwindled,
the man grew suspicious about the source of his food. When he eats the seagull soup in the port and it tastes
nothing like what he had on the island, his suspicions are confirmed, and unable to live with the reality of being
a cannibal, he kills himself.
While this may be the traditional response to the riddle, I have another theory: the man was an avid ornithologist, who
especially loved seagulls. He had spent his whole life hearing that seagull soup was delicious, but refused to eat it on
moral grounds. Finally, he is swayed to give it a try; he travels to this port, famous for having the best seagull soup.
He tries some, and realizes that it is indeed the best thing he has ever tasted. Unable to live with the combination of
regret at not having eaten seagull sooner and the remorse of eating his favorite bird, he kills himself.
Luckily, we here at RealFakeBirds™ have no moral qualms about eating our avian friends; we understand that it is all part
of the circle of life. Birds tasting delicious is just another thing that makes them great. So, without further ado, I present
the definitive, RealFakeBirds™ official recipe for seagull soup:
Seagull Soup
Ingredients:
- 2 quarts of poultry stock (homemade seagull stock is preferable, but a common chicken stock will do)
- 1 freshly caught seagull
- 3 tblsp olive oil or compound butter of choice
- 1 cup carrot, chopped into dime shapes
- 1 cup shiitake mushrooms, sliced
- 1 half yellow onion, finely grated
- 1 tblsp worcestershire sauce
- 3 bay leaves
- 1 tblsp ginger, finely grated
- 2 tsp garlic, finely grated
- bouquet garnis: thyme, rosemary, cilantro
- salt and pepper to taste
- green onions, finely chopped for garnish
Instructions:
- Prepare the seagull. Pluck its feathers, remove the head and feet. Gut it. Remove any birdshot.
-
Rub the seagull down with olive oil or compound butter, garlic, ginger, and onion. In a 400ºF oven, roast the seagull for 25 minutes.(It may not be all the way cooked through yet, that is ok)
- Move the seagull carcass and its accoutrement to a large stock pot. Cover with stock. Bring to a rolling boil, then back the heat down to a simmer.
- Once simmmering, add the carrots, mushrooms, worcestershire sauce, and bouquet garnis. Salt and pepper to taste.
- Simmer for 40 minutes. Remove the bouquet garnis. Taste for seasoning.
- Serve in a bowl with green onions over top. Enjoy!
Wednesday, October 2, 2019
Some Questions for Stephanie
Hey readers. I'm sorry it's been a while since our last post, but rest assured that we have not been sitting idle. I recently finished the Twilight saga, and it's left me with a few questions. Unfortunately I could not find a way to contact Stephanie Meyer to bring her these questions directly. But, since I assume she is among our readership, I figured this post was the next best thing. So Stephanie, this is for you.
I have a lot of questions about the rules which govern the world of twilight, so buckle up.
I have a lot of questions about the rules which govern the world of twilight, so buckle up.
-
How does a vampire die?
I know they need to be torn apart and burned, but what part of that process actually kills them? Based on my field research, I've heard that the burning is necessary because without it, a vampire would heal from being torn to shreds. I can accept this - it's clearly a call back to the classic tale of Heracles and the Hydra of Lerna, wherein he had to burn the stumps to prevent two heads from growing back. However, it is unclear how a vampire heals if not burned. Different reports have described different methods. Some say that the pieces maintain some level of pseudo-sentience and are able to come back together, at which point the rejoin and the vampire becomes whole again. Others have dismissed this theory as hogwash, saying that the vampires simply have an extreme healing factor- if you cut off their arms, they will grow new ones. While this theory seems more plausible at first glance, it is still not a full answer. With such an extreme healing ability, more details are needed. For example, if a vampires head is ripped off, does the body grow a new head or does the head grow a new body? It seems intuitive that the head, as the seat of the brain and the vampire's core being, would be the source of any regrowth. But what if the head itself is cut in half? Say a vampire is lasered exactly in half, a la James Bond's near fate in Goldfinger? Which half is discarded and which is the source of regrowth? Or, do both halves regrow, resulting in two clones of the original vampire? Could someone theoretically build a clone army of vampires by continually cutting themselves in half? I need to know. -
Can a vampire feed on another vampire that has just fed?
Once a vampire consumes blood, where does the blood go? Vampires theoretically have no heartbeat, so it seems unlikely that the blood flows into their veins. Where does the blood go? Is it digested in the stomach and digestive tract in the same way humans digest their own food? Or is the blood just magically broken down and absorbed into the vampire's being? Whatever the absorption process, how quickly does it happen? Could another vampire theoretically open up the first vampire and suck the blood out? Or does the blood have to be fresh from a body? The films depict vampires feeding from blood bags, which suggests that freshness is not an issue. Please respond Stephanie. -
Can a vampire starve to death?
On the topic of vampire feeding, can a vampire starve to death? They are shown to grow progressively weaker the longer they go without feeding, but could they ever actually die from lack of blood? In that same 'vein', as it were, what do vampires need blood for? What exactly is it doing for them? We have determined that the blood doesn't flow through their veins, so it isn't delivering oxygen to their organs, meaning the red blood cells are pointless. They also don't bleed, so it's not serving any healing purposes, meaning platelets are equally ineffectual. It seems as though vampires never get sick, so white blood cells wouldn't appear to be of any use either. So what part of the blood is actually doing any good for vampires? What do they get from the blood, and what does it do for them? Stephanie I'm begging you. -
Can vampires feed on non-mammalian blood?
