Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Expert claims Jurassic Park a fraud: notorious mosquito preserved in amber was only species that didn't suck blood. Because everything else in the film was completely feasible   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Stupid, dinosaurs  
•       •       •

1729 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 01 Aug 2013 at 8:19 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



109 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-08-01 08:23:27 AM  
You know what really isn't plausible?  None of the dinosaurs in *ANY* of the three Jurassic Park movies is visibly killed, or even wounded, by a firearm.

None.

And this despite the fact that there were guns in all three films, *ESPECIALLY* the second one, in which InGen sent in a small army of armed men.
 
2013-08-01 08:23:29 AM  
We're still going to clone the mammoth, though, right? Because I would hate to think that we'd have that DNA samples and we didn't do something cool with it.
 
2013-08-01 08:24:15 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: We're still going to clone the mammoth, though, right? Because I would hate to think that we'd have that DNA samples and we didn't do something cool with it.


We should clone a bunch of them so that we can hunt them again.
 
2013-08-01 08:24:47 AM  

dittybopper: AverageAmericanGuy: We're still going to clone the mammoth, though, right? Because I would hate to think that we'd have that DNA samples and we didn't do something cool with it.

We should clone a bunch of them so that we can hunt them again.


Now you're talking!
 
2013-08-01 08:26:38 AM  
Any avionics/helicopter nerds around?

Would it be dangerous to try to land a helicopter in a narrow canyon that was close to being a vertical shaft?  I always figured that the down draft from those rotors in what is effectively a tupe would have created an extremely unstable air flow to operate a helicopter in.

But maybe it is safe.
 
2013-08-01 08:26:44 AM  

dittybopper: You know what really isn't plausible?  None of the dinosaurs in *ANY* of the three Jurassic Park movies is visibly killed, or even wounded, by a firearm.

None.

And this despite the fact that there were guns in all three films, *ESPECIALLY* the second one, in which InGen sent in a small army of armed men.


...except for the raptor in the opening scene of the first film?
 
2013-08-01 08:26:55 AM  
The velociraptor:
  -Can withstand dozens of tazings while it mauls an animal handler
  -Can also be knocked off its feet be a twelve-year-old doing gymnastics

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
 
2013-08-01 08:28:44 AM  
And how did they clone the plants?
 
2013-08-01 08:32:23 AM  

gunga galunga: -Can also be knocked off its feet be a twelve-year-old doing gymnastics

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

upload.wikimedia.org

 
2013-08-01 08:33:03 AM  
Life....UHH....found a way.
 
2013-08-01 08:33:43 AM  

clkeagle: dittybopper: You know what really isn't plausible?  None of the dinosaurs in *ANY* of the three Jurassic Park movies is visibly killed, or even wounded, by a firearm.

None.

And this despite the fact that there were guns in all three films, *ESPECIALLY* the second one, in which InGen sent in a small army of armed men.

...except for the raptor in the opening scene of the first film?


Is it visibly killed or wounded?

All we hear is Muldoon shouting "Shoot her!  Shoot her!"  and then some gun shots, but we don't know if they actually killed or wounded the raptor or not.

Meanwhile, in that film, we see several people killed by dinosaurs.  At least 3 that I can think of are "on camera".
 
2013-08-01 08:33:58 AM  
Oh, man, I totally forgot that Jurassic Park was a documentary!  Thanks for nitpicking apart a 20 year old movie to remind me, Mr. Pedantic Researcher!
 
2013-08-01 08:35:24 AM  

gunga galunga: The velociraptor:
  -Can withstand dozens of tazings while it mauls an animal handler
  -Can also be knocked off its feet be a twelve-year-old doing gymnastics

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.


Also, what kind of teenage mutant ninja frog DNA did they use to finish sequencing those raptors? Because the velociraptors that actually existed on this planet were only about four feet tall... and covered with downy feathers.

upload.wikimedia.org

And even if the feathers weren't confirmed when the first movie came out... pretty sure the size was.
 
2013-08-01 08:35:27 AM  
Here's a hint............


It's FANTASY.....  It doesn't need to be debunked.............

