Butterfly scandal?

[Ron Gatrelle]

To all,
    Actually, I find Paul's posts very interesting. If he is skewing his
data, photos, etc., at least he is doing it in a believable manner with
outside evidence. In other words he tries to make a case based on "facts"
and in an unemotional, non-knee jerk or flamboyant manner. Neil does the
same in an opposite dirrection.
    Now, since Paul seems to have few supporters in his corner on this
venue, I can only express my observation on his detractors. They (with the
exception of few) seem to often only come across as nothing more than
cheerleaders on the sidelines who have no real information at all - they
can only yell slurs or personal insults - air ball, air ball, your momma,
your momma. Or the same teasing all of us non athletic types who did well
in school got from the High School jocks and (currently employed in ditch
digging or working at Hooters) "in crowd".
    I certainly have no vested interest in any aspect of the "Monarch
debate." I was totally unaware there was such a big controversy at all up
till about three or four months ago. I think I came into this pretty
neutral and thus well qualified for jury duty.
    Frankly, the recent flurry of posts on the crisis in Mexico looked
awfully disjunct, unreasonable, improbable, and contradictory without Paul
having said a word or posted one picture or reference. In other words
"they" were discredited by their own words. The following is my progressive
view on the reported events.
    First. "They" said there was a horrible storm of 100 mph winds and
torrid
thunderstorms. (The eye of hurricane Hugo came over my home - I have been
in 100 mph winds. It is devastating - especially to 30 - 80 year old pine
trees which snap like tooth picks.) "They" said the Monarch colony was
devastated by this storm.  Having been in such a storm - I believed this
report and agreed that it would put tremendous negative pressure on the
Monarchs and there overwintering habitat.
    Second. Within just a day or so "they" posted that rogue loggers had
ravaged the area AND sprayed millions of Monarchs with insecticide. This
had now devastated the Monarchs and their habitat. Now how could these two
accounts - by basically the same people of two virtually simultaneously
occurring catastrophic events - not strike any passing observer as
necessitating that one of the accounts (stories) was fictitious. It is like
two brothers running in to Momma with each having a simultaneous but
mutually exclusive report of how little sister just had her dolls broken -
one claiming that a burglar just ran through the home and broke sister's
doll's head by stepping on it while the other said that while sissy was
outside with her dolls a huge dog came up and bit the heads off of all
sissy's favorite dolls. To Mom the culprit is obvious. There was no dog or
burglar. The brothers had obviously broken sissy's dolls and are trying to
cover their own guilt. The problem is they neglected to confer and get
there stories to agree. It is amazing how often dishonest people get caught
in this same manner - which is why police separate suspects in
interrogating them.
    Third, was the wild conspiritorial account of how the trees were
logged, buterflies killed, and cover up implimented. Convieniently, it was
implied that we should not expect "their" account to be verified as the
controling political party is corrupt, and would claim the report was
bogous. This is like someone claiming they really do have regular contact
with outerspace ailens who have said the moon actually is made of cheese,
but, the government has consficated their proof and so the only proof they
now offer is the projected government calim that they are carzy. And sure
enough, the government does calim they are nuts - just like they said they
would - and thus proving their story.        Sure enough, Paul just posted
the report from the wire service (which is also probably involved in the
conspiricy to destroy all wildlife on earth) that the "government" examined
300 specimens and found absolutely no evidence of pesticide use.
Which proves a cover-up, which proves a conspiracy between the loggers and
local Mexican government, which prooves - whatever "they" want.
    Fourth through 50th. How do loggers log hundreds of trees, at night no
less, is an area without the electrical resources to provide light for such
a massive operation? Do they also bring in their own massive light systems
(rented from a Rolling Stone tour) and noisy generators? (Perhaps they all
were provided night vision equipment from their governmental
co-conspirators local army post.) What kind of silencers have they invented
for use on their commercial strength chain saws and those generators?
Wouldn't they make enough noise - in the middle of the quiet Mexican
night - to be heard 50 miles away? Now to the poisoning. How may
helicopters or trucks with extension ladders did they have to rent to spray
high enough in the trees to kill the Monarchs? What kind of protective gear
did they rent to keep the poison from falling or blowing all over
themselves? Why go to all this trouble - expense - to kill and remove dead
Monarch's when the penalty would only be a fine of about $10 to $100.? Now
that makes a lot of sense. Why not just kill them all then have a few kids
turn themselves in for doing it, say they were sorry, and fork over $10 to
$100. You know, even though crooks aren't always too bright, it just does
not seem that even they would go to so much trouble and expense to commit a
crime with only a "twenty times the minimum wage" fine.
    These are just my observations and thoughts on what has been posted. My
conclusion is that there really was a devastating storm and it is a real
problem. The other is not a hoax or scandal - it is fraud - a crime. I am
an environmetalist. I, along with the vast majority of other
environmentalists, do not approve of the people (criminals) out there that
do things like put spikes in trees to injure or kill loggers, or freely
employing lying - end justifies the means - under the bogus guise of being
friends of the environment. There are liars and crooks in every level of
life. No occupation or endevor is so blessed to be occupied by only saints.
One last point. Motive. Some people stoop to dishonest or radical bahaviour
because they misguidedly, but sincelrly, just believe in a cause. However
most who stoop below the law are motivated by money. There are millions of
reasons (dollars) to tempt any number of people to loose their intregrety
relative to the "Monarch crisis."
    Let me also say this. I do not think the majority of those who are
involved with the Monarch are crooks. But one or two bad apples will spoil
the
whole bunch. "They" need to keep the nuts and fanatics out or they will
bring down a legitimate work. I don't doubt there is illegal logging. I can
also see the locals wanting to poison Monarchs especially since it was
brought out that some % of the locals have seen the Monarch's arrival ( for
centuries?) as an omen of bad luck or a "plague." I just think the truth is
that the presented logging and poision propaganda was an intentional lie. I
think this not because of anything Paul said - but based 100% on what the
reporters of it said.
Ron



 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl