Strange bird found in Mexico

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
It is Quetzalcoatl!

Forgive me. I couldn't help myself.




posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Hi,

My girlfriend's a zoologist specializing in birds, and she believes it is a frogmouth of some description, possibly a tawny frogmouth originating in Australia.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
In Iowa, we call those Whipoorills. They are fairly common. I had one that would rest on the pavement of my driveway every morning.

I know these birds from farmers, and the fact that I always wondered what kind of bird I've seen besides owls flying around at night around here. I guess news is slow in whatever part of Mexico that was filmed.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Its a whipper will.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   
thats really unusual actually, ive never seen anything like that in my life,

that deserves a flag



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jinni on page 4
"Gosh I hate the quality of youtube videos.
Look at 1:22. You can 'clearly' see the beak.
It's one of the birds mentioned previously.... Case closed..."

NOT closed.


Originally posted by Jinni
"...P.S. It certainly does look like Bird and Reptile hybrid...."

Exactly.


Originally posted by Jinni
"... but when you see the beak...."

Excuse me, but WHAT beak? Frogmouths have beaks. See for instance Wikipedia - Tawny_Frogmouth and Frogmouths. But the thing in the clip hasn't. At 1:22 of the clip as well as on the picture I posted on page 4 we see: no beak.
1. Only viewed from the side there 'visually' appears to be a somewhat pointed mouth, at the most similar to a turtle’s. But no real “beak”. forget it.
2. Secondly, we can clearly see there’s only one 'pointed' side of the 'mouth'. The opposing jaw is clearly NOT ‘pointed’ at all, even viewed from the side. So where’s the second part of the ‘beak’, evaporated?

[edit on 22-2-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


yes i do speak spanish



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma on page 4:
"As stated it IS a bird, not a reptile. Mouth is exactly the same.



Really? Same mouth?



Don't you really see the difference between the 3 pictures above and this one:


Zero beak in the last picture = the clip picture! Actually looks like the jaws of a serpent.

Who knows, possibly it's the evil serpent from paradise, visiting us to herald a foretaste of 2012, something like: "Hey reptiles ..."

[edit on 22-2-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heike on page 4:
"Frogmouth, nightjar, nighthawk, whippoorwill .. all the same family, and it's one of them .. And the mouth does look rather reptilian; that would be why they call it a "frogmouth."

No, not because it looks reptilian, but because they have a "huge frog-like gape, which they use to take insects" (source: en.wikipedia.org...). But that still isn't the point, which is all Frogmouths have beaks. The thing in the video hasn't.




Nice Frogmouth. See the beak?




Two Frogmouths in love. See the beaks?




-
First (big) picture: certainly no Frogmouth, forget it. Probably a goanna or a big lizard.
-
Second (first small) picture: certainly no Frogmouth, no way. Looks like a turtle.
-
Third (second small) picture: Again a neat Frogmouth. See the huge difference? And again, a beak.

[edit on 22-2-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
1:24 looks like a lizard that's had the top of it's head cropped off. Others look like the bird is dead and spread out in the cage.

www.vivanatura.org...

The video and the way it was done and edited is way too suspicous. Maybe someone decided to play with their food in this video. If it was real, then this video wouldn't have been so deceptive looking. Check 1:24 and the next two frames because it looks edited to hide the top of the head.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHA0S

Originally posted by eaganthorn
reply to post by jfj123
 


How do I explain the difference as you perceive it? The individual's perception of what they see. If you look at only one picture of any animal and that is your only exposure to that creature, it is conceivable that you may misinterpret what you see in a second photo or brief video, especially if you have concreted an alternate concept of the animal.

For me, I saw a Nightjar, commonly referred to as a Nighthawk, recognizing the root of the species, small beak, big wide mouth, tiny hairs around the beak, found in Mexico. No mystery for me and I did not notice any discrepancy in the video to its appearance, none at all. For me, the little guy looked exactly as it should.

Reminds me of three blind men describing an elephant to a sighted person.
That isn't I Night Hawk, I think you are the one misinterpreting things, it is totally different, it's a frogmouth.


I went to a few different bird sites and that's what it looked like to me too.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I see no beak either, definitely not buying that it's a nighthawk.

Can you see this 2nd line?



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by eaganthorn
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Hey chuckles, a nighthawk, a nightjar, a whooperwill, a frogmouth are all the same species of animal in North and South America, the same thing, do you get it? Do you read me, chuckles?

Do you not know how to use your computer to look things up? Or do you just know how to make a fool of yourself?

And this is a damn shame, I generally get along with Auzzies.


[edit on 2/21/2009 by eaganthorn]

Seriously dude, maybe you should cut back on the caffeine?
Just a thought.
If birds push you over the edge, maybe you should take a look at your stress levels.
Just chill



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by CoolBlackHole
 


You can clearly see the beak in the next slide of photos and even after the nighthawk closes its mouth. It is very clear in the video. How someone can continue to deny this fact is beyond me.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bugman82
How someone can continue to deny this fact is beyond me.


It is called a "will-to-believe." Their want to find confirmation of their beliefs is so strong they will cling to anything, despite all evidence to the contrary. It is faith based on a willful ignorance to the point of obtuseness.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I must be really bored to come back to this thread.

Anyhow, I'm not going to post up any pictures or anything, I'm just here to say once again that that is a NightHawk.
So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Einstein.


The video is obviously of very poor quality.

Having posted a few vids to YouTube! I can say with certainty that the video has been compressed quite a bit and there are "artifacts" all over the vid...
Another example of reptilians in youtube vids? No, crappy quality.
But I have no doubt that is a NightHawk. I've seen these birds before.

Oh, and to the poster that put up the pics of the birds living in his back yard:

Good photos.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Thanks for all the replies.
Loved this photograph - those frogmouths do look rather
'Jim Henson-esque'



[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
I love this bird, and it most likely is a baby nighthawk which hasn't fully developed its mouth yet, as most baby birds tend to have a softer beak area.

Sure is cute, and birds are direct decedents of Dinosaurs, even Raptors had feathers. Of course they have lizard like qualities, scales evident on their legs.

Reverse genetic engineering brings out dinosaur traits in chickens.

www.scientificblogging.com...

Researchers from Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center have captured and sequenced tiny pieces of collagen protein from a 68 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex. The protein fragments—seven in all—appear to most closely match amino acid sequences found in collagen of present day chickens.




[edit on 21-2-2009 by YouAreDreaming]


I still say they are grasping at straws to prove birds and dinosaurs are related.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
It is called a "will-to-believe." Their want to find confirmation of their beliefs is so strong they will cling to anything, despite all evidence to the contrary. It is faith based on a willful ignorance to the point of obtuseness.


Yes this attitude is also present in many pseudosceptic mindsets as well -perhaps thats why the attributes of 'objectivity and impartiality' are so crucial when looking into any given subject.

Having the intellectual honesty to dispassionately examine evidence free from preconceived opinion or prejudice is all important - its just that there are abusers of this principle to be found on either side of any debate -usualy in the form of noisy,opinionated,uninformed,unbalanced
extremists.





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join