/sigh
 
2013-08-01 08:36:39 AM  
Little known fact:  The Munchkins in The Wizard of Oz were really just human dwarves, not an actual separate species of primate.  No lie.
 
2013-08-01 08:38:24 AM  

Tricky Chicken: And how did they clone the plants?


I don't think they even explained this in the book, but it could feasibly be explained by pollen grains and spores also trapped in the amber.

Granted, in reality it has the same problems as the insect and even moreso the dinosaur DNA in that DNA molecules simply cannot last that long. But it wouldn't be a terrible explanation in the context of the science fiction of the book.
 
2013-08-01 08:38:44 AM  

Tricky Chicken: And how did they clone the plants?


mosquito blood
 
2013-08-01 08:40:48 AM  

gunga galunga: The velociraptor:
  -Can withstand dozens of tazings while it mauls an animal handler
  -Can also be knocked off its feet be a twelve-year-old doing gymnastics

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.


Actually, it might make some sense.

In the first case, a thick, dry, scaly skin might protect them from electrical shock.  Plus, if they have a bit more of a primitive nervous system, it might be something they can shrug off.  Or it could be they just weren't hitting the raptor at all, for the most part:  We don't really get to see what's going on in that scene, not really.

In the second, physics is physics.  You could be a burly 200 lb weight lifter, but if you get hit by a 100 lb gymnast like that, it's going to knock you off balance if you don't know it's coming.  On the ground, no big deal:  You stagger back and keep your feet.  If you're perched up on a catwalk, it very well could knock you down.

Having said that, yeah, that is a particularly stupid scene.
 
2013-08-01 08:41:35 AM  

fisker: Tricky Chicken: And how did they clone the plants?

mosquito blood


dinosaur poop
 
2013-08-01 08:42:29 AM  

clkeagle: gunga galunga: The velociraptor:
  -Can withstand dozens of tazings while it mauls an animal handler
  -Can also be knocked off its feet be a twelve-year-old doing gymnastics

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Also, what kind of teenage mutant ninja frog DNA did they use to finish sequencing those raptors? Because the velociraptors that actually existed on this planet were only about four feet tall... and covered with downy feathers.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 473x334]

And even if the feathers weren't confirmed when the first movie came out... pretty sure the size was.


Utahraptor
 
2013-08-01 08:43:43 AM  

clkeagle: Also, what kind of teenage mutant ninja frog DNA did they use to finish sequencing those raptors? Because the velociraptors that actually existed on this planet were only about four feet tall... and covered with downy feathers.

upload.wikimedia.org

And even if the feathers weren't confirmed when the first movie came out... pretty sure the size was.


Was admitted to be done for dramatic purposes. The original idea was to have them be a swarming style of attack but the CGI estimates and production predictions came in too high so they scaled up the size of the beasts.
 
2013-08-01 08:44:54 AM  

AeAe: fisker: Tricky Chicken: And how did they clone the plants?

mosquito blood

dinosaur poop


Wait, I thought that scene with the dinosaur poop was because the plants they had there weren't plants of the time.
 
2013-08-01 08:47:55 AM  
So they had a problem with... DINO DNA!
 
2013-08-01 08:48:03 AM  

BattleFrenchie28: Wait, I thought that scene with the dinosaur poop was because the plants they had there weren't plants of the time.


The movie neglected to explain that scene. The dinosaurs were getting sick because they were accidentally eating the poisonous seeds of the West Indian Lilac when they would swallow rocks to use as gizzard stones. Thus the plants not being damaged.
 
2013-08-01 08:49:26 AM  
Faster...must go faster!
 
2013-08-01 08:49:27 AM  

clkeagle: gunga galunga: The velociraptor:
  -Can withstand dozens of tazings while it mauls an animal handler
  -Can also be knocked off its feet be a twelve-year-old doing gymnastics

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Also, what kind of teenage mutant ninja frog DNA did they use to finish sequencing those raptors? Because the velociraptors that actually existed on this planet were only about four feet tall... and covered with downy feathers.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 473x334]

And even if the feathers weren't confirmed when the first movie came out... pretty sure the size was.


