Most regular readers here know that I am fascinated with the stories of sudden and seemingly inexplicable animal deaths, where herds of elephants or reindeer or flocks of birds seem to fall dead where they stand (or fly). Part of my fascination is because - to be completely frank - I'm an old softie, and I hate to see beautiful animals suffer. The other part of my fascination is because I'm an old curmudgeon, and suspect that these deaths are not natural in each and every instance. True, some of it may be due to pollution, or some other unknown "blowback" from human environmental impact. But before you think I've gone all soft in the head and am buying into the whole tautological "climate change" meme, I don't mean by "human environmental impact" anything like what the current bumper crop of Marxitards mean by it, and just to be clear, I don't mean (1) carbon "footprints" (2) cow flatulence or any of the other nonsense that pops into their brains. (Am I clear enough? Good.)
What I mean by it are rather the unintended (or perhaps worse, intended) consequences of technological systems that have the clear potential to affect the environment, because they are either engineered to do so (think ionospheric heaters), or because the system is so large that its operation might have planetary resonance effects that could affect biological systems (think CERN's hadron collider). Think weather modification. You get the idea. As Elana Freeland put it to me in an interview she kindly gave to our members, the mere presence of such systems might imply that there is no longer any such thing as purely "natural weather." In the case of ionospheric heaters such as HAARP, the potential for use as a weather modifier was even stated clearly in the initial patents, so chalk that one down to deliberate and intended consequences, and in the case of things like CERN, it's just a speculation on my part.
However, if one takes Ms. Freeland's observation seriously - and I do, because I think it's one of the most insightful comments I've heard - then one might extend that observation to a kind of corollary: there are no longer any purely natural sudden animal die-offs.
With that bit of context in mind, V.T., and G.B., frequent contributors here, spotted this story and passed it along (with our thanks):
Before we get to this article, if you've been following these stories with me, you'll be aware that these SADs as I call them (Sudden Animal Deaths), if taken together, tell a strange story: "conventional" scientists are baffled as to why they are occurring. For example:
(1) In the case of the sudden death of a flight of geese in Idaho a few years ago, and which I blogged about, the best guess was "sudden onset bird flu," that is to say, yet another "magic virus";
(2) In the case of the sudden deaths of flights of birds in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Texas a few years ago, the explanations ran from mystification to what amounted to sudden onset illnesses;
(3) In the case of the sudden deaths of an elephant herd in Africa recently, or of a herd of reindeer in Norway years ago, it was lightning strikes to the ground which suddenly electrocuted the animals.
Considered individually, each of these incidents might perhaps be explained by the mechanisms proposed for them. It's when we consider then together that one runs into trouble; elephants and reindeer aren't going to suddenly collapse and die in a collective herd effort from "sudden onset bird flu" nor are birds going to be prone to electrocution by sudden ground lightning strikes while they're flying.
Now, in New Mexico, as this article indicates, birds are apparently dropping dead, and there's no mention of sudden onset bird flus nor statewide lightning strikes. This time the "explanation" seems even more bizarre and - at least to my thinking - completely unlikely. In fact, in my opinion, the explanation being offered sounds a little ... well... desperate:
It’s unclear to scientists why the die-off is occurring, and Desmond said it’s possible it was caused by a cold front that hit New Mexico last week or by recent droughts.
Desmond also told KOB the deaths could be related to the wildfires in the West. “There may have been some damage to these birds in their lungs. It may have pushed them out early when they weren't ready to migrate.”
Smoke damage from the fires in California? Sorry, I'm simply not buying that one at the moment. There have been fires in California since who knows when, and I don't recall from years past any stories of sudden bird deaths in New Mexico in the same time frame. I'm not saying there aren't any, but I simply don't recall any. In fact, the article more or less corroborates this in a kind of backhanded way when it states
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife said on Twitter that “not much is known about the impacts of smoke and wildfires on birds.”
One would think that by now, with decades of forest fires under our belts, that sudden bird deaths in the same time frame would have at least provoked some study by some state or federal agency. The fact it did not suggests that we're witnessing a new phenomenon, and that fires and smoke inhalation have little to do with it.
Then there's the second explanation offered: a cold front hit New Mexico last week. Well, here's the problem: that same cold front hit where I live too, and I live where there are lots of birds (including that little woodpecker that likes to hammer away on the tree right outside my bedroom in the morning. It's a regular construction zone.) And there are not birds littering the landscape. True enough, New Mexico, like here, had a cold front pass through, but from the records I've been able to look at, it was nothing nearly cold enough to cause bird death statewide, including at such lower elevations as are mentioned in the article, such as at White Sands. And even if it were really cold, it was only for a few days, and birds can normally keep themselves warm, if necessary, for a few days. It was not nearly long enough, in other words, to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of birds.
So, no. These explanations sound like mystification, and a little bit like desperation.
But then, very suggestively, we read this:
Multiple agencies are investigating the occurrences, including the Bureau of Land Management and the White Sands Missile Range, a military testing area.
“On the missile range we might in a week find, get a report of, less than half a dozen birds,” Trish Butler, a biologist at the range, told KOB. “This last week we've had a couple hundred, so that really got our attention.”
You don't say... the military at the White Sands Missile Range is investigating? Well, it makes sense, if one suspected the above explanations are not plausible, and if one suspected an unknown fast-acting pathogen, biowarfare, or some completely different cause, or maybe even some version of my bio-electromagnetically activated pathogen.
So I don't know about you, but looking at all these incidents together, I think something is up. Someone, I suspect, is either targeting innocent animals for whatever reason, or is testing things on them. It is, of course, pure high octane speculation. But the other alternative, pure mystification, is I think even worse.
See you on the flip side...