You're a fan too? Brilliant! There's a large fan base on here.

Of what? There's quite a few things you could be referring to there.

Sorry, ASOIAF.

Dammit, I was hoping you'd say Adventure Time.

OMFG you like Adventure Time??? I speant the whole of 2011 watching the **** out of that show with me buddies in college. We were always baked watching it too. I will never forget that pie episode.

Great book, and a hard one to track down (or at least it was a few months ago when his second book came out). If you're unfamiliar with Terry Pratchett you'll need to familiarize yourself with him after you're done with Mogworld.

Happy birthday by the way.

One of the best shows on television right now. I went out on Halloween as Jake. My favorite episodes are King Worm/BEMO Noir/Anything that deals with the Lemongrabs.

Amazing.

So this is basically how I imagine Batlord if he were an Irish sailing commentator.:laughing:

No wonder it got taken down by the people organising the olympics.



Irish Olymic Sailing commentator has no idea - funny to watch though - YouTube




This is the same guy and is basically how I would imagine Batlord playing Call of Duty if he was from the West of Ireland.



MW3: Africa - Viper Commentary |||b1bl1cal shiz||| - YouTube

This was effing hilarious.

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the "tear" itself was only verified by eyewitness account that, at least in the video, did not factor in external cause. For instance, since the statue was in a room, could water or condensation have dripped from the ceiling onto the face unnoticed and, via gravity, formed downward as a droplet resembling a tear?
The "eyewitness" speaks from a perspective of people being near it and intentionally putting water on the statue, however, he does not address any sort of natural cause, like a leaky ceiling.

Secondly, I noticed that he wiped "blood" off the other side of the face, which was presumably a second incident, because it's the other side of the face. He assumed it was blood, when it could have been the red residue that is clearly all over the statue to begin with, liquified via plain old water droplets and rubbing off onto the white cloth.
But interestingly, we have a person collecting samples of that residue and sending it off to a lab.
The first lab says it contains human DNA. Obviously, this statue was handled before, and probably contains traces of human DNA. Such a test to determine whether there is human DNA on the statue is like being surprised that there is human DNA on any particular object that comes into human contact.
The second DNA test, however, seems to say that it is blood. While I'm more apt to believe that part was added in by the documentary team to add weight to an assumption, even if it WAS human blood that was wiped off due to water dripping on it, it still does not provide any evidence other than the fact that there was human blood on the statue to begin with.

So, in the context of just what we were shown in the video, we can either come to a conclusion based on filling in the gaps with our own baseless assumptions, or realistic probabilities. It's ultimately up to you to decide.