Yeah, except that there were larger dromeosaurs known at the time, which were called velociraptors in some texts:

upload.wikimedia.org

See that Deinonychus antirrhopus?  I have a book from about the time the movie came out that lumps it in the genus Velociraptor, and it's only a bit smaller than the movie versions.

Utahraptor was discovered about the time of the movie itself, and it's actually much larger than the movie versions.

I see no reason why there can't be a dromeosaur intermediate in size between Deinonychus and Utahraptor.  But yeah, the film actually did say "Velociraptor mongoliensis".
 
2013-08-01 08:57:14 AM  

clkeagle: And even if the feathers weren't confirmed when the first movie came out... pretty sure the size was.


You think some rich guy has the resources to create Jurassic Park.  The park was a cover for a DARPA project and the only reason we don't have weaponized dinosaurs is the book, published as fiction, caused funding to be pulled

/study it out
 
2013-08-01 09:03:41 AM  
You know what the worst mistake in the original Jurassic Park is?

Alan Grant doesn't freak out when finding the hatched eggs and baby dino prints.  Why would he do that?  Look at the small prints;

www.jplegacy.org

See how they only have two toes?  All bipedal dinosaurs walked on 3 toes like modern birds, with one exception:  The sickle-clawed dromeosaurids which walk on two toes, keeping the big claw off the ground.  In the context of Jurassic Park that means those tracks can only come from one species, the Velociraptors.

This is confirmed by the tracks of the adult raptors after they escaped from their pen:

www.georgialifetraces.com

Dr. Grant, as a paleontologist should pretty much know the implications of finding those eggs, with those tracks.  The only possible conclusion is that there is a breeding population of raptors on the island.

And he doesn't seem to give a crap.  Not even a look of horrific recognition, but not mentioning it out loud in order to not panic the kids.
 
2013-08-01 09:06:02 AM  
dittybopper: See that Deinonychus antirrhopus?  I have a book from about the time the movie came out that lumps it in the genus Velociraptor, and it's only a bit smaller than the movie versions.

Several people associated with the movie tried to use that defense. But the 'raptors in the film are depicted at a larger size than even Deinonychus.

Utahraptor was discovered about the time of the movie itself, and it's actually much larger than the movie versions.

Speaking of - wasn't there a toy Utahraptor for the second or third movie releases? They should have found a way to work them into the films themselves; Utahraptors would have been more suited to their purposes.

I see no reason why there can't be a dromeosaur intermediate in size between Deinonychus and Utahraptor.

There were probably several - we just haven't discovered them, and may never. The fossil record isn't at all representative of the actual ecosystems.

But yeah, the film actually did say "Velociraptor mongoliensis".

So did the book... that's why it's always bugged me. If I was writing a book about dinosaurs with that level of detail, I would have found some paleontology grad student to double-check all the species' names, sizes, diets, habitats, and suspected behavior patterns. And if I wanted to diverge from history in the narrative, it would be lampshaded by a scientist character's dialog. "Yeah, we've really been wrong about the (whateversaurus). Six months of watching this litter has completely undermined a hundred years of research about their entire family."
 
2013-08-01 09:09:34 AM  

dittybopper: clkeagle: gunga galunga: The velociraptor:
  -Can withstand dozens of tazings while it mauls an animal handler
  -Can also be knocked off its feet be a twelve-year-old doing gymnastics

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Also, what kind of teenage mutant ninja frog DNA did they use to finish sequencing those raptors? Because the velociraptors that actually existed on this planet were only about four feet tall... and covered with downy feathers.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 473x334]

And even if the feathers weren't confirmed when the first movie came out... pretty sure the size was.

Yeah, except that there were larger dromeosaurs known at the time, which were called velociraptors in some texts:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x265]

See that Deinonychus antirrhopus?  I have a book from about the time the movie came out that lumps it in the genus Velociraptor, and it's only a bit smaller than the movie versions.

Utahraptor was discovered about the time of the movie itself, and it's actually much larger than the movie versions.

I see no reason why there can't be a dromeosaur intermediate in size between Deinonychus and Utahraptor.  But yeah, the film actually did say "Velociraptor mongoliensis".


