To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

Nature fakers controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Illustration from William J. Long's School of the Woods (1902), showing an otter teaching her young to swim
Illustration from William J. Long's School of the Woods (1902), showing an otter teaching her young to swim

The nature fakers controversy was an early 20th-century American literary debate highlighting the conflict between science and sentiment in popular nature writing. The debate involved important American literary, environmental and political figures. Dubbed the "War of the Naturalists" by The New York Times, it revealed seemingly irreconcilable contemporary views of the natural world: while some nature writers of the day argued as to the veracity of their examples of anthropomorphic wild animals, others questioned an animal's ability to adapt, learn, teach, and reason.

The controversy arose from a new literary movement, which followed a growth of interest in the natural world beginning in the late 19th century, and in which the natural world was depicted in a compassionate rather than realistic light. Works such as Ernest Thompson Seton's Wild Animals I Have Known (1898) and William J. Long's School of the Woods (1902) popularized this new genre and emphasized sympathetic and individualistic animal characters. In March 1903, naturalist and writer John Burroughs published an article entitled "Real and Sham Natural History" in The Atlantic Monthly. Lambasting writers such as Seton, Long, and Charles G. D. Roberts for their seemingly fantastical representations of wildlife, he also denounced the booming genre of realistic animal fiction as "yellow journalism of the woods".[1] Burroughs' targets responded in defense of their work in various publications, as did their supporters, and the resulting controversy raged in the public press for nearly six years.

The constant publicity given to the debate contributed to a growing distrust of the truthfulness of popular nature writing of the day, and often pitted scientist against writer. The controversy effectively ended when President Theodore Roosevelt publicly sided with Burroughs, publishing his article "Nature Fakers" in the September 1907 issue of Everybody's Magazine. Roosevelt popularized the negative colloquialism by which the controversy would later be known to describe one who purposefully fabricates details about the natural world. The definition of the term later expanded to include those who depicted nature with excessive sentimentality.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    1 963 725
    817 924
  • Planet Flat Earth | 2018 Nature Documentary II
  • 7 Youtubers That Got EXPOSED For Fake Pranks (Youtube Drama)
  • Left Behind Movie - World News and the Bible, Steve Wohlberg


