The Not so Extinct Dinosaur. . .

modern dinosaurs?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dont-get-strung-along-by-the-ropen-myth-78644354/

An online journal called smithsonian.com published another “debunking article” on two explorers Jim Blume and David Woetzel who made an attempt to document reports of living dinosaurs in Papua New Guinea

Well the headline is certainly fair warning, we are urged not to get “strung along” by a story fabricated by . . .“many self-appointed authorities on the Unknown, the chief advocates of living dinosaurs turned out to be hucksters, overly-credulous wildlife enthusiasts, or young-earth creationists intent on somehow disproving evolution by finding creatures thought to have been long extinct”

We notice that as usual the creationists are labelled immediately, they are given absolutely no credibility and on the same level as “huksters”. Again we are warned, don’t be fooled ! by these liars who make up sensational claims and stories that are unscientific wishful thinking.

Brian Switek – the writer describes how he loved fantasies about Dinosaurs when he was young, but now he is a mature grown man he has realized the foolishness of such notions.

He then writes  “Sadly, some people still get duped by the fantastic claims espoused by “professional monster hunters.”

So what do we know?

There are these reports that there is a strange creature in remote area of Papua New Guinea in fact there have been sightings as far back as 1944 (Army cavalry member Duane Hodgkinson reported a strange encounter in 1944. He claimed he was startled by a “large reptilian bird” that flew up and circled him several times before flying away). Since then there have been regular reports and sightings and so some intrepid adventurers decided to go out there and see if its true or not.

According to the Darwinist belief this cannot be. . . The  pterosaurs all went extinct some 66 million years ago . . . But this is not the only instance of a modern sighting of a supposedly extinct species, we will return to this. . .

Eye witness reports

“On October 7, 2004, Jonathan Whitcomb, a forensic videographer from Southern California, was interviewing natives on Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea. One of the four young men he interviewed on that day was Jonah Jim, who had seen a large creature flying overhead a few years earlier. The sighting was at night, but the creature was glowing and flew close enough that the native could see the wings and the tail. Whitcomb’s interview was brief, but within a few weeks two other Americans would interview another witness – Jonah Jim.”

source: http://www.livepterosaur.com/eyewit/W-J/

The Ropen

So they set off to find this guy Jonah Jim and investigate an intriguing story. The locals speak of a creature that flies at night called a “Ropen”. Jonah Jim works not far from Lake Pung, the same crater lake where another witness “Gideon” and his friends also claimed to have seen the ropen. But Jonah Jim’s sighting was at night; he saw the ropen glowing brightly.

Glowing? ??

Just an aside, if you wanted to fabricate a story to an already incredulous audience – would you invent the glow in the dark aspect? Would this strengthen or weaken the testimony?

There is no evidence of bio-luminescence from the fossil bones that have been found and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guessman and Woetzel would never have considered the possibility, unless they heard about it from the local people. Also they were able to film some glowing lights in the sky in the area which could be the creature, but of course that’s not conclusive but what exactly were they, no-one knows and all the locals say it’s the Ropen.

Guessman says that the bones that have been found do not necessarily tell the whole story of the Pterosaur and perhaps they had abilities such as bio-luminescence, this is quite reasonable since we simply cannot tell all that there is from some fossilised bones.  

Jonah Jim – first witness

Later in 2004, Garth Guessman and David Woetzel interviewed Jonah Jim and learned much more. The young native was shown many silhouettes of birds, bats, and pterosaurs. From among  them, he chose the Sordes Pilosus as the closest to what he had seen. (This is a Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur.)This certainly lends some weight to the Pterosaur claim since the other silhouettes would have included the frigate birds, flying foxes and bats. 

http://www.laattorneyvideo.com/nonlegal/pterosaurs/JJ/

The video

I cannot find the video anywhere

But found this:  Demon Flyer Pterosaur- Papua New Guinea A monster Quest episode featuring the attempts to find this elusive creature.

Our Sceptic Brian says its a modern Bird called a Frigate Bird. He has a link to the video which is unavailable. So I looked up “frigate birds” and I learned that “The great frigatebird is a lightly built, large seabird up to 105 cm long with predominantly black plumage.” 