"Velociraptor mongoliensis" only pawns in games of Hollywood scriptwriters
 
2013-08-01 09:11:28 AM  

dittybopper: You know what the worst mistake in the original Jurassic Park is?

Alan Grant doesn't freak out when finding the hatched eggs and baby dino prints.  Why would he do that?  Look at the small prints;

[www.jplegacy.org image 508x277]

See how they only have two toes?  All bipedal dinosaurs walked on 3 toes like modern birds, with one exception:  The sickle-clawed dromeosaurids which walk on two toes, keeping the big claw off the ground.  In the context of Jurassic Park that means those tracks can only come from one species, the Velociraptors.

This is confirmed by the tracks of the adult raptors after they escaped from their pen:

[www.georgialifetraces.com image 504x238]

Dr. Grant, as a paleontologist should pretty much know the implications of finding those eggs, with those tracks.  The only possible conclusion is that there is a breeding population of raptors on the island.

And he doesn't seem to give a crap.  Not even a look of horrific recognition, but not mentioning it out loud in order to not panic the kids.


And yet that exact thing is covered in the book.  He notes they are raptor eggs.  I'm not sure why they didn't take that moment to give you a spooky "DUN DUN DUN" moment on film.  It would have worked quite well.

But then again, I don't go after the movie or book to hard.  They have many flaws and gaps as all science fiction films do.  They did a pretty good job putting this one together.  Much, much better than most modern sci-fi.
 
2013-08-01 09:13:46 AM  

clkeagle: And even if the feathers weren't confirmed when the first movie came out... pretty sure the size was.


Don't forget they weren't exact copies.  Whole large sections of their DNA had to be replaced by the DNA of other animals, especially frogs.  That means there was quite a bit of genetic tinkering going on.  What if they hatch a baby raptor (version 1.0) and it comes out with feathers?  Well, at the time, everyone *KNEW* that real dinosaurs didn't have feathers, so it must be a mistake.  They'll correct it in raptor version 1.1.

Same thing with color:  Every one *KNOWS* dinosaurs are a dull brown or green color, or maybe gray.  So you hatch one that comes out with a bright red or blue head, and, well, that just *CAN'T* be right, can it?
 
2013-08-01 09:15:12 AM  

dittybopper: clkeagle: gunga galunga: The velociraptor:
  -Can withstand dozens of tazings while it mauls an animal handler
  -Can also be knocked off its feet be a twelve-year-old doing gymnastics

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Also, what kind of teenage mutant ninja frog DNA did they use to finish sequencing those raptors? Because the velociraptors that actually existed on this planet were only about four feet tall... and covered with downy feathers.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 473x334]

And even if the feathers weren't confirmed when the first movie came out... pretty sure the size was.

Yeah, except that there were larger dromeosaurs known at the time, which were called velociraptors in some texts:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x265]

See that Deinonychus antirrhopus?  I have a book from about the time the movie came out that lumps it in the genus Velociraptor, and it's only a bit smaller than the movie versions.

Utahraptor was discovered about the time of the movie itself, and it's actually much larger than the movie versions.

I see no reason why there can't be a dromeosaur intermediate in size between Deinonychus and Utahraptor.  But yeah, the film actually did say "Velociraptor mongoliensis".


There are a few,such as Atrociraptor. We've even found bits and pieces of them in the Hell Creek Fm, bigger than Dromaeosaurus itself, probably about 7-8 feet long max.

/Atrociraptor wasn't discovered till after the book came out.
 
2013-08-01 09:15:21 AM  

dittybopper: clkeagle: dittybopper: You know what really isn't plausible?  None of the dinosaurs in *ANY* of the three Jurassic Park movies is visibly killed, or even wounded, by a firearm.

None.

And this despite the fact that there were guns in all three films, *ESPECIALLY* the second one, in which InGen sent in a small army of armed men.

...except for the raptor in the opening scene of the first film?

Is it visibly killed or wounded?

All we hear is Muldoon shouting "Shoot her!  Shoot her!"  and then some gun shots, but we don't know if they actually killed or wounded the raptor or not.