Just our common sense everyday perception of the earth it is flat as far as we can tell it is motionless as far as we can tell and everything in the sky is revolving around us as far as we can tell if Nobody told us otherwise we'd logically assume that the earth was flat motionless with everything in the sky revolving around us That you can prove that this is the case as well for instance with the horizon as You rise up no matter how high you go on the top of Mount Everest or if you go on a balloon higher and higher we've gotten independent balloons have gone up with cameras the horizon remains flat all the way around and Rises to the eye of the camera all the way up totally flat and rises to the eye of the observer so that's one proof know if the earth or a ball no matter how big the horizon is said to be the Curvature of the ball you were to go to NASA. It's all fraud. It's all fake Pretty much everything NASA puts out is is fraudulent There are no images of Earth in from space put an end to this topic once and for all turn Hubble round and show us In real time, but they do not do it they can't do it. It. Can't it doesn't exist literally doesn't exist Looking at these images of Earth including the one they called the Big Blue Marble which was released in 2002 I think Zoom into it with Photoshop You'll see where they've used the clone tool in Photoshop to take a picture of one one of the clouds and stamp it in various places around them to keep the picture They got lazy if the earth is twenty-five thousand miles in Circumference there must exist a curvature drop of eight inches times the mile when you square the mile One mile means there should be an 8 inch curvature drop two miles 2 times 2 times 8 is 32 That's 32 inch drop 3 miles would be a 72 inch drop and this would exponentially continue Here's the longest bridge in the world the docking Kong Chung grand bridge in China a hundred and 2.4 miles long There should exist nearly 7,000 feet of curvature drop in that bridge 7,000 foot curvature drop do you see it it ain't there look at the horizon. It's flat You can see in that, and I've shot of the inside camera the horizon is completely flat Then it goes to the outside and you got a huge curve But when you're looking at some of the amateur balloon footage, so its lens corrective is completely flat and others like the GoPro stuff The horizon will fluctuate as the camera spins and tilts the horizon will go convex and concave Lenss effect is obviously not the horizon shifting every two seconds as the camera jumps And when it's still you can see enough all the way up totally flat NASA is essentially Hollywood and all the images that you think you've seen of a spinning ball our our fleet and all the amateur Balloon and rocket footage that we've sent up there shows a flat horizon that rises all the way out and that's impossible on a ball Humans for the most part don't have a clue. They don't want want or need one either. They're happy they think they have a Good bead on things But why light a big secret people are smart they can handle it the person is smart People are dumb panicky dangerous animals, and you know it 1,500 years ago everybody knew The earth was the center of the universe five hundred years ago. Everybody knew the earth was flat imagine one should know The Horizon for instance is always completely flat and you don't feel any motion so if you were just born today and Looked out you wouldn't assume that you're standing on a spinning ball. You'd assume that you are on a flat motionless plane So to assume that we are on a spinning ball is actually contrary to our common sense in our everyday experience And there's also experiments that have been done To test whether we're on a spinning ball or not My question was why why if it's a bladder if why couldn't you stand on the coast of California with a telescope and see Japan or Hawaii or something And I think you know the answer that'll let you know I'll let you answer that yeah You can't see an unlimited distance the lowest layer is the densest and not transparent so if you Imagine like a hot humid day the haze over a road all telescopes will eventually blur out in that same kind of way due to the Air so no you can't see an infinite distance is the earth flat around Its round okay now, let's see how do we go about tweezing? Go to the seashore go to the seashore watch a ship sail away They don't disappear all at once Now first the bottom will disappear See the bottom of the ship is gone now We can see Midway up Lin the whole thing disappears the ships came back They didn't fall off the table so people realized that the world is curved It's a big curve, but it's curved So the process of testing claims this flat world is round is what we call science Boats don't disappear over the curvature of the horizon boats disappear due to Perspective all you have to do is go to the beach watch a boat disappear from your eye And then whip out your telescope your binoculars or your high-powered zoom on your camera And you can pull the entire boat right back into view Hold mass and all yeah, that's right you think the boat disappeared Just whip out your telescope your binoculars Or your zoom camera you bring the entire boat back into view completely debunking everything koi Just told you and here's my video proof Imagine that you can debunk the curvature of the earth yourself with just a simple zoom on your camera bye-bye little boat The flatter well that didn't stand up to Tess the rounder fit and you guys come on Everybody watches newscast you all use mobile phones You all see airplanes fly around you all go to See Ed Sheeran and concert one day in London another day Melbourne Australia this all depends of our fundamental idea understanding of the size of the earth and its shape with extraordinary precision The way we teach science is you're just some empty vessel and we pour the science into you and then you've regurgitate it on an exam prep because earth We know it spins once Day yes to a great start so So you spit, you know when you spin pizza dough it kind of flattens out gets wider in the middle and so birth Throughout its life even when it formed it was spinning and got a little wider at the equator than it Does at the pole not only that it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator Little chubbier dough chubbier yeah, Chubby's a good way. It's like pear-shaped, so it turns out the pear shape it nests is bigger Than the height of Mount Everest above sea level. Let me just so you understand We've been fed a lie on top and I want to call a line We've been point-of-view thin. I think we've been fed a we've been Earth has been misrepresented to us by science Airship air Science so they're all trying to figure out is the universe spinning around us Or are we spin around University they tell you they tell you? We don't know shit. We're looking at a bunch of lights and the goddamn sky, you're gonna Tell me that that light and that light. That's two hundred and fifty hundred trillion light years away How the fuck did you figure that out well don't they have an explanation for that shit no exactly? That's what every what you just said right now what you just said now is what? Everyone's natural reaction because anything someone says anything about space You automatically think Someone figured it out. You don't know the guys name. You don't know the name of the experiment You didn't look into it yourself. You just think when someone tells you how far is the Earth from the Sun? Oh 93 million miles away like you just right everybody relies on Someone figured that out and someone double-checked it you're going on what you read it right now Cosmology is they don't know what the fuck to do when they found out that Cosmic, Microwave, Background shows Did all the galaxies are Lynch on shelves lined up to us That we are this work at the fucking Center. They don't know what to think of us There's a lot of controversy going on about it We should see the Stars do all sorts of strange motions, but you don't You only see them make these perfect circle that tells me that it's the stars that are moving not the earth the Copernicus principle the one that we live by is that that were insignificant We mean nothing were a speck in the universe That's the heliocentric model that we go around the Sun the geocentric model means that everything goes around us That's what this is in the Bible. That's what the first astronomers were saying Ptolemais was the first one say. Yeah. We are the center you can tell based on these observations Everything's revolving around us earth is the center of the universe and we stand still and the universe spins around us You know what they've lied so much NASA's light so goddamn much that I don't believe is yes They've got that satellite image of that frozen moon What's that frozen moon? Oh? Let me see if that's eg I find that bro. We got a picture of a frozen fucking moon I guarantee you at CGI no way they can take a picture Watch as the sunlight Shrinks and follows the Sun. It's definitely a locally illuminating Sun not far away Not very big and definitely not 93 million miles away There's a place in Bolivia called salar de uyuni Which is a salt flat? It's literally a hundred miles wide one way and 80 miles across and It's perfectly flat and when it rains Literally you get an inch of water, and it looks like a perfect mirror Now how does that happen on a sphere? It shows you that you know if you'll one end of this basalt flap you can see Perfectly clearly the other end a hundred miles away so it's just showing you that you know the the earth is flat and Without the effect of the waves in the city you you'll be able to see a whole lot further Took a picture across the Great Lakes in Michigan and it was able to see Chicago Which he shouldn't have been able to see and the yeah and the news of a television Station basically said it was a mirage this photo ran near State Park This is from Joshua nawicki, and what you're seeing here is a mirage We typically would not be able to see this from the Lake, Michigan shore We talked about this last night conditions are right on the lake That we're actually seeing a mirage of the Chicago skyline Very interesting here's what's happening? This is a good example of a superior at Mirage, so Joshua was on the Lake, Michigan shore He was looking towards the west and chicago's beyond the horizon should not be able to see it however with the right conditions We have an inversion we have cold air near the cold lake water in some relatively warmer air above it this will bend the image of that skyline back towards the viewer and so typically we would not be able to see this as immigrant Yubel from much much higher in the sky They always say it's a mirage whoops and from mirages to happen you have to a very specific Atmospheric and conditions where it's not a mirage. It's simply that Looking across a train Now how come in all the ball picture, man, you can see all the continents pretty much, and there's just a little bit of chance man It's like some of these pictures like there's some where they show the earth at night uses all the lights and stuff look like You're telling me the entire continent didn't have clouds Fucking continent like you can see Africa and all these lights and all this Stuff like you know if you turn on your porch light, I guess you can see it from space Apparently and it's like there's no clouds and some of these pictures And they spelled out the word sex right recently probably a few months ago in in one of the class But you know if they do their research They will go dark and pocket and if the ha thing that Complicates the clouds on somebody and they use the same platform like if you're gonna Make a composite make the composite that you shouldn't be copy and paste we filed that means you're having stuff. That's not real Yeah, and the thing is those pictures that you're talking about the blue marble pictures You know I think it's about maybe eight to ten of them over time that NASA has put out and you're absolutely right none of those pictures look the same the color of the water is different I Get to the continents of different sizes It's just unbelievable, and I think what happened originally was they put these things out and nobody was paying any attention to it you know and then all of a sudden now people are paying attention to it, and now they're pulling these pictures in and It's an obvious fraud what and the thing is there's supposedly tens of thousands of satellites? orbiting Earth We can't get any close ups of Earth we can't get a view of Australia with the buildings upside down And they'll look at you like you're crazy But really you are the same one for asking real molesky They're the fucking idiots for just repeating schoolbook bullshit, and that's how it works I Was taught schoolbook pitch it in public school and somehow I was able to break free to free my mind I didn't the watch the nests are up, it's exploited a bunch of times Fly off sideways in not go to space if you watch the trajectory of the space shuttle It doesn't go straight up it always goes in a curve and out to sea The point is they actually go horizontal when space shuttle goes horizontal never goes any further up it goes horizontal Very very low down in the in the atmosphere. You know it's it's still in the atmosphere while it's horizontal So it never gets in kleiner And it goes out of sight not because it goes too high because it goes too far downrange, and they have a plane But it's not tucked to look like a space shuttle That is a jet-powered aircraft. That's it. It's not a Collider It's an aircraft And that's what I bet falling is taking billions of dollars in and giving us images and And fake planes and for that tendon And there however many billions of dollars it is What goes up must come down and and literally we have not ever seen anything, but has ever gone up not come down One thing I really want your generation to embrace is That the earth is a closed system We cannot leave the earth. There's no place to go Rocket still have brace Its it literally stopped all of that angular momentum from the rotation of the rocket and the linear momentum from flying up just stopped No, it happened hit something What would it hit if it hit a solid surface the rocket would have been destroyed most likely the camera, too So we wouldn't have the footage obviously that's not the case Dixey deals it's a long fly ball going back and There's the sky bringing the ocean itself down into the stadium the whole Simpson just broke this dreams reality wide open I Know we have still not shattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling but someday Someone will and hopefully sooner than we might think right now There's no place Although we weren't able Hardest glass ceiling this time It's got about 18 million tracks in it and it may be hard to see tonight But we are all People figured out that we were an enclosed system the more advanced we got it would be the biggest thought on our minds It's all we care about it you could make a wildlife preserve a thousand miles square all people you know all human beings would do is just be knocking on the Fence constantly going what why is this fence here who built the fence? Why are we in here and so on and so on? Why do you think that the Truman has never come close to discovering the true nature of his world until now We accept the reality of the world with which we're presenting And you go around long enough in the same direction you wind up in a place you started from Yes, Thomas. Why don't we fall off when we walk underneath mister? Because of a force called gravity What does gravity look like? Gravity is something we can't see But we know it's a great invisible force that keeps us all here on earth It's a natural force that keeps us all from flying off into space We were always sure that the world is flat. You are told right don't listen to her. I've been patient with you Sarah What knows I? Not me your words have revealed Gravity was discovered by Sir Isaac Newton in 1687 that's almost 200 years ago uncle Evan, but there was only one law The law of God what is grandma you have no idea okay next question oh? Here's the difference we can describe gravity. We can say what it does to other things we can Measure it predict with it, but when you start asking like what it is Einstein in an Einsteinian answer we would say gravity is the curvature of space and time and That and objects will follow the curvature of space-time and we We interpret that as a force of gravity. That's probably the best answer I can give to a what is gravity. Well. Why isn't That the best I can do there. I think that that's a good start The world is round What you know how everybody believes the world is flat like a pancake Well, they're all wrong the world is actually round like an orange the world is an orange hmm and And well, that's it. It's a great idea It's one of my best ones yes, but what kind of orange is it a navel or a juicer look? The morning the idea will come to you again, and you won't even remember where you got it did it Danny good I Must say I really thought you'd catch on to this a little quicker Copernicus what my name's not Copernicus. I'm Charlene Sinclair Copernicus this isn't 16th century Poland Oh boy, I screwed up How do rain wash? We repeat the same thing over and over again notes sometimes is this thing that caused it if you keep fucking opinion They'll incorporate in their brain since you're a kitten she isn't but you've never seen it from that point of view, but your brain That's three dimensional eyes The repetition let's just all get on our hands and knees and wait for a scientist or an astronaut to come along we're Neil deGrasse Tyson to come along and bestow upon us As you can see this is the evolution meter And I've put God the creator of everything on the right side and evolution on the left I won't change my mind cuz I don't have to cuz I'm an American I'm dug in And I'll never change Back look you're wasting our time. You're not gonna get us to not believe in evolution And why is that because the smartest scientists in the entire world all agree that it's real? I'm glad you brought that up Mr.. Reynolds these were all the smartest scientists only problem is they kept being wrong This is insane you fool, I'm a fool because I have more faith in the Saints that wrote the Bible Yeah, because you just read the words of a bunch of guys that you never met And you just take it on faith that everything they wrote was true hmm And what makes you think what your scientists are writing is any more truer than my saints because there are volumes of proven data numbers Figures have you pored through the data yourself the numbers the figures Well no um no oh Interesting so let me get this straight mr. Reynolds you get your information from a book written by men you've never met and you take their words as truth based on a willingness to believe a desire to accept a Dare I say it faith Come on look I mean, I don't even know how I'm supposed to respond to that like I Rest my case It's matter tells space how to curve Space tell like if they're right The science community is is ignoring a lot of the things that we're looking at them So normal people are going out and doing experiments and one of the experiments has turned up an amazing fact that We've not been told and it destroys the whole idea of this this heliocentric system And that is the moon Now you can actually measure the temperature of the moonlight Next to the measure the temperature of the shade of the Moon line you find the moonlight is colder than the shade the opposite from the Sun So the moon is throwing out its own light and that light is the opposite from the Sun? Now that tells you that it's not reflecting the sun's light Producing its own and its light is different from the sides, so you know the scientific community have not told us this they have because they won't tell us this because It destroys this idea that the Sun is is lighting up the moon Everyone knows like if you're in sunlight It's colder in the shade right so it's 100 degrees Ison It's 90 degrees in shape you go to the moonlight like Tay especially in a full moon Especially if it's high in the sky the moon is its own independent object it is not reflecting the sun rays the Sun is the sole object also you know the the about the same size Which is you know Ghent coincidentally the oh why the moon fits so perfectly? In front of the Sun during an eclipse we always thought it was coincidence that even though it was 400 miles and 400 times farther away that it was also exactly four hundred times less diameter Which is why it fit and the other thing about the one which and everyone thinks all it's just a coincidence is that? We never see the other side of it. It's constantly perfectly rotating so we only see one side of the Moon Exactly one side. It's not like we have like a quarter of a degree every five years or half a degree here and there It's always the same side There are no coincidences when it comes to this system It was it was deliberately built, but I think it was deliberately built to be detected And I think we were naturally supposed to figure this thing out Maybe as late as 1970s, but the government figured out first and they have been doing spending a heck of a lot of money trying to Keep it secret When I look at the people who signed the Antarctic Treaty and all the nations that were down there doing whatever they were doing Signed a treaty, and I believe it was 1958 or somewhere there abouts saying nope Nobody can stake a claim to Antarctica, and if you're gonna go down there You can only go down there for scientific reasons under carefully restricted guidance But it's not a free fall nobody could just know hey, I'm gonna go check out Antartica do a high jump well No, can't do it. It's the only treaty. That's that's you know all these countries have signed. They're never broken and Could completely agreed on its the only one What what treaties there that everybody's agreed on? We've been kept away from it for a reason. They have some scientific bases there and Literally is controlled by the military because they don't want me finding out. What's beyond? During three voyages lasting three years eight days Captain Cook and cruise sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall Since the other question is well ships don't go off to see if it's flat but ships off off yet well Here's why I don't fall off the edge It's a 200 to 300 foot high wall That is the border the scripture says keep hearing it nothing's going past Because I don't know Personally I think the Unconquered South Face is the only one worth scaling It's a 20,000 foot sheer wall of ice, but that's never stopped me before Risk of course I'm aware of the risks. Thank you for your concern Here's the picture of the Earth from space where it is This you're a kid you've seen this image But you've never seen it from that point Even never seen that with your eyes from that scale of a model that point of view from outside of the planet's surface well, here's the First image I sold the whole thing 1582 this is when they came up with this idea we are on that thing. It's a ball Maybe we should go to the North and the South Pole we didn't do it yet. It's a fucking ball Hey, nobody's even like jumped up high enough to see if it is above they can't do that. We don't have planes yet It's ball. You know it. We adopted this whole model like four or five of years before the airplane hundred years before the air pretty much Lee was like Whitley begin in 1900 I Went to the North Pole the 1900 this is 1482 Nobody went to the top of the globe to the bottom or threw up, but built a skyscraper is funny But we said that this is this this is what we're in right now This is what we're on before any instrument approval This is the first time we actually had like an instrument of flight actually go high enough I actually fucking check out if what we agreed to further reduce though was real But wait they were wrong after 500 years question is What they tell you Between physics why objects burn on a ball and spinning a thousand miles an hour what is going? 