What sceptic Brian fails to mention

1. What sceptic Brian fails to mention in his essay is that Garth Guessman talks about the Frigate Birds in this presentation. So the possibility of frigate birds being confused with pterodactyl or other Dino bird is something they have quite clearly and obviously considered.
2. Sceptic Brian has never even been to Papua New Guinea and certainly never made any effort to go deep into unexplored regions in uninhabited and hostile territory to investigate these claims, but these people actually went there. 
3. They also discuss the possibility of a new species of Bat – which they are quite open to. The flying fox is found here on this island with a wing span of about 6 feet. They are quite prolific and in this video they visit a colony of “flying foxes”.
4. Nowhere on their websites or on the “Monster Quest” video did they make any “fantastic claims” but were quite careful to follow the evidence as they found it.
5. Since Sceptic Brian has never been anywhere near Papua New Guinea and has never spoke to the locals in the area, does he simply assume that they are superstitious natives ignorant and lie and make up sensational stories? Doesn’t that sound a bit prejudiced? Just like he makes an assumption that all Christians are ‘liers and huksters’,  Perhaps they are human beings with brains who actually know the area very well and are able to identify the local flora and fauna much better than anybody else. 
6. And what do they say? They all seem to believe there is a very large predatory bird that comes from the mountains, that glows in the dark and is very dangerous.Garth explains that the locals are not talking about large fruit bats or “lightning bugs” and they know the difference, between planes and meteors. They are saying the Ropens look more like large Pterodactyls.
7. Obviously they are locals and have lived here their whole lives, most of the natives say the Ropen is a spirit that comes out of the mountain, it is very large and they are terrified of it. Their claim that it is a spirit is a superstitious idea but is obviously an interpretation of what they have witnessed and not just made up.

Garth tells of a local tale about the Ropen

The villagers described an event when the “demon Flyer” attacked a local by picking him up and dropping him to his death, then carrying his body to a tree and eating him, observed by the horrified villagers. Of course this is anecdotal but is an eyewitness account.

Night Flyer

Guessman is saying that the creatures the locals report only comes out at night, which can explain the difficulty in getting a clear sighting. He also believes he has seen the creature, but not clearly – only the glow.

The journey to the remote areas is no small undertaking and again if such a creature should exist it would be in a very hard to reach location, which is where Guessman is taking the “monster Quest” Team to. It makes sense that a creature such as this would be able to thrive in areas where there are no people.

Not everyone understands that in our modern world there are still vast areas of the planet where nobody lives and there could easily be unidentified species living. It is also clear that Guessman was quite prepared to accept they may find a new kind of animal species that is not necessarily a Pterosaur, but rather a totally new kind of species. 

Dr. Dave Martill – Paleontologist, and some questions for the Darwinists

Dr. Martill who accompanied the “Monster Quest Expedition” as a scientific reference for the expedition.

He states: “The very first record of Pterodactyl’s in the fossil record show the creatures fully adapted to flying, they are not some intermediate species but fully developed with a skeleton absolutely modified for flight. This means there are NO intermediate fossils between prehistoric lizards and Pterosaurs and there is no “missing link” leading from lower forms to pterosaurs.

This is what we always find for ANY creature, they are always found fully developed and can never by any stretch of the imagination be called an intermediate species. 

A Living Fossil?

That’s actualy an oxymoron since this only occurs when a creature dies, is rapdidly buried and goes through a chemical process of being turned into stone. 

So the whole idea of a ‘living fossil’ is forced into the vocabulary of Darwinists since they have found a creature that is alive today but was categorized as an extinct animal that was fossilised millions of years ago.

The Coelecanth

Just Imagine if a group of Christians went to investigate a sighting of an extinct fish called a Coelacanths who is were thought to have undergone extinction 66 million years ago during the “Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event”.

It was written as such in the text books – this fish is no longer living since it has wither evolved into another species either of fish or of some other type of creature or simply died off 66 million years ago. It was speculated that it’s stumpy looking fins were an example of intermediate limbs. So after 66 million years these primitive limbs would have changed right? Perhaps its descendants would be some kind of land animal by now? An this would explain its disappearance as a species.