Meanwhile, in that film, we see several people killed by dinosaurs.  At least 3 that I can think of are "on camera".


I always assumed that to be the main female raptor (the one the raptor guard says killed all but 2 others in the pen).
 
2013-08-01 09:15:29 AM  

LewDux: "Velociraptor mongoliensis" only pawns in games of Hollywood scriptwriters


No no, they were going to correct it for the film, remember that Spielberg is a stickler for accuracy. However they couldn't get a scenario where they could create a swarm of raptors and fit it to film for the budget and production capabilities they were working with.
 
2013-08-01 09:19:38 AM  

dittybopper: I see no reason why there can't be a dromeosaur intermediate in size between Deinonychus and Utahraptor. But yeah, the film actually did say "Velociraptor mongoliensis".


Seems like a remember a behind the scenes interview where they said they knew it was the wrong size, but velociraptor sounded better than utahraptor so they went with it anyway.
 
2013-08-01 09:21:00 AM  
InGen created monsters out of like 20 different species DNA.  If anything we should be wondering what changes to our own DNA will be made in the future.
Just think, the gvt could make a TacoBell-contingency.  If you don't get your government regulated Taco-Bell within 48 hours, you simply slip into a coma and die.
 
2013-08-01 09:28:06 AM  

LewDux


"Velociraptor mongoliensis" only pawns in games of Hollywood scriptwriters


You sound Mongolian.
 
2013-08-01 09:28:08 AM  

Khellendros: And yet that exact thing is covered in the book.  He notes they are raptor eggs.  I'm not sure why they didn't take that moment to give you a spooky "DUN DUN DUN" moment on film.  It would have worked quite well.


I think they intended to do so, which is why it's set up like that, but then didn't for whatever reason.   Perhaps because it would ruin the ending, with the T-rex taking out the "last" of the raptors.

But then again, I don't go after the movie or book to hard.  They have many flaws and gaps as all science fiction films do.  They did a pretty good job putting this one together.  Much, much better than most modern sci-fi.

I mostly agree.  Except for the whole gun thing.  It's just not plausible that over the course of 3 films, not a single dinosaur is even noticeably wounded by a firearm.   Even an animal the size of a T-rex could be brought down by enough hits with deer rifles.
 
2013-08-01 09:28:13 AM  

dittybopper: AverageAmericanGuy: We're still going to clone the mammoth, though, right? Because I would hate to think that we'd have that DNA samples and we didn't do something cool with it.

We should clone a bunch of them so that we can hunt them again.


Was hoping we'd turn Siberia into one big mammoth farm to raise and slaughter a few hundred every X years to supply meat with... Yabba dabba doooooo
 
2013-08-01 09:29:57 AM  
Wasn't this brought up when the movie first came out?  The mosquito blood thing was just a plot device to explain how they had dino DNA.  Why they needed dino blood for the DNA and not drill it out of the fossils, I don't know.  At least from the fossils you would know what dino you're getting.  From mosquito it's a gamble as to what dino you're getting.

Also, if dinos are closer to birds than reptiles, as the movie suggests (and science theorizes), then why use frog DNA to fill in the gaps?  Wouldn't any bird be a better match?  If a chicken is an evolved T-rex, and we find T-rex DNA, why not fill in the DNA gaps with a trip to KFC?
 
2013-08-01 09:30:07 AM  

BattleFrenchie28: AeAe: fisker: Tricky Chicken: And how did they clone the plants?

mosquito blood

dinosaur poop

Wait, I thought that scene with the dinosaur poop was because the plants they had there weren't plants of the time.


That was why the triceratops was sick, but when they first entered the park, the blonde paleobotanist was examining a plant that she claimed had been extince for a long time.  Then the guy forced her head in the direction of the dinosaurs.  that is when we first see them in herds.
 
2013-08-01 09:30:41 AM  
Since this is the Fail, I was expecting a creationist spin on this tale. For once, I left disappointed.

/Besides, it would've been more plausible to get dinosaur DNA from a chicken.
//'Cuz chickens are dinosaurs...as sure as we are mammals.
 