26,000 miles around the Sun Basically the model works activate the Sailor thinks that he's travelling around the earth this way When in effect he's travelling around the earth this way They began flying it around the world from Abu Dhabi last year with stops in India and China then across the vast Pacific this running around your neighborhood proved that the neighborhood Israel I Was an airline pilot for Delta for 26 years a pilot's primary flight instrument. This is artificial horizon Which he has to be maintained in Louisville to keep from climbing and descending? From a cockpit weather permitting I could see hundreds of miles in all directions Viewing cities connected by roads across the flat plain as far as the eye could see Nothing ever mean if a pilot deserves flying around the curve of the earth Then it should be dipping the nose down and every every five minutes He should be dipping the nose down to stay around the curve That's absolute proof that a plane flies over a flat surface Barban inaudible But I went to the manufacturer of the ostrich horizon And they confirmed to me that it's completely mechanical nothing electronic in it whatsoever So it's literally just a gyroscope, but can't really move That right there, it was proved to me that planes fly over plane Flat earthers, it's time. We are going to destroy with Lopez arguments concerning spy grounds When you go onto the plane tracking software You'll see hundreds and hundreds of flights over the over the northern hemisphere And you can track those swipes from beginning to end when you look at any flight in the in the southern hemisphere what you'll find is the flight takes off and disappears of the trophy and that only leaves why why have they done this what's the point of this grand deception I Think Eric Dubay explains, it best that people are always asking. Why do they do this? I mean this is I mean other than the obvious profit margin motives NASA being the biggest black budget black hole in existence Sucking in over thirty billion dollars taxpayer money for the fake moon landings alone nowadays hundreds of billions of dollars and not just NASA But wrassle and all the other fake space organizations around the world giving cgi images for hundreds of billions of dollars You want to put something in context if you wanna do something with three and a half trillion dollars? You can do whatever? You want do whatever you judge? To be important to the profile of the nation that you're trying to just build and to sustain So bright so repetitiously Indoctrinating us into their scientific materialist Sun worship not only do we lose faith? But anything beyond the material we gain absolute faith and materiality Superficiality status selfishness hedonism and consumerism, but there's no God And everyone's just an accident that all really matters as mimimi So we've turned Madonna the mother of god into the Material Girl living in a material world is all about night mister So that we can be used if everybody realized how special we alone how? unique every single life is Then this whole world will change overnight We wouldn't allow ourselves to it to be used by this cabal I I start from the supposition that the world is topsy-turvy That things are all wrong That the wrong people are in jail and the wrong people are out of jail That the wrong people are in power That the wealth is distributed in this country in the world in such a way as not simply to require a small reform but to require a drastic reallocation of wealth all we have to do is think about the state of the world today and Realize that things are all upside down now if you don't think if you just Listen to TV and read scholarly things you actually begin to think that things are not so bad Or that just little things are wrong But you have to get a little detached and then come back and Look at the world And you are horrified As soon as you say the topic is civil disobedience You're saying our problem is civil disobedience that Is not our problem our Problem is civil obedience I Think our society is run by insane people for insane objects in objectives And I think that's what I saw when I was 16 and 12 way down the line But I expressed it differently all through my life It's the same thing I'm expressing older But now I can put it into that sentence that I think were being run by maniacs for mania fool mean her ends you know If anybody can put on paper what our government and American government? Etc and the russian-chinese what they are actually trying to do You know on how would what they think they're doing? I'd be very pleased to know what they think they're doing I think they're all insane You know, but I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that You know that's what's insane And someone else says it's flat That's worth reporting We shall debate whether the earth is flat Like they used to think a silent around the earth everybody say that scientists Other science for a few days This time It's an overwhelming science that the earth was flat and there was an overwhelming sign We were the center of the world you're just taking an authority's word for it And all we're saying is be skeptical shit while you're being skeptical. There's a bunch of evidence That's totally against the mainstream version And while you're being skeptical of looking at that evidence you start compiling more and more of the evidence until you become like me you Know the truth. I don't believe the earth is flat emotionless. I know it is there was a lot of things I thought I knew but there suddenly turned out to be completely different I can't just imposed up on us they have to Tell us about it and wait for our consent and silence is considered consent If the Sun was 93 million miles away, you wouldn't say that We see in perspective that is The horizon is at our level And as things recede from us they tend to converge to the center of that horizon line To a face that's known as the vanishing point The Sun rotates around us and only appears to rise and set because of the way our vision works Now try and watch the following videos without the preconception that the Sun rises and sets but rather The images of your world with curves the ball or CGI You've seen those images all your life There are paintings they're computer-generated images or little bows Anything with it comes and the first is a fake. It's a frog You have never with her naked eyes ever seen they birth as a ball from space you never happened But you just have blind faith that but it looks like If the earth were actually a big bald Should think as you said? Not rise to your eye level, and it would dip at each end of your periphery not really flat all around Camera level and remaining perfect 360 degrees around all the ancient cultures from the beginning of time have depicted a flat kind of enclosed earth So we have this Flat Earth cosmology all the way up into the 1900s when a big push was made to live on this round spinning ball Flying around the Sun They are basically placing us on a speck of dust flying through infinite space where it was made from this Accidental Big Bang and we really don't mean very much and everything is kind of an accident And it kind of leads you into this mentality where things are meaningless It doesn't matter what you do in life, but the more you research the more You'll find that you can't prove the spinning ball earth unless you're suffering from cognitive dissonance And you've been programmed your entire life all scientific experiments show that we're being lied to about what mainstream science is saying about the earth If a pilot is flying around the curve of the earth, then it should be dipping the nose down and Every every five minutes He should be dipping the nose down to stay around the curve and that's absolute proof But a plane flies over a flat surface rather than a curved one A lot of paper fees and laser thermometers now you can actually measure the temperature of the moonlight Next to the measure the temperature of the shade of the moonlight you find the moonlight is colder than the shade Opposite from the Sun so the moon's throwing out is only the scientific community have not told us this mainstream science says that we can see the curve visible at 35,000 feet but when we're watching an amateur balloon flight without a fisheye lens or a wide-angle lens on it there is no curve to be seen and Basically if we were living on a ball or a sphere of any sort And no matter how high rise you would have to look down to see the horizon Yet when you take these cameras to a hundred thousand feet the horizon is still at eye level That's inconsistent with any kind of spherical shape whatsoever The others got smaller gatekeepers for the platter that they've brought in to distort the message And they give a fake Flat Earth arguments hoping that you'll reach them before you reach someone like me And then you'll hear their stupid arguments saying that gravity is real, but the Flat Earth disk is constantly rising And that's what causes us to you know things to fall They'll give explanations like this which to any sound thinking person Will totally reject and then they'll totally reject the entire Flat Earth model based on these little bits of disinformation that are being given 200 proofs birth is not a spinning ball And that's just 200 I came up with 200 because William carpenter came up with 100 in the eighteen hundreds Then I wanted to double it I could come up with 400 if you give me enough time and incentive people are doing Repeatable natural science that we can do ourselves The kind of science in quotes that you're getting from these figure heads is not Observable testable repeatable natural science that you can do yourself It's stuff that they claim that only they can do in a Hubble telescope only we can take images CGI images Fake planets with our Hubble telescope you can't condemnation without Investigation is the height of ignorance and I think that you know Einstein was right about that? I don't believe in anything, but I do investigate everything I don't just take things at face value or take somebody's word for it I want to know for myself, and if I can't know for myself And I will happily be in the place of not knowing they need to have some authority figure telling the answers And they're gonna believe that and that makes them feel safe But me I'm the opposite where I like to be skeptical and I think everybody would be better off if they did that instead of Just believing some authority figure the 10th say you're on a spinning ball That was exploded out of the Big Bang, and you're a monkey man that evolved you know This is ridiculous, and it's obvious why they're doing it. They want you to think you're a monkey a purposeless accidental that comes from nothing Well while they still fifty million dollars of your taxes money everyday The motive is obvious cgi images faker planets without Hubble telescope, but you can take a regular telescope And you can see that the images they give you are completely Nonsense cartoons, and what it actually looks like is pulsating lights in the sky Okay, oh that star is seven hundred thousand light-years away from that constellation I was all into that I was totally into that was Super into anything space you can eat the Science Channel oh My god had me you had me G I love the CGI DVDs all those DVDs BBC Nova the work Floating in space spinning around the Sun and the Sun has got some gravitational pull on us and we got the gravitational pull on the moon that Doesn't makes it. That's not science to me when people talk about science design cycle Explain to me how that is science there's a force it's holding oceans From spinning and flying off because it's spinning a thousand miles an hour But as soon as we get a certain that to a certain altitude. It's all magic its science Oh, that's magic us floating in space And we're being connected to the Sun Force that's connected Seems crazy and were flying through the universe and the universe is endless the people say instead of the earth is flat Where's the edge? Where's the edge of this mother the universe? Understanding what reality is is very very important? I think it should be important to everybody I think the more people they become maybe perhaps. We'll pick up spiritually aware sort of wait They're starting to see through things as hell things have been manipulated and realities being created for them Demanding answers and once they can provide those answers people realize they are lost But the deception and control mechanism it is Because people are waking up And no matter how much they try to suppress this runner Oh, it's gonna keep moving one way or another you've just seen people awaken So now clowder than ever I can hear that clock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock In other breaking news the world is round not flat a Strange message on Montenegro the words people Flat Earth were found carved into the river slide Kennel and letters that were 10 people all please talk to the person who did it he's now facing charges yet One possible explanation of the message some still believe the world is flat not Post about it a lot so you can check with viento lights and Telescopes and different methods lasers to see if the earth actually does have that curvature And it's been tested over and over again and found to have no curvature Whatsoever so I mean even if they had the number wrong and it was a hundred Thousand miles in circumference there would still be a calculable measureable curvature that just isn't there The only place curvature exists is in NASA photos and videos and those can be proven to be CGI fakes fakes And the early ones were literally taken through a round window to make the earth appear around Literally taking through a round window to make the earth appear around This is a shot from a hundred and thirty thousand miles out I guess is a protein it's from a crunching the moon looking back there But that's the earth is that like this another spacecraft Oh But I have no idea what that is, it's Some admiration on the pin with some sort oh those are shadows I think a Reflection probably reflections that are just reflecting that night again, I get another shot of it Okay turn off the camera your interview is done. I'll get me all the time give you okey-dokey Good to meet you, I don't say it's a pleasure Understand please get your ass out of my house okay, and you came here under false pretenses, and I think you're an asshole Lying about going to the moon is a satanic lie of gigantic important I don't hit people, but you're gonna be on the deck unless you Get out we have a video camera running if you want to do it right, but right there would be great footage dress See you later Where you can put a transparency over the window Then move the camera of the earth and move the camera back away from the window turn off the lights in the Spacecraft and appeared to be halfway to the moon when in fact they were in Earth orbit Really yeah, they said it was the same way that you did it on Apollo 10 So we wanted to give you the opportunity to put your left hand on the Bible Theresa right hand to swear to God stick it in you walked on the moon We're giving the opportunity to swear to God that you walked on the moon Found a very unique reel of footage That way you do that to show you yeah, and that's from the mission and to our knowledge. No one has ever Told you You're a coward and a liar and a thief Did you see shooting stars, but did you see the shooting star yeah? I'm getting to that okay, but a lot of noise going on It's so I don't I don't know the results of some of the experiments They've conducted the point is they can't get that far from here, and they're really in the protective confines of the earth So they're really in the protective confines of the earth they're really Trickery and brainwashing, that's got the world thinking that we're on a ball spinning around the Sun with a magical force called gravity Holding us on the underside of this spinning ball It's all just brainwashing that we've received it pseudoscience accepted as legit But real science has confirmed geo centricity in the Flat Earth Flat Earth The best way to brainwash the whole world a lie to the whole world about what the world is In reality we're not a cosmic accidental sneeze nothingness turned everything This is quite obviously intelligently designed this thing works for anything here this life is universe I I can't believe anyone in their right mind can look me in the eyes of the straight face and say no man It's all random Be open-minded about this. This is very very Controversial and and difficult to get your head round the first which is the scientific method is something that the scientific community Doesn't seem to use these days, but the scientific method is where a theory or opinion is put forward that matches what we observe Another thing we have to accept is how easily our minds once have been programmed or given a worldview How easily those my I? Use the three I used to glaze beyond the stars The earth isn't spinning who are betaine all being dragged the earth is fixed that is the stars are moving People can change they don't like what they understand we all have Happiness don't listen to someone's stories and same event and and what we need more Is their happiness not good enough for you, so he doesn't like you know true happiness brings happiness to others We are all a family Supper poetry is connected as the root. We're intelligent beings with the line body and soul Who truly want peace at least does Michaels? What happened to love? The way we treat other to the earth that think chaos is our only fate Every living thing has value it should be treated as such we only have one earth But not quite we have so much Do you not realize we are in control without the two percent who so-called own the world because of money was But there's no food I Hope I opened your eyes For the world really gets better before it's too late to a life force. Please spread the word Brainwashed