NOW imagine an expedition going off to search for the Coelacanth – because they heard rumors that it was seen off the coast of Africa. Imagine the hoots and howls of mockery, Brian Switek would have written a sarcastic article dripping with scorn.

But an extinct 66 million year old fossil WAS found alive and well off the coast of South Africa. So what did they say when a genuine Coelacanth WAS found off the coast of South Africa?

Once again as we see repeated again and again, the fossilized fish resembles the living fish that was found – precisely! there has been absolutely NO change over the alleged 66 million years.

Shortly after this find, another specimen was found in an Indonesian market! (maybe they eat them there), This is getting kinda embarrassing now, but this is not even the most disturbing part of this ridiculous story.

The Coelacanth has no value for humans apart from it’s supposedly “fossil” status.

It was minding it’s own business living the unremarkable life of just another type of fish. Suddenly the Coelacanth became a celebrity. Scientists in universities instead of realizing the obvious fact that the Coelacanth is not an ancient primordial fish that died out, it is rather just another type of fish uniquely interesting but not at all “primitive” No they cling stubbornly to the 66 millions of years they have attributed to the fossil specimens and then get excited about, how did this fish manage to stay the same in such a vast amount of time. Now the Coelacanth is regarded as a special example of how an ancient species survived.

To add insult to injury, all the Universities around the world NOW want their own stuffed Coelacanth in a glass case, as an example of this “amazing” discovery.

The Next chapter in this crazy story goes like this. . .

Coelecanth’s go from an totally unnoticed and non-useful creature – to hot property. Now they are in demand! So they start being hunted wholesale to supply specimens for universities and such. And guess what – these poor harmless creatures end up on ENDANGERED SPECIES list and are in danger of going EXTINCT!!!!   

They try to put the blame on fishermen mistakingly hunting them because they look like “oil fish”. But they were never in danger before. So now they have to “protect them” from the science labs!

The Media Game

The Question

 

If we were given the opportunity to swap places with Hearst or Pulitzer – would we choose the side of integrity and unscrupulous honesty? Or would the temptation to gain power and wealth and influence be too much for us to resist. . .

If we read it in the Papers. . . It must be true

Randolph Hearst the newspaper mogul had an arch rival Joseph Pulitzer. It would be nice to remember them as the forefathers of modern reporting striving to supply their fellow citizens with as up to date factual information on what is happening all around the world.

The story centers on William Randolph Hearst, the son of a U.S. senator from California who had made a fortune in the mid-1800s mining industry.  Hearst developed a passion for journalism and wrote for the Harvard Lampoon while a college student before working as an apprentice for New York World editor Joseph Pulitzer.

Hearst returned to California in 1887 at the age of 24 and , with the aid of his father’s wealth, became the owner and operator of the San Francisco Examiner, imitating the flashy, sensationalistic style of Pulitzer.  In 1895, Hearst returned east, purchasing and running the New York Journal.  This put him in direct competition with his former mentor and accelerated the intensely competitive environment of newspaper publishing in New York City.

In truth they became a pair of squabbling children who would to stoop down to any depth in order to ensure higher sales of their respective newspapers .

They are remembered for introducing “Yellow Journalism” into their papers, which simply meant using any sensational story that might tickle their readers and boost sales, whether it was true or false imagined or exaggerated matter little to them.

These two were fighting a circulation battle in New York City. Pulitzer owned “the New York World”, and Hearst “the New York Journal”.

It could well be that as a direct result through their total disregard for responsible journalism, their newspapers were huge catalyst in starting the war between Spain and the USA in 1898.

The USA was the aggressor in a War against Spain, the ailing Spanish Empire was no longer in a position to protect it’s territories in the New World. Power hungry elements in the USA on the look out for an opportunity were obviously aware of the Cuban situation and were keen to exploit it.

Hearst grasped onto the Cuban revolt against Spain in 1895. He used his newspapers to propagate a confrontation with Cuba on the pretext of helping the “revolutionaries”. Cuba at this time was split down the middle with a local faction supporting independence from Spain and of course the Spanish bureaucracy trying desperately to hang on to power.

