Speaking of which... http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml%3Fxml%3D/news/2005/02/25/wtsun25.xml%26sSheet%3D/news/2005/02/25/ixworld.html
I know the 9/11 was a fake, that was sorta my point.
Question: If you saw a giant wave of water crashing toward you, would you stop to take pictures? Answer: No.
Question: Would a tsunami that devestated huge portions of land, practically redrawing the map, pulverizing both man and nature created structures, killing hundreds of thousands of people not destroy a camera? Answer: No.
> Question: If you saw a giant wave of water crashing toward you, would you > stop to take pictures? > Answer: No.
On the other hand, if I saw it receding, I might, and I can understand freezing in terror with one hand clamped down on the shutter button when the damn thing started to come back.
> Question: Would a tsunami that devestated huge portions of land, > practically redrawing the map, pulverizing both man and nature created > structures, killing hundreds of thousands of people not destroy a camera? > Answer: No.
Dispute: Apparently.
No-one claimed it wasn't destroyed--the news articles say things like "remnants", "didn't survive", "badly damaged", and "smashed". The claim is that the pictures were retrieved from the memory card, and I can actually bring myself to believe that not everything was smashed into pieces smaller than 2"x1"x1/8"--the damn thing is a third the size of a saltine cracker. I mean, you get batteries bigger than that, and while a memory card is not as sturdy as a battery, it's a lot better wrapped when it's inside the camera.
Small objects inside larger objects may survive even when the larger objects are smashed in a tsunami. Otherwise dental records wouldn't be being treated as a handy way of identifying the dead.
> Let's just say I'm skeptical.
Understandable. Myself, unless Snopes or something else picks it apart, I accept it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-25 01:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-25 01:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-25 01:59 am (UTC)http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml%3Fxml%3D/news/2005/02/25/wtsun25.xml%26sSheet%3D/news/2005/02/25/ixworld.html
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-25 07:25 am (UTC)Question: If you saw a giant wave of water crashing toward you, would you stop to take pictures?
Answer: No.
Question: Would a tsunami that devestated huge portions of land, practically redrawing the map, pulverizing both man and nature created structures, killing hundreds of thousands of people not destroy a camera?
Answer: No.
Let's just say I'm skeptical.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-25 04:00 pm (UTC)> stop to take pictures?
> Answer: No.
On the other hand, if I saw it receding, I might, and I can understand freezing in terror with one hand clamped down on the shutter button when the damn thing started to come back.
> Question: Would a tsunami that devestated huge portions of land,
> practically redrawing the map, pulverizing both man and nature created
> structures, killing hundreds of thousands of people not destroy a camera?
> Answer: No.
Dispute: Apparently.
No-one claimed it wasn't destroyed--the news articles say things like "remnants", "didn't survive", "badly damaged", and "smashed". The claim is that the pictures were retrieved from the memory card, and I can actually bring myself to believe that not everything was smashed into pieces smaller than 2"x1"x1/8"--the damn thing is a third the size of a saltine cracker. I mean, you get batteries bigger than that, and while a memory card is not as sturdy as a battery, it's a lot better wrapped when it's inside the camera.
Small objects inside larger objects may survive even when the larger objects are smashed in a tsunami. Otherwise dental records wouldn't be being treated as a handy way of identifying the dead.
> Let's just say I'm skeptical.
Understandable. Myself, unless Snopes or something else picks it apart, I accept it.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-25 01:59 am (UTC)Receding water = BAD... start running inland.