Nature boom

A renewed public interest in nature and its promise of aesthetic and recreational enjoyment began in the United States during the late 19th century. The country's first national park, Yellowstone, was established in 1872, and by 1900 it had been followed by half a dozen more. Railroads made it easy to get to the parks, and their advertising promoted the wonders of nature that could be seen courtesy of their trains. Tourists frequented the parks regularly, but there were also numerous opportunities for people to enjoy nature and outdoor recreation closer to home. City parks, such as New York City's Central Park, became popular destinations because of their accessibility, and camps like the ones owned by the YMCA were frequented by boys and girls of all ages.[2]

Wilderness protection and the conservation movement, led by figures such as John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, also began to appear at this time. By the turn of the century, those in favor of recreational ideals of nature began to clash with conservationists such as Muir.[3] Likewise, critics and natural scientists became skeptical of what they saw as a growing cult of nature, which was thought to wrongly champion sentimentality and aesthetics rather than scientific facts.[4] Sympathy for animals and their survival also became a developing thought in the 19th century, due in part to wide acceptance of theories pertaining to organic evolution. In 1837, Charles Darwin wrote in his diary that "If we choose to let conjecture run wild, then animals, our fellow brethren in pain, disease, death, suffering and famine—our slaves in the most laborious works, our companions in our amusements—they may partake of our origin in one common ancestor—we may be all melted together."[5]


As the popularity and marketability of the natural world rose during the late 19th century, books dedicated to nature came to be in great demand. One reviewer noted in 1901 that "It is a part of the progress of the day that the Nature study is coming into prominence in our schemes of education, and, beyond these, is entering into our plans for coveted diversion, yet it is a real surprise that so large and increasing a number of each season's publications are devoted to the purpose."[6] Such literature was regularly published in a wide variety of subjects: children's animal books, wilderness novels, nature guides, and travelogues were all immensely popular.[7] The study of nature quickly became part of the public school curriculum, making nature writing increasingly profitable.[4] As the public's hunger for such imaginative works grew, a new genre in which nature was depicted in a compassionate, rather than realistic, light began to take form.