Hearst regularly published stories sympathetic to the still sparse revolutionary cause and describing in great detail real and rumored atrocities of the Spanish.  Hearst hoped to spark U.S. intervention in Cuba and was persistent in finding ways to achieve it, including a rescue mission to free a young, female Cuban political prisoner, Evangelina Cisneros, which he boasted about proudly on the front page of the Journal.

American opinion was overwhelmingly swayed and hostility towards the Spanish in Cuba began to grow as Hearst’s newspapers continued to run sensational stories of fabricated atrocities committed by the Spanish.

 

Though the Cuban insurrection against their Spanish rulers was stagnating, Hearst continued to send many of his high-profile writers and illustrators to the Cuba in hopes of capturing a great story.  Among Hearst’s employees was the famed illustrator Frederic Remington.  In 1897, Remington became very bored by the lack of anything newsworthy in Cuba and cabled to Hearst, “Everything quiet.  There is no trouble here.  There will be no war.  Wish to return.”  In response to Remington’s message, Hearst reportedly replied, “Please remain.  You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.”

Less than three weeks later, the American ship USS Maine exploded in Havana Harbor.

The Beginnings of the false Flag incident?

The whole incident smells very fishy as it was patently obvious that the Spanish had nothing to gain from attacking an American ship in their own harbor. The local rebels however, did have something to gain but lacked the ability to carry it out.

 

 

Did the Americans help the rebels in what we now know as an early false flag style of attack, in which the Americans scuttled their own ship in order to provoke a war?

Surely not! would have been the response of the average American then – and – also today.

Did they do it again . . . ?

Not Pearl Harbor!

We all Know Japan was the instigator of the Pearl Harbor attack – but there is good evidence the Americans knew about it and allowed it to happen . . .

Maybe because they remembered the success of the “Main incident” that sure rile up the American public who after the Maine incident were all baying for blood.

Just remember also the famous story of artist Frederick Remington.

He was sent by Randolph Hearst to report on the progress of the war, he found very little happening and send word back to this effect. Hearst sent a reply forever etched into Histories saga

If there is still some doubt about Pearl Harbor, we can refer to another incident – which started another war.

This time in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which kicked off the Vietnam War

They tried it again in the attack on the USS Liberty

United States Navy technical research ship, was attacked by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats, on 8 June 1967, during the Six-Day War.

It was meant to be pinned onto the Egyptian navy and thus provoke another  confrontation.

There certainly seems to be a pattern here. . .

If we saw it on TV it must be true. . .

In spite of the Shenanigans of Pulitzer and Hearst, and various other military  collusions with the media over the years, reporters and Journalists from yesteryear were regarded generally by the public as honest and truthful.

By the 1970’s, when the General Social Survey (GSS) began regularly measuring confidence in various national institutions, only 15% of respondents had “hardly any” confidence in the press.

The Media and the Public’s perception

A famous 1972 poll found that 72% of Americans trusted CBS
Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite, a higher share than any other
public figure received in the survey.

Prominent journalists were among the most respected figures in the country.

Cronkite was the face of the “CBS Evening News” from 1962 to 1981, when stories ranged from the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to racial and anti-war riots, Watergate and the Iranian hostage crisis.

It was Cronkite who read the bulletins coming from Dallas when Kennedy was shot Nov. 22, 1963, interrupting a live CBS-TV broadcast of a soap opera.

The Reporter as Hero

The image of journalism must have been given a great boost from the movie “All the Presidents Men”.

In 1976, the Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s were responsible for uncovering the Watergate scandal, in what must be one of the most dramatic falls from grace in the History of politics.

In the highly acclaimed film, the journalists were depicted by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, two of the era’s most charismatic movie stars.

The whole story focusses on their heroism and integrity.

The message is clear. . .

This America where there is freedom for the press and because of this, corruption lies and scandals will be uncovered. This is because of our intrepid reporters whose profession is by definition one of integrity and honor. 

But since the time of Woodford, Bernstein and Cronkite, it would appear the perception of the public has changed somewhat and the media and newscasters are no longer the totally independent uncompromising mirror of world events and politics it once was. . .

 

Today, trust in the news media is being eroded by perceptions of inaccuracy and bias, fueled in part by skepticism about what we read on social media.

