No replies to this topic

[truepurple]

ch1 page 77 https://vatoto.com/reader#4e77c089fac7517b_77  I feel this "Wooow" was not done sarcastically. But it really should have been.

 

      First, the word that belongs to this is camouflage, which is to hide by looking like your surroundings. Mimicry implies acting like something else. Or at least with mimesis, appearing to be something else, like a butterfly with colors the same as another, as in not camouflage.  If you see it, and you think it's something else, you can call that mimesis. If you don't see it because it blends into it's surroundings, that is camouflage.  What he is describing on page 77 and the moth shown blending into the tree bark, is camouflage, not mimicry/mimesis!

 

 Secondly, both points he has to this are super obvious.

1.     Camouflage requires you to look like your surroundings, well duh, that is the very definition of this commonly known word/concept!  

2.     Don't move while hiding since movement attracts eyes. No shit, shirlock! Thanks, captain obvious! Even then, it can still be called camouflaged, even if it moves, even if it's seen from the movement, as long as it blends into the background.

 

3.      Besides, the word he used was "mimicry"/mimesis, which would make both these statements wrong in multiple ways. A snake, butterfly, or frog brightly colored to look like a poisonous species need not blend into it's environment or stay still. Authors fault or translators fault?

 

Yet she seemed genuinely impressed and not at all tempted to whack him on the head for treating her like an idiot.

 

     Next, the cops are idiots in this world. Spontaneous combustion is not popularly accredited as being true. Even if it was different in this fictional world, it still sounds very rare. Accepting it could be spontaneous combustion for even a moment is like accepting ghosts killed someone or something like that.  And being so rare in this world, as well as nonexistent in the real world, it's not really a camouflaged crime. Remember his bogus obvious lecture about camouflage, he is saying this crime is like a camouflage.  But if it almost never happens, than that isn't really camouflage. It's like someone pretending to be a a large oak tree inside a building. Sure large oak trees might on rare occasion be found in  buildings, but if one suddenly appeared, people would be bound to question it and it would not be camouflage. Besides, most murders are either disguised as something else and/or hidden, (since for some reason, murders don't usually like getting caught) so on that score, he's being captain obvious too.

 

     AFAIK you can't test ashes for DNA, DNA is destroyed by fire reducing something to ashes.  But if in this fictional world you could test DNA of ashes, then they would be idiots for not doing so. Also, check the ends of the hand for burns and chemically test for chemical ignitions that could be used to solderize the end of the hand. Besides, why even use the ashes of the brother if DNA can still be tested from it? You could use the ashes of the body you got the hand from.

 

     And finally, it is really idiotic to test the hands for for prints and assume since the hands prints aren't that of a missing person, than the missing person must be the killer.  Such simplistic logic. They had no idea of victim (thus no idea of opportunity) , method of killing, or motive, like the main three things real life police consider. Yet they designate the missing person as the killer, or at least main suspect. So the museum boy is less a genius, and more meh intelligence level, and just surrounded by absolute idiots. I suppose that does make things easier for the author. An author who also doesn't seem to know how the world works and does shoddy research, and if wrong, can just say that's how the world zhe makes works, like testing ashes for DNA.

 

     Also, if the brother/teacher had killed someone in the school using fire with no attempts to hide the remains, it would have had to have been someone related to the school. If no teachers, students, parents of teachers, janitors etc. have gone missing...

 

      And the culprit confessed way too easy/fast. Author says the butterfly is so rare that there could not possibly be two. Well no matter how rare it is, it IS possible for there to be two. And you mean too rare for something to be, you mean like spontaneous combustion, too rare for it to possibly be taken as explanation for a death so easily?

 

    BTW, how much was left after the supposed spontaneous combustion kept changing it seemed. One hand, both hands, no feet, feet, no feet, make up your mind, comic!

Edited by truepurple, 11 September 2017 - 04:48 AM.