Illustration of the wolf Lobo and his mate Blanca, by Ernest Thompson Seton
Illustration of the wolf Lobo and his mate Blanca, by Ernest Thompson Seton

The tendency to portray animals as having human traits was not new; Aesop's moralistic animal tales were still popular with readers of the day, and inspired such works as Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book (1894). However, one of the features separating the turn-of-the-century animal writers from those before them was the desire to have their animals set an example through their noble, sympathetic characteristics.[8] Anna Sewell's Black Beauty, for example, told the story of a gentle horse seemingly from the animal's own point of view; after being published in the United States by the American Humane Education Society in 1890, Sewell's book helped further the cause against animal cruelty.[9] The budding animal welfare movement helped establish a climate for wider public support of wildlife conservation, and soon nature writers similarly sought to gain sympathy for wild animals—specifically those who seemingly displayed honorable human traits—by depicting them in a positive light.[10] One popular nature writer of the day, Mabel Osgood Wright, told of wolves nobly taking their own lives after losing their mates.[11]

Author and illustrator Ernest Thompson Seton published his first book, the bestselling Wild Animals I Have Known, in 1898. The first entry in a new genre of realistic wild-animal stories, Seton's collection of short stories quickly became one of the most popular books of its day.[12] Although he had considered himself "a naturalist of the usual type, trying merely to accumulate specimens and facts" during his early career, he later began to write factual material "in the form of romantic stories—fiction in the form of presentation, but solid in fact in their basis and their message."[13] The first story in the collection, "Lobo, The King of Currumpaw" was based upon Seton's experience hunting wolves in the Southwest. It became a classic, setting the tone for his future works that would similarly depict animals—especially predators who were often demonized in literature—as compassionate, individualistic beings.[14] Seton was reportedly denounced by readers for having killed Lobo, only to write about the experience; however, as biographer Brian Morris stated, the readers' sympathies "are directed, as Seton meant them to be, toward the wild animal, rather than against the teller of the tale".[15]

Seton's intention in writing his stories was to "freely translate" the animals' language into English, as they "have no speech as we understand it".[16] The stories were typically prefaced by the author's strong assertion of their accuracy, and Wild Animals I Have Known marked the nature writer's first emphasis on the perspective of a wild animal. As Canadian poet and author Charles G.D. Roberts described it, the genre focused on "the personality, individuality, mentality, of an animal, as well as its purely physical characteristics."[17]

Beginning of controversy (1903)

"Real and Sham Natural History"

Naturalist and writer John Burroughs (1837–1921) was respected for his numerous nature essays. Known as an outspoken advocate for the conservation movement in the United States, he was later described by his biographer Edward Renehan as "a literary naturalist with a duty to record his own unique perceptions of the natural world".[18] Burroughs believed that the nature writer must remain faithful to nature as well as the personal responses to what they witness; he wrote in the introduction to his 1895 book Wake-Robin that the "literary naturalist does not take liberties with facts; facts are the flora upon which he lives. The more and the fresher the facts the better."[19]

When The Atlantic Monthly published a glowing review of the Reverend William J. Long's 1902 work School of the Woods: Some Life Studies of Animal Instinct and Animal Training, Burroughs became incensed. Long had previously published six books, and while Burroughs was not pleased with the clergyman's previous efforts, he believed this particular work was an unacceptable example of nature writing.[20] Long insisted not only that animals demonstrated unique and individualistic behavior, unpredictable to science, but he also wrote that there was "absolutely no limit to the variety and adaptiveness of Nature, even in a single species."[21] Burroughs was not the first to take issue with the growing genre that blurred the line between fact and fiction, or the liberties it often took with the natural world; Ernest Ingersoll also found fault with School of the Woods, stating it "would be an epoch-making book in both zoology and psychology could its statements be established."[22] Believing that authors such as Long were deliberately misleading the public for financial gain, Burroughs decided to prove that their fantastical depictions of wild animals were not only impossible, but ultimately damaging to the general public's understanding of nature.[23][24]

In March 1903, Burroughs submitted a scathing essay to The Atlantic Monthly entitled "Real and Sham Natural History"; the editor, Bliss Perry, reportedly found the piece so "ill-natured" and "peevish" that he sent it back to Burroughs for revisions.[25] Burroughs began his article with praise for authors such as Ingersoll, Frank M. Chapman and Florence Merriam Bailey, all of whom he believed exemplified good nature writing. Championing his own strict adherence to observed fact, Burroughs singled out four books for criticism: Seton's Wild Animals I have Known, Roberts' The Kindred of the Wild, William Davenport Hulbert's Forest Neighbours, and Long's School of the Woods.[26] In particular he blamed Seton's collection of stories for founding the sentimental animal story genre; he even amended the title of the collection to Wild Animals I Alone Have Known.[27] Further denouncing Seton's claims that his stories featured events and behaviors he had personally witnessed, Burroughs wrote:

Mr. Thompson Seton says in capital letters that his stories are true, and it is this emphatic assertion that makes the judicious grieve. True as romance, true in their artistic effects, true in their power to entertain the young reader, they certainly are but true as natural history they as certainly are not ... There are no stories of animal intelligence and cunning on record, that I am aware of, that match his.[28]

Chief among Burroughs' complaints was Long's questioning of the role of instinct in animal learning, something that Burroughs and many scientists of the day accepted without doubt. Long had written that after many years of studying wild animals, he was "convinced that instinct plays a much smaller part than we have supposed; that an animal's success or failure in the ceaseless struggle for life depends, not upon instinct, but upon the kind of training which the animal learns from its mother."[29] In reply to this assertion, Burroughs wrote in "Real and Sham Natural History": "The crows do not train their young. They have no fortresses, or schools, or colleges, or examining boards, or diplomas, or medals of honor, or hospitals, or churches, or telephones, or postal deliveries, or anything of the sort. Indeed, the poorest backwoods hamlet has more of the appurtenances of civilization than the best organized crow or other wild animal community in the land!"[30] Burroughs summed up by deeming Long a fraud, stating that his "book reads like that of a man who has really never been to the woods, but who sits in his study and cooks up these yarns from things he has read in Forest and Stream, or in other sporting journals. Of real observation there is hardly a vestige in his book; of deliberate trifling with natural history there is no end".[31]

Soon after the publication of Burroughs' article, The Atlantic Monthly began receiving responses from readers. Among the many letters written in support for Burroughs' assertions was an article published in the Boston Evening Transcript in defense of Long's reputation as both a writer and a respected man of the cloth.[32] Written by fellow clergyman Charles Prescott Daniels, the article, which was titled "Discord in the Forest: John Burroughs vs. William J. Long", suggested that Burroughs left "the reader with a kinder feeling for Mr. Long than for Mr. Burroughs, and [left] him, too, with a suspicion that, after all, the beasts and birds will forgive Mr. Long for having so amiably misrepresented them."[33]

Long's response

Many of the authors Burroughs criticized in his essays chose not to issue direct rebuttals. As Jack London would later write, they chose to simply "climb a tree and let the cataclysm go by".[19] Seton, who had previously met Burroughs and had a great deal of respect for the elder naturalist, was confident enough in his own reputation so as not to stage a public reply. Other authors wrote to both him and Burroughs in Seton's defense, however; author and editor Hamlin Garland both wrote to Burroughs and spoke to him personally in this regard, saying that Seton's "stories are based on careful observation."[34] Three weeks after Burroughs' article appeared in The Atlantic Monthly, he and Seton met at a literary dinner given by Andrew Carnegie; while accounts of the meeting vary, the two men seemed to make amends.[35]

William J. Long, on the other hand, readily became a publicly vocal enemy of the naturalist after receiving much of Burroughs' initial criticism. A Congregationalist minister from Massachusetts, Long was an amateur naturalist and avid camper who spent summers hiking in Canada. Shortly after Burroughs published his initial essay, Long was reported to have previously resigned from his parish so as to devote himself to writing and lecturing on nature full-time.[33] Rather than be discouraged by Burroughs' criticism—which included the other man calling Long "the worst of these nature-writing offenders"[1]—within weeks of the publication of "Real and Sham Natural History", Long submitted a stern reply to the Boston Evening Transcript. Two months later, he published a longer article titled "The Modern School of Nature-Study and its Critics" in the North American Review.[36]

Illustration of orioles who have devised a way of gathering thread from a piece of cloth, from Long's Way of the Wood Folk
Illustration of orioles who have devised a way of gathering thread from a piece of cloth, from Long's Way of the Wood Folk

In the latter essay, Long insisted that there was a difference between the study of nature and the study of science; whereas science concerned itself with laws and generalizations, the study of nature was far more complex as it allowed for the recognition of individual life forms.[37] He wrote, "The difference between Nature and Science is the difference between a man who loves animals, and so understands them, and the man who studies Zoology; it is the difference between the woman who cherishes her old-fashioned flower-garden and the professor who lectures on Botany in a college class-room."[38] Long's intention was to divide the old school naturalists (which included Burroughs among its members) from what he saw as the newly formed school, of which he was part, whose members were capable of seeing animals as individuals. Because he wrote personal nature essays, and not scientific reports, Long believed that his readers required from him "not simply eyes and ears and a note-book; but insight, imagination, and, above all, an intense human sympathy, by which alone the inner life of an animal becomes luminous, and without which the living creatures are little better than stuffed specimens".[39]

While his explanation was found to be credible by some readers, Long's critics faulted an example he gave of two orioles he had seen building a nest outside his window.[40] Intended to prove his thesis about the unpredictable and adaptive nature of wild animals, he wrote of how the pair "plainly deliberated" their elaborate swinging nest that had been made out of three sticks fastened together; when finished, the birds then "tied a single knot at the extreme end" of a dangling string so it would not unravel over time.[41] Burroughs and his allies were again incensed at Long's insistence that what he wrote was based entirely upon fact, and quickly responded with criticism; Burroughs' written reply reportedly proved to be almost too harsh for publication. The Atlantic Monthly did not wish to escalate the debate, so it was ultimately published by Century Magazine. Evoking Long's story of the orioles, Burroughs wrote, "After such an example as this, how long will it be before the water-birds will be building little rush cradles for their young or rush boats driven about the ponds and lakes by means of leafy sails, or before Jenny Wren will be living in a log cabin of her own construction?"[41]