The Polls and Statistics

 

According to GALLUP a business strategy website: Since 2007, the majority   of Americans have had little or no trust in the mass media.

Hardly Anyone Trusts The Media Anymore by  Nick Visser of the Huffington Post

Quoting from a study by Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research  “Over the last two decades, research shows the public has grown increasingly skeptical of the news industry. “

Ken Walsh of U.S. News writes: “The highest trust level was 72 percent in 1976 in the heyday of media investigations of government corruption such as the Watergate scandal and government failures such as the Vietnam war.”If a politician or even a President was guilty of corruption then you needn’t worry, in the relentless pursuit of truth and the protection of our democratic rights you could always depend on the fellers at the independent press to root out or expose any scandal.

However during the next two decades, the media’s reputation eroded badly, with only 53 percent in 1997 trusting the media, defined by Gallup as newspapers, television and radio. . . . and since then perceptions of the media have gone consistently downhill to this present day when confidence in the media is down to below 40%.

Wag the Dog Syndrome a Case Study

The History of dishonesty in governments is hardly new – However this film is primarily about the Media and demonstrates how news events can be “manufactured” to suite the nefarious purposes of powerful forces who are wealthy enough to operate above the limits of the law.  Whilst it could just be a thought provoking hypothesis, there are certainly enough examples of this happening to greater or lesser extent throughout History.

Wag the Dog was released on the film circuit in 1997 and was based on a novel by Larry Beinhart called “American Hero”.

Isn’t it ironic that one of the principle actors in the film is once again Dustin Hoffman almost exactly 20 years after All the President’s Men? And in quite an unheroic role this time.

From American Hero Book review by Larry Beinhart

American Hero gives a fictional account of the Gulf War’s development, from a suggestion made by dying GOP strongman Lee Atwater to the development of the scheme by a big-shot movie director.

The novel actually devotes as much time exposing the corruptions of Hollywood (a la Michael Tolkin and Robert Altman’s The Player) as it does postulating about strong-arm government security tactics. Through copious footnotes, Beinhart builds an impressive case that if Hollywood didn’t actually script the Gulf War, it was certainly a heavy influence on Bush and his cronies.

According to Beinhart, the book is not nearly as good as the film, in which Bush and his 1980’s cabinet are replaced by a fictional president. But the line between fact and fiction was never so uncannily obscured when comparing this story with another real life event that not only mirrored the tale, but happened eerily at almost exactly same time a decade later in the 1990’s.

The Story:

The President of the United States (Michael Belson) is caught making sexual advances to an underage “Firefly Girl” (the fictional equivalent of a Girl Scout). His timing could not be worse, as there is a presidential election coming up. Presidential aide Winifred Ames (Anne Heche) and professional spin doctor Conrad Brean (Robert De Niro) are tasked with taking the public attention away from the scandal.

Conrad decides to create a fictional war with Albania. He recruits Hollywood producer Stanley Motss (Dustin Hoffman, again. . .) to create the illusion of the ongoing war. Actors play war orphans, an army convict is cast as a war hero, etc. All broadcast by American networks as real news. They take advantage of the relative obscurity of Albania among the public to make up details as they go.

The most revealing quote from the film is when the Conrad Brean says. . .

 “Of course there’s a war – I saw it on TV.” 

WAG THE DOG is a movie. It’s ostensibly a “satire” but as Roger Ebert insightfully observed, “It is getting harder for satire to stay ahead of reality.”

 The Bill Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky scandal

The white house sexual shenanigans took place between 1995 and 1996 and came to light in 1998, a year after “Wag the Dog” hit the circuit.

Just as the scandal was busy occupying the headlines it was “conveniently” interrupted by events in an obscure location far far away. Clinton had apparently ordered a missile attack in Afghanistan and the Sudan. The attacks were in retaliation for al-Qaeda’s August 7 bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people (including 12 Americans) and injured over 4,000 others. “Operation Infinite Reach” was the first time the U.S. acknowledged a preemptive strike against a violent non-state actor.

The U.S. Embassy in Dae es Salaam after the al-Qaeda Bombing 1998

In the movie, the president’s handlers invent a war to distract public attention from his sexual transgressions. In real life, was the Clinton administration doing something similar?