To wrap up this little series of feeding related questions, what kinds of blood are sufficient for a vampiric meal? What would happen to vampires if humans were wiped out, by war or plague or any other force of extinction. We have seen that vampires can live on other mammals, namely deer. It seems logical enough that they could subsist just as well on other large mammals, such as horses, cows, llamas, and the like. But could they live on avian blood? If the red blood cells are part of what provides vampires with their needed nutrition, then avian erythrocytes are different, being true eukaryotic, nucleus containing cells. And what about reptile blood? Their RBC's are also true nucleal cells, and are even larger and flatter than their avian counterparts. And what of insects? Amphibians? The point is, all types of animals have different types of blood, and I need to know which ones are sufficient for a vampire's dinner. I just want answers. -
What do werewolves do when the person they imprint on dies?
Switching gears for a moment, let's talk about wolves and imprinting. First off, when a werewolf imprints, is there any sort of guarantee that their love will be returned? If it's not, do they just have to be miserable for the rest of their life? Similarly, if they imprint on someone and live happily together, only to have the love of their life killed at an early age, can they ever imprint on someone new? Also, can werewolves imprint on other werewolves? It was suggested by one source during my research that they only imprint on humans. Is this true? Steph, you gotta give me something here. -
Can vampires do superhero landings?
Ok back to vampires. In Breaking Dawn part 2, we see Bella nearly cronch down on a helpless mountain climber. Edward talks her off the ledge, as it were, and she leaps off the cliff face to remove herself from the situation. Eddie doesn't so much as flinch, indicating that it is perfectly normal for vampires to fall from a great height with no repercussions. Sure enough, she walks it off as if nothing had happened. So do vampires not take fall damage? And if that's the case, what the fuck? We have seen that vampires can be hurt by blunt force trauma, such as when they are struck in combat by other vampires. So how is a vampire being punched in the face any different than a vampire falling? Assuming Bella weighs about 60kg, and was roughly 50m up the cliff, that means she reached the ground traveling just over 31 m/s. That means that if the soil condenses about 4 centimeters on impact, she hits the ground with a force of 735000 newtons. A human punch has an upper limit of 50000 newtons, after which their bones will break. Even accounting for vampire super strength, it seems as though hitting the ground would impart a much greater force of impact on a body than a vampire punch, or at least it would be of similar magnitude. So what gives? How can a vampire be hurt by getting punched but not by falling? Stephanie please. -
How do vampires get hard?
Ok, time to take off the training wheels and ask the real questions. How do vampires procreate? There seem to be quite a few barriers to this being able to happen. First off, how does a vampire get an erection in the first place? As we have discussed at length, blood doesn't flow through vampire veins, so how could blood flow into a male vampire's phallus to fill his corpora cavernosa, thereby giving the penis enough structural integrity to be used in coitus? Does he just have to mash it in awkwardly like a limp garden hose? The aftermath of Bedward's honeymoon would suggest otherwise. Additionally, even if sexual congress is achieved, then how is semen provided to achieve fertilization? Sperm cells are produced in seminiferous tubules, and are living cells. The idea of vampires being a dead body would seem to contradict the possibility of performing spermatogenesis. Even if vampires are capable of producing semen, how do they get the 'ingredients' (water, proteins, fructose, etc) to the testicles if they have no bloodflow? Stephanie, help me. -
What human weapons can kill vampires?
In Breaking Dawn part 2, Aro states that humans are becoming a real threat to vampires, that modern technology has created weapons capable of killing vampires. What is this line referencing? Nuclear bombs would be the obvious answer - it would simultaneously shred them and burn them, meeting the prerequisites for vampire murder. But Aro seemed far too concerned for nukes to be the only threat. After all, the threat of nukes has been declining significantly over time, now that mutually assured destruction is all but guaranteed should anyone choose to use one, resulting in human extinction. So what other weapons can kill a vampire? Once again, this circles back to question number 1, about how exactly vampires die. Stephy, I will do anything for some answers. Anything. -
What's up with the pedophilia?
Seriously, what's up? First Ed, who's over 100 years old, falls in love with a 17 year old. Gross. But I guess an argument could be made that he is magically suspended in a state of being 17, so I can allow it to slide. But I don't like it. On that note, why the hell are the Cullens still going to high school? They aren't learning anything new. Why don't they just hang out at home all the time, away from potential temptation? It just doesn't make sense. It's not like they're socializing; there's a whole big deal made about how weird the Cullens are, and how they always keep to themselves. Then we get to Jacob. Why the hell does he imprint on a baby? I know this one has been discussed, but I feel like it's never really been answered in any meaningful way. Do werewolves often imprint on babies? It's just messed up is all I'm saying. Figure it out, Stephanie. -
How old is the oldest vampire?
Since vampires theoretically have no age limit (once again, see Q1 about vampire death), how old is the oldest one? And also how was the very first vampire turned into a vampire? What caused the change, since vampire venom couldn't have existed yet? And whatever that process looked like, is it possible for someone in the modern day to be changed in a similar fashion? Stephanie, my mind will not rest easy until these questions are answered.
So, these are our questions to you, Stephanie Meyer. I'm sure this list is far from exhaustive, so if any of our other valued readers have questions, please
leave them in the comments below. And as always, stay birdy people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)