Escalation (1903–1904)

Animal surgery

Threatened financially by Burroughs' condemnation, Long's publishers came to their client's defense by distributing a pamphlet defending his positions. In late 1903, Long published a new book titled A Little Brother to the Bear. In the preface, he wrote: "Except where it is plainly stated otherwise, all the incidents and observations have passed under my own eyes and have been confirmed later by other observers ... I have simply tried to make all these animals as interesting to the reader as they were to me when I discovered them."[42] While The New York Times reviewed it favorably, pointing out its "close observation and loving attention to the details of wood life", Long's critics were quick to note a number of propositions regarding wildlife. An essay in the book titled "Animal Surgery", in which Long wrote of various animals' ability to treat and mend their own injuries, particularly riled his critics.[42] He told of how animals such as muskrat, beaver and bear were capable of intentionally bandaging their wounds and stumps of amputated limbs by coating them with materials such as tree resin or clay to keep the injury clean.[43] The example that received the greatest attention was the story about a "woodcock genius" who set his own broken leg and applied a cast to the injury:

The "woodcock genius" sets his broken leg with a cast made of clay and straw; illustration by Charles Copeland
The "woodcock genius" sets his broken leg with a cast made of clay and straw; illustration by Charles Copeland

At first he took soft clay in his bill from the edge of the water and seemed to be smearing it on one leg near the knee. Then he fluttered away on one foot for a short distance and seemed to be pulling tiny roots and fibers of grass, which he worked into the clay that he had already smeared on his leg. Again he took some clay and plastered it over the fibers, putting on more and more till I could plainly see the enlargement, working away with strange, silent intentness for fully fifteen minutes, while I watched and wondered, scarce believing my eyes. Then he stood perfectly still for a full hour under an overhanging sod, where the eye could with difficulty find him, his only motion meanwhile being an occasional rubbing and smoothing of the clay bandage with his bill, until it hardened enough to suit him, whereupon he fluttered away from the brook and disappeared in the thick woods.[44]

Long's theories about animal surgery garnered negative attention from the scientific community as well as the literary; biologist William Morton Wheeler wrote to Science in February 1904 that Long's story was "a series of anecdotes which for rank and impossible humanization of the animal can hardly be surpassed."[45] Other scientists agreed about the dubiousness of Long's claims, and publicly rebuked him for not providing evidence as to his observations in a scientifically-accepted format. Long responded in turn, insisting that "If scientists and comparative-psychologists are honestly looking for new facts in the animal world, I have enough to fill several regular editions of Science, every one of which is supported not only by my own personal observation, but by the testimony of other honest men whose word can be taken without hesitation."[46] As to the woodcock story, Long provided several accounts from other men who had witnessed as much; an Ohio man, for example, reportedly found upon shooting a similar bird that it "had evidently broken its leg above the knee joint. There was a bandage around it, composed of a hard clay-like substance, interwoven with grass or a woody fiber of some kind. The bone seemed to have been set properly and had knit perfectly." None of Long's witnesses were able to provide specimens for study, however, and Science followed Long's essay with the note, "We Hope that this discussion will not be carried further."[47]

Animal psychology

Ruminating on his previous clashes with Long in regard to an animal's ability to learn behaviors, Burroughs began to focus the ire of his essay-writing on those who upheld the idea of animal psychology. In a series of articles published in Century Magazine, he steadfastly argued that animals functioned on little more than instinct and a very limited ability to learn from experience.[48] He wrote that creatures, unlike humans, are "rational without reason, and wise without understanding."[49] Although mainly repeating his earlier points, one of Burroughs' essays was accompanied by a cartoon parodying Long's School of the Woods; dubbed "A Lesson in Wisdom", it showed Mother Nature sitting in a field surrounded by five foxes who look on as she reads from a book titled The Fox Who Lost His Tail in the Trap.[48]

The belief that animals were intelligent enough to learn and reason, much like a human, was largely born from Darwin's assertion of the evolutionary link between humans and animals. Beginning in the late 19th century and into the early 20th century, the progression from the cause of animal welfare—due to the budding belief that animals could feel pain and suffering—to that of an animal's mental capacity was readily made in popular nature writing.[50] Therefore, Long was not the first to write of the learned intelligence of animals. Seton often stressed in his stories the wit of the animals he witnessed, as well as the fact that most of them had been "taught" survival skills by either their mothers or their pack leaders. Other writers supported the idea of animal education: Ernest Ingersoll wrote of "morning lessons" in hunting for nuts, and respected bird watcher Olive Thorne Miller described several different teaching endeavors, such as a music lesson taught from one mother bird to her chicks. Miller would also suggest, although partly in jest, that even some of the flowers were intelligent.[51]

Controversy dies down (1904–1905)

Long as depicted by The Bookman in 1907
Long as depicted by The Bookman in 1907

Largely silent until then, in 1904 both Seton and Roberts made small efforts to defend their brand of nature writing from its critics, mainly Burroughs. In the preface to his new book The Watchers of the Trails, Roberts specifically responded to Burroughs' criticism by carefully pointing out that his stories were "avowedly fiction". However, he continued: "They are, at the same time, true, in that the material of which they are moulded consists of facts".[52] Later that year, Century Magazine published Seton's only public response to Burroughs' criticisms, especially those made in the previous year's Atlantic Monthly article in which the naturalist branded Seton the originator of the faulty genre. Seton's response was in the form of a lighthearted tale about a critic named Little Mucky—obviously meant to parody Burroughs himself—who climbs a hill called Big Periodic, only to throw mud at a newcomer who attracts attention away from him. The moral of the story, Seton wrote, was that "Notoriety is a poisonous substitute for fame."[48]

Despite the best efforts of the press, the debate began to die down in late 1904. In December that year, after suffering from ailing eyesight for several years, Long went temporarily blind at the age of 47.[53] Despite this setback, he continued to write; in early 1905 he began publishing a series of essays in Harper's Monthly under the pseudonym Peter Rabbit; told from the point of view of the "author", the essays commented upon the human condition, animal intelligence, and the controversy first begun by Burroughs two years prior. The essays were published a year later in a collection titled Brier-Patch Philosophy. This book included the dedication: "To those who have found Their Own World to be something of a Brier-Patch the Rabbit Dedicates his little book of Cheerful Philosophy."[53]

Burroughs continued to publicly disagree with Long and his allies, and a number of his essays dedicated to "sham nature history" were collected in the volume Ways of Nature, published in late 1905. Admitting that his authorial tone had changed since 1903, he wrote in the preface that "My readers will find this volume quite a departure in certain ways from the tone and spirit of my previous books, especially in regard to the subject of animal intelligence. Heretofore I have made the most of every gleam of intelligence of bird or four-footed beast that came under my observation, often, I fancy, making too much of it, and giving the wild creatures credit for more 'sense' than they really possessed."[54] Mabel Osgood Wright weighed in on the debate in a 1905 essay titled "Nature as a Field for Fiction", in which she criticized both sides. Believing that nature writing could imbue animal characters with human qualities in order to better connect with the reader on an emotional level, Wright argued that nature writing should nonetheless strive to be factual and not fantastical.[55]

Although Roberts had largely escaped criticism for his previous work, his novel Red Fox attracted attention from Burroughs and his allies after its publication in 1906. The work contains stories relating to a single animal, the eponymous Red Fox, who was described by the author as "fairly typical, both in his characteristics and in the experiences that befall him, in spite of the fact that he is stronger and cleverer than the average run of foxes."[56] Burroughs' critique of the book began by expressing his admiration for Roberts' "genius", but again stressed his belief that animals were governed by instinct, rather than instruction or intuition. He pointed to particular passages, such as when the fox escaped a group of hounds by running across the backs of sheep on a field, as disingenuous and misleading.[57]

Roosevelt's involvement


Theodore Roosevelt's official White House portrait by John Singer Sargent, 1903
Theodore Roosevelt's official White House portrait by John Singer Sargent, 1903

President Theodore Roosevelt was a well-publicized nature-enthusiast, known for his grand hunting expeditions. While he admired the natural world and the animals who inhabited it, he believed that animals served a singular purpose: to satisfy human needs, especially in the name of progress.[58] Roosevelt had been following the debate in newspaper articles and magazines with great interest, and as a result he became a friend and confidant of John Burroughs; shortly after Burroughs' first article condemning popular nature writers as sham naturalists, Roosevelt sent him a letter of support as well as an invitation to travel west in each other's company. In April 1903, Roosevelt and Burroughs explored Yellowstone National Park and its surrounding areas together.[59]

