Thread: Not goats, camels.

G'day Cliff,
Great piccy, didn't know that you worked for National Geo.
I reckon the camels have passed over & the black shadows are thier spirits moving to another plane.:confused:
I wonder if the photographer planned the shot, or was just in the right place at the right time?
I hope that you fared well in the aftermath of cyclone Larry - named after a wild, larrikin mate of mine who has moved up to Queensland. Trust me, he could cause that much havoc!
Regards,
Barry.

Good pic there Cliff, thought it was one of those Arnotts Shapes ads for a second

That's spookily eerie! Wonderful photograph; no wonder it made Nat. Geo.

Wow - thanks for sharing that, Cliff! One of those times you'd want to yell, "WHOA, STOP THE PLANE"!!!!!!

Cheers,

Jill

Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers

Look very closely....This is an awesome photograph -

Do you think the black ones are camels?

Look again...

Black ones are shadows, white ones are the real camels

I would have said the white ones were dromedaries. I didn't see any camels.

Originally Posted by boban

I would have said the white ones were dromedaries. I didn't see any camels.

I thought you would say something more like.

In the aforementioned exhibit, the more light reflecting examples of mamalia, as opposed to those of more light absorbing, forewith known as white, could and indeed would upon closer scrutiny, appear, to the more observant observer, to in fact be more accurately be described as a dromedary, the aforementioned description of white, ( see earlier note describing white) camels in the aforesaid exhibit don not stand up to scrutiny, as indeed under clause 1 subsection 14 of the zoological manual 1846, describes camels as to posess a total of more than one fatty tissue resovoir carried upon the back of the said animal, and it is expected that in fact this particular species to attain the total of two of aforementioned resovoirs. The case in point shows a distinct lack of multi-fatty tissued resovoired animals.

Originally Posted by outback

I thought you would say something more like.

In the aforementioned exhibit, the more light reflecting examples of mamalia, as opposed to those of more light absorbing, forewith known as white, could and indeed would upon closer scrutiny, appear, to the more observant observer, to in fact be more accurately be described as a dromedary, the aforementioned description of white, ( see earlier note describing white) camels in the aforesaid exhibit don not stand up to scrutiny, as indeed under clause 1 subsection 14 of the zoological manual 1846, describes camels as to posess a total of more than one fatty tissue resovoir carried upon the back of the said animal, and it is expected that in fact this particular species to attain the total of two of aforementioned resovoirs. The case in point shows a distinct lack of multi-fatty tissued resovoired animals.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Huh, what, arrhum, was that one or too lumps with the tea dear?

Al

That's what I said, but my secretary seems to have taken some liberty in paraphrasing that which was dictated.

Very good Outback

Don't particularly want to get involved in this but does anyone find anything wrong with this issue about defining the difference between camels and dromedaries?

(Come in Bodgy )

I was taught that Bactrian Camels have two humps and Dromedaries have one. I believe that "camel" as a generic term covers both types of animal.

Mick

If it won't pass through the eye of a needle, it's a camel. Unless it weighs as much as a duck, in which case it's a witch. Or possibly a cat. But it's more fun passing a needle through the eye of a cat than vice-versa anyway, so why bother doing things backwards?

Now, when I was a lad, we used to wear a potato around our necks. Long story, but you see it was... ZzzzzzZZZzzzz....

Well they ain't goats.

How can this bactrian dromedary nubian cashmere be in bright sunshine whilst in the shadow of his neighbour as well?

Originally Posted by outback

How can this bactrian dromedary nubian cashmere be in bright sunshine whilst in the shadow of his neighbour as well?

Well spotted.

Maybe it is an advert for Shapes biccies?
And someone put the NG logo on for some credability....

Al