There was a recent discussion in this very newsgroup about
bats and cats.

Here is a animated GIF which demonstrates that
cats do indeed catch bats.

http://begoodnotbad.COM/bucket/catcatchesbat.gif

In article , J G Miller
writes

There was a recent discussion in this very newsgroup about
bats and cats.

Here is a animated GIF which demonstrates that
cats do indeed catch bats.

http://begoodnotbad.COM/bucket/catcatchesbat.gif

The lighting tripods are a bit of a give away to it being a setup. Also,
the 'bat' doesn't fly, it is thrown.

Spectacular pussy jump though.
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

On Thursday, January 26th, 2012, at 23:24:59h +0000, Fred wrote:

The lighting tripods are a bit of a give away to it being a setup.

Nobody is claiming that it is a spontaneous event.

Even David Attenborough engages in "setup" wildlife filming
and passes it off as happening in the wild.

Also, the 'bat' doesn't fly, it is thrown.

Which actually makes it harder to catch, since bats usually
are not traveling as fast.

I wonder if it is in fact a rubber bat.

Spectacular pussy jump though.

So it only goes to show that it is possible.

An in depth report at --

http://bathouseforum.ORG/forum/our-cat-relocating-bat-colony-into-our-house-t936.html

And do not forget that bat bites can be fatal.

http://www.redorbit.COM/news/health/502523/texas_teenager_dies_of_rabies_from_bat_bite/

J G Miller wrote:

And do not forget that bat bites can be fatal.

http://www.redorbit.COM/news/health/502523/texas_teenager_dies_of_rabies_from_bat_bite/

Even in the UK

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ctim-dies.html

Tim

In article , J G Miller wrote:
Even David Attenborough engages in "setup" wildlife filming
and passes it off as happening in the wild.

Everybody who makes broadcast television programmes uses setups.
Sometimes there is a need to present things that would be difficult or
impossible to photograph in a real situation. As long as factual
programmes don't present things that wouldn't happen in a real
situation, there is no deception.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:57:25 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , J G Miller wrote:
Even David Attenborough engages in "setup" wildlife filming
and passes it off as happening in the wild.

Everybody who makes broadcast television programmes uses setups.
Sometimes there is a need to present things that would be difficult or
impossible to photograph in a real situation. As long as factual
programmes don't present things that wouldn't happen in a real
situation, there is no deception.

Rod.

But there is deception if the clear impression is left that everything
was photographed in the wild.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
Even David Attenborough engages in "setup" wildlife filming
and passes it off as happening in the wild.

Everybody who makes broadcast television programmes uses setups.
Sometimes there is a need to present things that would be difficult or
impossible to photograph in a real situation. As long as factual
programmes don't present things that wouldn't happen in a real
situation, there is no deception.

Rod.

But there is deception if the clear impression is left that everything
was photographed in the wild.

I would have thought that the intention of any montage is to give the
impression that it is real, otherwise why present pictures at all?

When watching a film or TV programme we don't usually expect full details
of how every shot was obtained, though the programme makers can give this
if they think it helps the clarity of what they are presenting, and it's
often available elsewhere anyway for those that wish to know. In the case
in question, they seem to have decided that to jump to a studio, or
diagrams, or a verbal description, or whatever else they might have done
to make it clear that they didn't have any shots of actual polar bears
being born in the wild, would have created a discontinuity in the
narrative flow. Frankly as long as the polar bears were not shown doing
anything in the studio setup that polar bears don't do in the wild, I
don't think any falsehood was presented.

It's a different matter when, for example, a "science" programme mentions
asteroids and we are given a picture of a flaming fireball whizzing across
the screen making a whooshing noise as it goes, but showing us polar bears
doing what polar bears really do without bothering us with the technical
details of how the programme was made seems perfectly honest.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On 2012-01-27, Roderick Stewart wrote:

I would have thought that the intention of any montage is to give the
impression that it is real, otherwise why present pictures at all?

Isn't the purpose of any montage to provide an easy target for parody?

--
David Taylor

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:06:56 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
Even David Attenborough engages in "setup" wildlife filming
and passes it off as happening in the wild.

Everybody who makes broadcast television programmes uses setups.
Sometimes there is a need to present things that would be difficult or
impossible to photograph in a real situation. As long as factual
programmes don't present things that wouldn't happen in a real
situation, there is no deception.

Rod.

But there is deception if the clear impression is left that everything
was photographed in the wild.

I would have thought that the intention of any montage is to give the
impression that it is real, otherwise why present pictures at all?

When watching a film or TV programme we don't usually expect full details
of how every shot was obtained, though the programme makers can give this
if they think it helps the clarity of what they are presenting, and it's
often available elsewhere anyway for those that wish to know. In the case
in question, they seem to have decided that to jump to a studio, or
diagrams, or a verbal description, or whatever else they might have done
to make it clear that they didn't have any shots of actual polar bears
being born in the wild, would have created a discontinuity in the
narrative flow. Frankly as long as the polar bears were not shown doing
anything in the studio setup that polar bears don't do in the wild, I
don't think any falsehood was presented.

It is perfectly possible at some time during the programme without
interrupting the narrative flow to explain that some shots were not, or
will not be, taken in the wild.

It's a different matter when, for example, a "science" programme mentions
asteroids and we are given a picture of a flaming fireball whizzing across
the screen making a whooshing noise as it goes, but showing us polar bears
doing what polar bears really do without bothering us with the technical
details of how the programme was made seems perfectly honest.

I have the disadvantage of not having seen the programme in question. If
at any point during it viewers were told that the polar bears being
shown were in the wild then there should also have been a mention of the
fact that some of those shown were in captivity.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On 27/01/2012 01:40, J G Miller wrote:
And do not forget that bat bites can be fatal.

Bats suffer enough without false reports like that...

http://www.redorbit.COM/news/health/502523/texas_teenager_dies_of_rabies_from_bat_bite/

.... because the URL tells me it's in Texas. Different bats to the UK,
and a place where rabies is endemic. And even then rare enough to make
the papers.

Ah.
On 27/01/2012 11:10, Tim Downie wrote:
Even in the UK


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ctim-dies.html



Well the daily mail being the fount of all accurate reporting I checked.


http://www.snh.org.uk/press/detail.asp?id=2104

Turns out that wasn't actually rabies. Something quite closely related
though, so if you are a naturalist who handles bats all the time, or get
attacked by Dracula, you probably want to see a doctor. You might be
the one person in ten years across the whole of Europe who dies from
Lyssavirus.

You're probably more likely to die falling off the loft ladder trying to
get away from them.

Andy