In late 1905, Roosevelt received a copy of Long's book Northern Trails from the publisher. Based upon the author's travels in Canada, most of the stories involved a noble, white wolf named Wayeeses. As in other works, Long asserted that "every incident in this wolf's life, from his grasshopper hunting to the cunning caribou chase, and from the den in the rocks to the meeting of wolf and children on the storm-swept barrens, is minutely true in fact, and is based squarely upon my own observations and that of my Indians."[60] While Roosevelt reportedly enjoyed a majority of the book—he even read it aloud to his children—he found fault with Long's dramatic description of how a wolf killed caribou by piercing the animal's heart with its teeth. "A terrific rush," Long wrote in Northern Trails, "a quick snap under the stag's chest just behind the fore legs, where the heart lay".[60] Drawing upon his own extensive hunting experience, Roosevelt wrote confidentially to the book's publisher about Long's description being "sheer nonsense", concluding that it "is so very unusual" and anatomically impossible that it could not be true.[61] In his letter, of which he also sent a copy to Burroughs, Roosevelt pointed out the physical difficulty a wolf would have if attempting to kill its prey in such a manner, while also commenting upon the unlikeliness of other wolf stories written by Long.[62]

Burroughs agreed with the President's assertions, and urged him to comment publicly on the subject, although the other man demurred. When Roosevelt published Outdoor Pastimes of an American Hunter in October 1905, however, he not only dedicated it to the elder naturalist, but he also made his first public foray in what would become known as the nature fakers controversy: "I wish to express my hearty appreciation of your warfare against the sham nature-writers—those whom you have called 'the yellow journalists of the woods' ... You in your own person have illustrated what can be done by the lover of nature who has trained himself to keen observation, who describes accurately what is thus observed, and who, finally, possesses the additional gift of writing with charm and interest."[63]

"Nature Fakers"

After four years of privately denouncing the popular nature writers in letters and conversation, Roosevelt decided to weigh in publicly; while alerting Burroughs that he had finally broken his silence, he wrote: "I know that as President I ought not to do this".[64] He had given an interview to journalist Edward B. Clark, who quoted Roosevelt in the article "Roosevelt on the Nature Fakers" in the June 1907 issue of Everybody's Magazine. Roosevelt not only spoke out against Long, but other authors like Jack London and Roberts, who wrote what he called "'unnatural' history".[65] Roosevelt popularized the term "nature faker" over Clark's original spelling, and defined it in his essay as "an object of derision to every scientist worthy of the name, to every real lover of the wilderness, to every faunal naturalist, to every true hunter or nature lover. But it is evident that [the nature faker] completely deceives many good people who are wholly ignorant of wild life. Sometimes he draws on his own imagination for his fictions; sometimes he gets them second-hand from irresponsible guides or trappers or Indians."[66] He voiced displeasure with and disbelief of London's descriptions of dog fighting in White Fang, as well as Long's stories about Wayeeses the wolf taking down prey; Roosevelt was so specific as to debate the depicted outcome of the fights based on the size of the animals involved.[67] Long's books in particular were deemed a "genuine crime", especially against the country's children. Fearing that a curriculum including sentimental nature stories would corrupt young children, Roosevelt wrote: "As for the matter of giving these books to children for the purpose of teaching them the facts of natural history—why, it's an outrage."[21]

The Clover and the Plover, from Robert Williams Wood's How to Tell the Birds from the Flowers (1907)
The Clover and the Plover, from Robert Williams Wood's How to Tell the Birds from the Flowers (1907)

Not long after Roosevelt's views were made public, Long responded with vigor, and the resulting publicity started the controversy anew. He began by sending a private letter to the President, which he later released to the press, informing Roosevelt that he would soon regret his "foolish words ... With all my soul I regret this necessity and shrink from it, but you have brought it upon yourself."[67] In an interview with The New York Times, Long called Roosevelt "cowardly" and the article "venomous", but his main criticism stemmed from the President's status as a "gamekiller"; Roosevelt, Long claimed, "has no sympathy with any brand of nature study except his own."[68] While a number of scientists wrote in support of Roosevelt and his position, Long produced several witnesses to prove his claims; to combat one of Roosevelt's specific complaints, Long provided a statement from "a full-blooded Sioux Indian" who declared that wolves in the area where Wayeeses was said to live were known to attack prey in the chest. Long also insisted that he himself had come upon the remains of a deer slain in a similar way.[1]

Long's most effective tactic against Roosevelt, however, was not to argue biological matters, but to attack the President's motives in becoming involved in such a debate. In reference to Roosevelt's published works describing his hunting expeditions, Long wrote: "I find after carefully reading two of his big books that every time he gets near the heart of a wild thing he invariably puts a bullet through it."[1] The Boston Globe published an article titled "President a Slayer Not Lover of Animals", while the same missive was called "Long Will Combat Roosevelt Until Latter is Whipped" in Philadelphia's Public Ledger; in it, Long wrote: "Roosevelt is a man who takes savage delight in whooping through the woods killing everything in sight." He continued, "The idea of Mr. Roosevelt assuming the part of a naturalist is absurd. He is a hunter".[69]

Not everyone took the President's involvement in the controversy seriously; he was often included in satirical cartoons of the day, pointing to the superficial and tedious disagreements for which the writers lambasted one another. Writing in the June 8, 1907 issue of the Outlook, editor Lyman Abbot stated that Roosevelt's desire to become embroiled in such a debate stemmed from his "extraordinary vitality, coupled with his unusual interest in all that concerns human welfare" making "it very difficult for him to keep silence in the presence of anything which he thinks injurious to his fellow-men."[70] The President's participation in the controversy attested to its magnitude, however; as one observer wrote, "From an insignificant smudge [the issue] has become a roaring blaze and its sparks are kindling throughout the land."[71]

Roosevelt did not at first respond to Long's claims, allegedly considering the author "too small game to shoot twice."[72] He did, however, write to Burroughs that he had "no quarrel with Mr. Long for the conclusions he draws from the facts. Our quarrel with him is because he invents the facts."[73] Burroughs proceeded to publicly defend the President against Long's attacks, condemning him and the expert witnesses Long produced to support his claims about the events and behaviors he depicted in his works. Newspapers around the country continuously published interviews with the two naturalists, while comedic depictions of the controversy and its participants were becoming popular with readers.[74] One such parody referred to a non-existent book called How to Tell the Animals from the Wild Flowers, including an illustration which depicted an anthropomorphic "Dandy Lion" with a cane, top hat and monocle.[75] This joke inspired a similarly satirical book, which was published under the title How to Tell the Birds from the Flowers; a collection of humorous illustrations and poems by physicist and children's author Robert Williams Wood, the work included pairings of birds and their corresponding flowers, emphasizing their visual similarities. Making a thinly veiled reference to the much publicized controversy surrounding those authors who were now called "nature fakers", the book concludes: "I have freely drawn upon / The works of Gray and Audubon, / Avoiding though the frequent blunders / Of those who study Nature's wonders."[76]

End of controversy and aftermath

Seeing that his initial pronouncement did nothing to quell the controversy surrounding the faults of popular nature writing, Roosevelt finally responded to Long's ongoing criticism in the fall of 1907. His article, which was written under his own name and simply titled "Nature Fakers", was published in the September issue of Everybody's Magazine.[77] Beginning with a list of nature writers that the President admired and felt best represented the genre (Burroughs, Muir, and Olive Thorne Miller, among others), he soon fell into criticizing the "yellow journalists of the woods" who "can easily believe three impossible things before breakfast; and they do not mind in the least if the impossibilities are mutually contradictory".[78] While he focused on the "nature fakers", especially Long, he shifted the focus of his attack to place responsibility not on the authors, but on their publishers and the school boards who regularly accepted their works for reading material. He wrote:

Our quarrel is not with these men, but with those who give them their chance. We who believe in the study of nature feel that a real knowledge and appreciation of wild things, of trees, flowers, birds, and of the grim and crafty creatures of the wilderness, give an added beauty and health to life. Therefore we abhor deliberate or reckless untruth in this study as much as in any other; and therefore we feel that a grave wrong is committed by all who, holding a position that entitles them to respect, yet condone and encourage such untruth.[78]

John Burroughs, who's a shark on birds
(He classifies 'em by a feather),
Avers that they're devoid of words
And simply cannot talk together.
He gives the nature-fakers fits
Who picture birds in conversation,
And tears their story books to bits
In scientific indignation.

But there's a wren outside my door
That talks whenever I go near him,
And talks so glibly, furthermore,
That I just wish that John could hear him.
Of mornings, when I stroll about,
The while he hymns his glad thanksgiving,
He interrupts himself to shout:
"Hey! Ain't it glorious to be living?"

James J. Montague, "Proof"[79]

With Roosevelt's final public word on the matter, the controversy began to die down in earnest, although its key players continued to comment on the debate's major points for the next few years. The New York Times favored the President's position in an editorial titled "The War of the Naturalists", while some still supported Long and his literary efforts. Long was traveling in Maine when Roosevelt's "Nature Fakers" article was published, and did not respond to the criticisms against him with his past vigor. He later wrote that "the only fakir in the whole controversy, in my judgment, is the big fakir at Washington". Long's literary reputation steadily declined, although he continued to write and publish well into the early 1950s.[80] For his remaining life, Burroughs continued to write disparagingly about the effect of sentimental animal stories. In his 1908 book Leaf And Tendril, he wrote:

A great many intelligent persons tolerate or encourage our fake natural history on the ground that they find it entertaining, and that it interests the school-children in the wild life about them. Is the truth, then, without value for its own sake? What would these good people think of a United States school history that took the same liberties with facts that some of our nature writers do: that, for instance, made Washington take his army over the Delaware in balloons, or in sleighs on the solid ice with bands playing; or that made Lincoln a victim of the Evil Eye; or that portrayed his slayer as a self-sacrificing hero; or that represented the little Monitor that eventful day on Hampton Roads as diving under the Merrimac and tossing it ashore on its beak?