Cynical in the extreme, but the question certainly was in the mind of those who cared to check. And it seemed to reflect not only the bizarre parallels between fiction and fact, but also the profound distrust that some Americans have begun to harbor toward a president who acknowledged misleading the public.

Were just getting started. . .

 

Popularity is Truth

The Media Storm

Open wide. . .

In my suspicious mind I am beginning to wonder about the disproportionate focus on the whole Trump issue.  It seems hysterical and way over the top.  Perhaps the firestorm is being fed by certain parties who are happy to distract us from other, really important issues.

Something  I am also becoming more convinced of is the low level of knowledge and understanding of the public in general.  I suspect that, people don’t study and research current events and politics, or any of the other current political issues we see and read about on the news and social media.

Not really. . . not thoroughly and objectively, but rather briefly and superficially. Yes, I know, I’m generalizing and there must be plenty of exceptions, but these are exceptions nonetheless.

  The Shaky Platform of the Personality Cult

This is a legacy of the media:  newsreaders and show presenters are ‘personalities’ and the success of the show depends upon the ratings.  On a talk show the ratings depend on the popularity of the presenter  – are they appealing or attractive in some superficially packaged way?

Politics has Degenerated into a Popularity Contest

Why do politicians seek the endorsements of ‘popular’ (that word again) actors and singers?   Because when a famous actor says something, people listen.

Why?

Do these people possess  added wisdom and discernment? Of course not!   But it seems the world is so swept up in the worship of celebrities they will believe just about anything they say as Gospel.

Bieber for President

People who are against Trump make a big noise about his ‘wall’ and ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ etc. . . but I suspect the reality is they just don’t like HIM.

He’s not as pretty as Obama, he’s not as smooth talking as Clinton, he doesn’t appeal to their preconceptions about a ‘presidential’ look!..like maybe a Saunders or a Kennedy and . . . ‘other people don’t like him, so I don’t like him either’.

Of course people will all get excited and deny this, but let’s face it, the general public are not researchers, they rely on the snippets we see on the intravenous public filter we call news channels.

Here is the news

By the time we see it on the news or read it in the paper and social media, how much does it actually resemble the truth?   What version of reality are we fed with?  I wonder…

Personally I don’t trust the media. If we want information we have to dig, this takes time and effort and in our busy world who will make the effort?

You can trust me – I’m soooooo good looking.

 

What has the Media done to the Presidency?

The first great example of this goes right back to the coming of age of the media itself.

Kennedy and Nixon square off in the 1960 presidential debate.

On this day in 1960, Massachusetts Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy and Republican Vice President Richard M. Nixon face each other in a nationally televised presidential campaign debate. The debate ushered in an era in which television would dominate political campaigns.

The Media made Kennedy the most beloved of Presidents.

At the first of four debates, Kennedy arrived looking well-groomed and confident, while his opponent Nixon, who had just been released from the hospital after two weeks recuperating from a badly injured knee, appeared haggard and was sporting a “5 o’clock shadow” or light beard. Although he arrived in a wrinkled suit and appeared underweight and had a grayish pallor, Nixon refused the assistance of a makeup artist, a decision he likely later regretted. Kennedy clearly “won” the debate, a fact attributable to both his superior comfort level with the new communication medium and his “telegenic” good looks.

According to the Museum of Broadcast History, radio listeners considered Nixon’s answers to questions to be more substantive and gave Nixon the advantage over Kennedy after the first debate. By contrast, television viewers gave Kennedy the edge, as their impressions were based on how the candidate looked as much as what he said.

It seems that the “Actor” in Kennedy, his warm ingratiating manner and his Hollywood good looks is what really won the public over, not his policies or leadership skills, for surely Kennedy made some awful blunders in his presidency and his personal life was hardly saintly.  Nixon just couldn’t compete and we are told that Nixon’s negative experience with televised debates led him to refuse to engage in such debates during the 1968 and 1972 campaigns.

The second example is the ex Hollywood actor Ronald Reagon, with his friendly warm manner and his white hair dyed black, his ability to play the public won them over because he came over as a thoroughly nice guy.

 1980 Presidential Candidate Debate: Governor Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter

Reagon so much more attractive than Carter. . .