A sometime record of one family's journey together
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Battle at Kruger
Ok folks. In case you fit into that group of people that both reads this blog and HASN'T seen the Battle at Kruger video, check this out. It's eight minutes of pretty amazing footage from Africa. Trust me, you will enjoy this.
I saw a news report a couple nights ago saying it was recently revealed that this video was actually digitally altered in some way. They said it didn't really happen like this.
I'd be curious to hear more. National Geographic did a full hour long special on it last night and especially higlighted the fact that it is unaltered/unedited. According to them it happened just like this. They interviewed several people that were present at the event as well. They also did a bunch of slow-mo zooms that I would suspect would have revealed such tampering, but it all looked legit. I'd be curious to find out how it is supposed to have been altered.
I retract my comment. I know I heard the report on TV (so it must be true), but I can't find a report on the web (so it mustn't be true).
The closest I could find is a report by Time Magazine. They imply that it could be a fake at the end of the article writing:
"One question that's not answered—and probably not answerable—by either the video or the scientists is how well the beaten-up baby fared after the cameras stopped rolling. Certainly the right bite to the neck would have caused the baby to bleed out fast—which did not appear to happen—and the right hold on its hind legs would have broken them, making it impossible for him to trot back to the herd as he did. Buffalo hide is tough, and perhaps this baby was even tougher and scrappier than most—or perhaps the crocs and lions simply had their B-teams out that day. Whatever the answer, one of the best thing about the alternate-reality, user-driven world of the Web is the freedom it provides—in the absence of alternative evidence—to invent the endings we'd like to see. Judging by the 6,000-plus responses, in the YouTube world at least, the baby's doing just fine."
I've also been doing a bit of research. I think Jay is the hoax. If this had been proven a hoax, there would be no end of blogs and news articles available online shouting from the virtual rooftops about the amazing Hoax at Kruger. As it is, National Geographic interviewed the actual safari leader that can be heard on the video and he attested to the facts as they are represented in the video.
Until some evidence is "proven up" I stand by my vote of confidence in the veritability (is that a word?) of this video, and will not have you, sir, besmirching it.
6 comments:
I saw a news report a couple nights ago saying it was recently revealed that this video was actually digitally altered in some way. They said it didn't really happen like this.
But it's still a great video!
I'd be curious to hear more. National Geographic did a full hour long special on it last night and especially higlighted the fact that it is unaltered/unedited. According to them it happened just like this. They interviewed several people that were present at the event as well. They also did a bunch of slow-mo zooms that I would suspect would have revealed such tampering, but it all looked legit. I'd be curious to find out how it is supposed to have been altered.
I retract my comment. I know I heard the report on TV (so it must be true), but I can't find a report on the web (so it mustn't be true).
The closest I could find is a report by Time Magazine. They imply that it could be a fake at the end of the article writing:
"One question that's not answered—and probably not answerable—by either the video or the scientists is how well the beaten-up baby fared after the cameras stopped rolling. Certainly the right bite to the neck would have caused the baby to bleed out fast—which did not appear to happen—and the right hold on its hind legs would have broken them, making it impossible for him to trot back to the herd as he did. Buffalo hide is tough, and perhaps this baby was even tougher and scrappier than most—or perhaps the crocs and lions simply had their B-teams out that day. Whatever the answer, one of the best thing about the alternate-reality, user-driven world of the Web is the freedom it provides—in the absence of alternative evidence—to invent the endings we'd like to see. Judging by the 6,000-plus responses, in the YouTube world at least, the baby's doing just fine."
I've also been doing a bit of research. I think Jay is the hoax. If this had been proven a hoax, there would be no end of blogs and news articles available online shouting from the virtual rooftops about the amazing Hoax at Kruger. As it is, National Geographic interviewed the actual safari leader that can be heard on the video and he attested to the facts as they are represented in the video.
Until some evidence is "proven up" I stand by my vote of confidence in the veritability (is that a word?) of this video, and will not have you, sir, besmirching it.
I think you are thinking of veracity of the video Matt.
Mike
That's a good word, too. But I think it's been used before. :^)
Post a Comment