2013-08-01 09:33:27 AM  

Dinodork: There are a few,such as Atrociraptor. We've even found bits and pieces of them in the Hell Creek Fm, bigger than Dromaeosaurus itself, probably about 7-8 feet long max.

/Atrociraptor wasn't discovered till after the book came out.


I was wondering when you were going to show up.
 
2013-08-01 09:37:30 AM  

IlGreven: Since this is the Fail, I was expecting a creationist spin on this tale. For once, I left disappointed.

/Besides, it would've been more plausible to get dinosaur DNA from a chicken.
//'Cuz chickens are dinosaurs...as sure as we are mammals.


I ain't never seen no chicken evolve into a T-Rex!

/is that what you wanted?
 
2013-08-01 09:43:26 AM  

Great Janitor: Wasn't this brought up when the movie first came out?  The mosquito blood thing was just a plot device to explain how they had dino DNA.  Why they needed dino blood for the DNA and not drill it out of the fossils, I don't know.  At least from the fossils you would know what dino you're getting.  From mosquito it's a gamble as to what dino you're getting.

Also, if dinos are closer to birds than reptiles, as the movie suggests (and science theorizes), then why use frog DNA to fill in the gaps?  Wouldn't any bird be a better match?  If a chicken is an evolved T-rex, and we find T-rex DNA, why not fill in the DNA gaps with a trip to KFC?


The book explained that DNA could be drilled from fossils, but the yield on material would be something around 18 percent, which was too low for frog DNA to be added to. The mosquitos had a higher yield of genetic material.
 
2013-08-01 09:46:27 AM  

clkeagle: dittybopper: See that Deinonychus antirrhopus?  I have a book from about the time the movie came out that lumps it in the genus Velociraptor, and it's only a bit smaller than the movie versions.

Several people associated with the movie tried to use that defense. But the 'raptors in the film are depicted at a larger size than even Deinonychus.

Utahraptor was discovered about the time of the movie itself, and it's actually much larger than the movie versions.

Speaking of - wasn't there a toy Utahraptor for the second or third movie releases? They should have found a way to work them into the films themselves; Utahraptors would have been more suited to their purposes.

I see no reason why there can't be a dromeosaur intermediate in size between Deinonychus and Utahraptor.

There were probably several - we just haven't discovered them, and may never. The fossil record isn't at all representative of the actual ecosystems.

But yeah, the film actually did say "Velociraptor mongoliensis".

So did the book... that's why it's always bugged me. If I was writing a book about dinosaurs with that level of detail, I would have found some paleontology grad student to double-check all the species' names, sizes, diets, habitats, and suspected behavior patterns. And if I wanted to diverge from history in the narrative, it would be lampshaded by a scientist character's dialog. "Yeah, we've really been wrong about the (whateversaurus). Six months of watching this litter has completely undermined a hundred years of research about their entire family."


Well let's go dig up crichton and punish him for it. Though I think releasing his unfinished book was punishment enough.
 
2013-08-01 09:49:43 AM  
Science vs movies vs the willing suspension of disbelief:

Remember in the late 90's there was a series of animated movies about bugs?  I was working in an entomology lab at the time, so we all went to see them.  And we all had the same reaction at one point or another during the movies: "Wait!  That species of insect doesn't do that!  [Insert technical entogeeky reason why].  Oh, yeah, and they don't sing, dance, or talk, either."
 
2013-08-01 09:50:34 AM  
This is like a physicist pointing out all the laws of physics that Superman violates. Hey buddy, we don't care, we know it is fantasy.
 
2013-08-01 09:51:35 AM  

WyDave: Science vs movies vs the willing suspension of disbelief:

Remember in the late 90's there was a series of animated movies about bugs?  I was working in an entomology lab at the time, so we all went to see them.  And we all had the same reaction at one point or another during the movies: "Wait!  That species of insect doesn't do that!  [Insert technical entogeeky reason why].  Oh, yeah, and they don't sing, dance, or talk, either."


So did you like Antz more because the ants had 6 appendages, or did you like A Bug's Life more because it actually had a plot and likable characters?
 
Displayed 50 of 109 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report