The nature fakers take just this kind of liberties with the facts of our natural history. The young reader finds it entertaining, no doubt, but is this sufficient justification?[81]

Also in 1908, Jack London broke his silence on his condemnation during the controversy by publishing an essay in Collier's Weekly entitled "The Other Animals". Directly addressing Roosevelt's past criticism of his novels, London called the President "homocentric" and "amateur".[82] He further wrote: "I have been guilty of writing two animal—two books about dogs. The writing of these two stories, on my part, was in truth a protest against the 'humanizing' of animals, of which it seemed to me several 'animal writers' had been profoundly guilty. Time and again, and many times, in my narratives, I wrote, speaking of my dog-heroes: 'He did not think these things; he merely did them,' etc. And I did this repeatedly, to the clogging of my narrative and in violation of my artistic canons; and I did it in order to hammer into the average human understanding that these dog-heroes of mine were not directed by abstract reasoning, but by instinct, sensation, and emotion, and by simple reasoning. Also, I endeavored to make my stories in line with the facts of evolution; I hewed them to the mark set by scientific research, and awoke, one day, to find myself bundled neck and crop into the camp of the nature-fakers."[83]

Hoping to establish his credentials once and for all as an expert field naturalist, Ernest Thompson Seton spent several years of the controversy working diligently on his two-volume work Life-Histories of Northern Animals, which was published in 1909. After an enlarged edition of the book was published as Lives of Game Animals, Seton was ironically awarded the Burroughs Medal in 1927, a prize named after the venerable naturalist who had once so criticized Seton's work.[84]

Over time, the term "nature faker" began to take on a new meaning; rather than describing someone who purposefully told false stories about animals, it became synonymous with those who overly sentimentalized the natural world. In 1910, journalist and writer Richard Harding Davis published a short story titled "The Nature Faker" in Collier's Weekly, which used the negative colloquialism to refer to the lead character, Herrick, a hapless nature sentimentalist.[85] Animation pioneer John R. Bray also showcased this new definition of "nature faker" while satirizing Roosevelt[86] in two silent cartoons called "Colonel Heeza Liar, Nature Faker" (1915 and 1924).[87]

The controversy had far-reaching effects in literary and scientific circles, and marked the only time that a President of the United States weighed in as a "literary and cultural critic—specifically, as an ecocritic."[88] Though blind naturalist and author Clarence Hawkes deemed the literary debate "a veritable tempest in the teapot", after the controversy had died down, he came to believe "if I ever make a bad break in regard to my natural history statements that I was doomed."[89] The author Ralph H. Lutts wrote in his 1990 work The Nature Fakers: Wildlife, Science & Sentiment, the nature fakers controversy "was far more than a clash over the accuracy of animal stories or the question of whether animals can reason"; rather, the debate signified the changing sensibilities of writers and readers at the turn of the 20th century.[90]


  1. ^ a b c d Carson (1971)
  2. ^ Lutts (1990), pp. 16–17
  3. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 14
  4. ^ a b Mazel, p. 113
  5. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 21
  6. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 30
  7. ^ Stewart, p. 83
  8. ^ Mighetto, p. 36
  9. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 22
  10. ^ Stewart, p. 85
  11. ^ Mighetto, p. 37
  12. ^ Lutts (1998), p. 3
  13. ^ Jones, p. 134
  14. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 33
  15. ^ Jones, p. 139
  16. ^ Jones, p. 133–134
  17. ^ Lutts (1998), p. 1–2
  18. ^ Walker, p. xxvii
  19. ^ a b Walker, p. 170
  20. ^ Sumner, p. 41
  21. ^ a b Kheel, p. 95
  22. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 38
  23. ^ Kheel, p. 94
  24. ^ Lamb, p. 187
  25. ^ Stewart, p. 89
  26. ^ Maclulich, p. 114
  27. ^ Jones, p. 135
  28. ^ Mazel, p. 117
  29. ^ Stewart, p. 87
  30. ^ Mazel, p. 118
  31. ^ Perez, p. 25
  32. ^ Lutts (1990), pp. 43–44
  33. ^ a b Mazel, p. 121
  34. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 45
  35. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 48–49
  36. ^ Stewart, p. 89–90
  37. ^ Stewart, p. 90
  38. ^ Mazel, p. 123
  39. ^ Maclulich, p. 116
  40. ^ Sumner, p. 45
  41. ^ a b Stewart, p. 92
  42. ^ a b Lutts (1990), p. 73
  43. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 74
  44. ^ Lutts (1990), pp. 76–77
  45. ^ Lutts (1990), pp. 77
  46. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 79
  47. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 80
  48. ^ a b c Lutts (1990), p. 85
  49. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 143
  50. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 146
  51. ^ Mighetto, p. 39
  52. ^ Maclulich, p. 117
  53. ^ a b Lutts (1990), p. 87
  54. ^ Lutts (1990), pp. 88–89
  55. ^ Perez, p. 29
  56. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 97
  57. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 99
  58. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 144
  59. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 2
  60. ^ a b Lutts (1990), p. 90
  61. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 91
  62. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 92
  63. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 94
  64. ^ Lutts, p. 102
  65. ^ Stewart, p. 97
  66. ^ Mazel, p. 141
  67. ^ a b Lutts (1990), p. 108
  68. ^ Lutts (1990), pp. 108–109
  69. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 112
  70. ^ Mazel, p. 143
  71. ^ Mighetto, p. 43
  72. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 109
  73. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 122
  74. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 115
  75. ^ Stewart, p. 93
  76. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 118
  77. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 128
  78. ^ a b Lutts (1990), p. 130
  79. ^ Montague, James J. (1920). More Truth Than Poetry. New York: George H. Doran Company. pp. 109–110.
  80. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 182
  81. ^ Burroughs, John. (1908). Leaf and Tendril. New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. pp. 103–104.
  82. ^ "London Answers Roosevelt; Revives the Nature Faker Dispute – Calls President an Amateur". The New York Times. August 31, 1908. Retrieved April 29, 2010.
  83. ^ "Revolution and Other Essays: The Other Animals". The Jack London Online Collection. Retrieved April 15, 2010.
  84. ^ Maclulich, p. 121
  85. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 173
  86. ^ Beckerman, Howard. (2003). Animation: The Whole Story. New York: Allworth Communications, Inc. p. 23
  87. ^ "Colonel Heeza Liar Cartoon Information". The Big Cartoon Database. Retrieved April 29, 2010.
  88. ^ Warren, p. 151
  89. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 138
  90. ^ Lutts (1990), p. 161


  • Carson, Gerald (February 1971). "T.R. and the 'nature fakers'". American Heritage Magazine, 22(2).
  • Jones, Manina. (Fall 2008). "Wildlifewriting? Animal Stories and Indigenous Claims in Ernest Thompson Seton's Wild Animals I have Known". Journal of Canadian Studies, 42(3).
  • Kheel, Marti. (2007). Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-7425-5201-2.
  • Lamb, Robert Paul and Gary Richard Thompson. (2006). A Companion to American Fiction, 1865–1914. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 1-4051-0064-8.
  • Lutts, Ralph H. (1990). The Nature Fakers: Wildlife, Science & Sentiment. University of Virginia Press. ISBN 0-8139-2081-7.
  • Lutts, Ralph H. (1998). The Wild Animal Story. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 978-1-4399-0150-2.
  • Maclulich, T.D. (Fall 1986). "The Animal Story of the 'Nature Faker' Controversy". Essays on Canadian Writing (Toronto, Ont.: York University) 33 (1).
  • Mazel, David. (Ed.) (2001). A Century of Early Ecocriticism. Athens: University of Georgia Press. ISBN 0-8203-2222-9.
  • Mighetto, Lisa. (February 1985). "Science, Sentiment, and Anxiety: American Nature Writing at the Turn of the Century". Pacific Historical Review, 54(1).
  • Perez, Kim. (2012). "'Nature as a Field for Fiction': Mabel Osgood Wright Responds to the Nature Faker Controversy". ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies In Literature & Environment, 19(1), 24–42.
  • Sumner, David Thomas. (June 2005). "'That Could Happen': Nature Writing, The Nature Fakers, and a Rhetoric of Assent". Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, 12(2).
  • Stewart, Frank. (1995). A Natural History of Nature Writing. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. ISBN 1-55963-279-8.
  • Walker, Charlotte Zoë. (Ed.) (2000). Sharp Eyes: John Burroughs and American Nature Writing. New York: Syracuse University Press. ISBN 0-8156-0637-0.
  • Warren, James Perrin. (2006). John Burroughs and the Place of Nature. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press. ISBN 978-0-8203-2788-4.

External links

This page was last edited on 3 November 2018, at 08:22
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.