I appreciate the effort, but I'd rather not have to participate.

In reply to this comment by siftbot:
During the Anonymous Video Submitter Contest the doublepromote invocation is disabled.

To add to the comment I added on that post, I've always known who he was because the likes of The Goodies would make fun of him (and Sir David Attenborough, and the likes). He's a fairly well-known astronomer, and a slightly less well-known xylophone player, who has played (in 1981) for the Queen in a Royal variety performance.

I don't think I've ever seen him without his monocle.

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
http://videosift.com/video/Space-Snacks-With-Sir-Patrick-Moore-the-astronomer
lol, I went to go see who Patrick Moore was and found this.
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Close. I would vote for Giraffe number 1, then Kenya. Maybe they're my equal faves with Scampi and Badger coming after.

I don't like all of them, the salad fingers ones and the like leave me completely cold (choccy otoh leaves me hungry

Oh no! I forgot Patrick Moore! Now I don't know whether I like it more than Scampi or not... OK, I'd better stop here before I get really confused...

I wasn't aware that Darwinian evolution needed confirming. This piece is interesting as it applies to us, but to say that we need this to confirm Darwin's theory of evolution is just ridiculous. Proof abounds for evolution and this just adds to it. Evolution would still be fact without it.

Sir David Attenborough certainly knows his stuff regarding fossils and would be a very hard person to fool, so it seems this is what it claims to be which is great, and a very interesting specimen.

It'd be better if he had brought in one of those snakes and it had purposefully bit Bono in the eye

In reply to this comment by bluecliff:
it would be nice if he had brought one of those snake and it accidentally bit Bono in the eyes.

He is goddamnit! Are you female? If so come back to me and i'll argue it with you, if not, how would you understand

OK maybe you're gay... Anyway, either way there's something about him

In reply to this comment by sillma:
Sexy? you're weird

Thanks for the promote. I realized that my video had a bit provocative title, but hey, that's what's necessary to get a video sifted these days.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
*promote

Indeed. I feel like such a noob now. They mixed video over the audio track there masterfully, and one is actually more prone to notice the editing by turning sound off. Only then did I see the reverse action, etc. Weird they wouldn't have had more job done on the actual bird though.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^EDD:
While editing wasn't anywhere near perfect, one's gotta love Sir David Attenborough in on it. Didn't expect that - nice one!

He's not in on it EDD. That's where the editing comes in.

>> ^EDD:
While editing wasn't anywhere near perfect, one's gotta love Sir David Attenborough in on it. Didn't expect that - nice one!


He's not in on it EDD. That's where the editing comes in.

While editing wasn't anywhere near perfect, one's gotta love Sir David Attenborough in on it. Didn't expect that - nice one!

Gee who should I listen to in regards to science and Nature? Sir David Attenborough or quantumushroom?

You must watch too much TV if you believe the graph being displayed in this clip looks like it belongs in a pharmaceutical commercial. It makes me sad to see that you believe that by becoming interested in the Environment and Nature it will lead us all to living in mud huts.

The irony of your comment is, because of western overconsumption many poor people around the world do live in mudhuts even while they manufacture that keyboard your clacking on.