Monarch Extinction (substantial evidence?)

Ron Gatrelle gatrelle at
Mon Nov 17 13:56:42 EST 2003

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Donna Brunet" <dbrunet at>

Subject: RE: Monarch Extinction (substantial evidence?)

> I think there might be a simple reason for the photos looking different
> the maps.  A lot of ground that was 80-100% forest cover is now 30-80%
> forest cover.  The maps are a look from overhead straight down, and your
> photos are a view from the side, which would (especially at a distance),
> hide any thinning of forest cover.
> ------------------
> Donna Brunet
> Columbia, Missouri
> dbrunet at

This is true (hypothetically), as are many many many other points brought
up in this thread by all sides.   What should be obvious to any reasonable
bystander is that neither side has a "lock" on the truth in this debate.
Simply said, too much is _either_ being stated, or taken, as fact.   This
means several things, not the least of which is that the debate on this
topic is needed to keep each of the other sides from fact-by-default.
Freedom of speech (esp. descent) is the greatest weapon for truth and
liberty available to humanity.

BUT --- there comes a time when talking becomes the proverbial beating of a
dead horse.   As moderator of the TILS-Leps-Talk list serve I just notified
all subscribed there that this debate is now off limits at that group till
further notice (or until spring - when it always begins again).    I'd
therefore very much appreciate it if the folks on this list (which is
unmoderated in practice) would not CC messages to leps-talk.

Ron Gatrelle


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list