Jump to content

Talk:Rain of animals/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Pic?

Is it possible to get a pic of raining animals? It seems kinda rare/hard...--[[User:Mitternacht90|Mitternacht90]] 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There's some illustration of raining animals in the french's wiki. I can upload them to commons if you want.Yves-Laurent 08:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why aren't there any photographs if this event is so common? There aren't even pics of the fallen animals lying on the ground...! Interesting article! Sebastian 'one time i place a bucket in the rain , when rain stops i see 2 nos of small frogs found in the bucket . is it possible it drops with rain please confirm me on my mail i.e. virupanghal@rediffmail.com'

NOTOC

Why is that there? Removing for now. - RoyBoy 800 04:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It rains => always a sign for rain?

"Some groups of Australian aborigines and Native Americans share the belief that raining frogs is a sign of incoming rain, which is in good accord with the scientific explanation." - Well: a rain of whatever is usually not only a sign of incoming, but of actual and present rain, isn't it? -- Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 11:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd assume that the frogs are falling from the sky without accompanying rain, doesn't make much sense any other way. ~

Here the talk is actually about croaking, not falling from the sky. Changed it accordlingly. --Aethralis 08:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

cow catapult

The name of the article is Frog rain
No. Mostly because Wikipedia deals with facts, not urban myths presented as facts. Adrian M. H. 21:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

But does it ever really rain cats and dogs? *Dan T.* 04:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Relatively rare?

Propose removing "relatively rare" from the article unless it is sourced. —Viriditas | Talk 23:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This Article Is Incomplete

Okay, this page has problems. By only explaing rain of animals as a scientific phenomenon, it completely ignores its centrality to religious texts, or its appearence in literary works.

I agree that the naturalistic view of the occurence is fundamental to the article, but this is an encyclopedia. That means the entry should cover the full scope of the subject, not just one aspect. athuberty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.45.144 (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"It's Raining Men"?

In the "See also" section, there is a link to the song It's Raining Men. I don't understand how this is related to the article, so I guess it's just a joke. If anyone else can't see any relationship, I suggest that the link to the song is removed... Permanent Link --TEO64X 17:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's Raining Men is actually a song about this pheonoma, unlike fish, men usually dont survive the 2-6km fall. 203.94.54.14 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Charles Fort

How can there be an article about fish falls without mentioning Charles Fort? He collected hundreds of stories about the phenomenon, many of which coming from respected sources. Elmyr (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

raining fish eggs?

Something perhaps even rarer? Raining fish eggs.

It happened two days ago on a warm day in Lynn, MA, USA. There was a tropical storm type heavy rain which lasted for 3+ hours. About 20 half-an-inch sized fishlings appeared today in our small castle/fountain of 3x5x4 feet.

Agamemnus (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Aristotle

IIRC, Aristotle has a whole discussion of raining animals. I think that it'd be worth adding something about his coverage.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Examples needing citations

The occurrences section been missing references for more than a year. Below are the examples needing citations. There is a reference in the list, included below, but it should be made more clear what events "the events above" is referring to. --Addingrefs ( talk | contribs ) 11:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Fish

A July 1932 article in the magazine Popular Mechanics described the events above. [1]

Frogs and toads
Others

Cats and Dogs

The section on "raining cats and dogs" does nothing but repeat an urban legend that started with a work of fiction circulated on the Internet as "Life in 1500" or some such thing. It should be removed. Snopes.com has an exposé. Cognita (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this silly folk etymology. --Slashme (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Er, if it's an urban legend, then the chances of it being re-added are high, especially if there is no explanation for "Cats and Dogs". It should say something like "An urban legend falsely states that...". I'll reformat it to say as such. JQF • Talk • Contribs 13:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the snopes link. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section from the source. I am still unhappy about it, though, primarily because the phrase "raining cats and dogs" was around long before the false etymology was circulated on the internet. If we are going to have a section on the phrase, then that is fine. But we shouldn't put the bogus explanation ahead of the facts (whatever those may be), per WP:WEIGHT. At best, the fact that a false explanation was circulated in the late 1990s deserves one sentence. Someone is going to have to do some actual research (libraries and journals, not blogs and newsgroups) and find reliable sources on the phrase "raining cats and dogs", and then rewrite the section from scratch. The Snopes article linked above has a number of sources that could potentially be used. Good hunting, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I have now cited a notable linguist's blog, but you are correct that we need some even better sources. --Slashme (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The article starts with the nice picture Image:478px-Pluie de chats.jpg, captioned "A drawing of the raining animals phenomenon". Alas, the picture is almost certainly not about the topic of this article. It is almost surely a humouristic cartoon inspired by the expression "raining cats and dogs" (or its equivalent in the original language). I seriously doubt that any instance of the alleged phenomenon of "raining animals" has ever featured large numbers of cats (and cats only) as the cartoon shows. If there is no recorded news of an actual "rain of cats", the cartoon should be either removed or moved to a section on the popular saying (and the confusion with the alleged phenomenon). All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Small monkey fall - banal, dubious, inappropriate?

I have removed this item from the list of events:

  • A small monkey fell from the sky into the backyard of Mrs Faye Swanson of Broadmoor, California (others[1] have San Mateo) on October 26, 1956. Its fall splintered her clothesline post.[2][3]

First, the discrepancy between the sources about the location is worrisome. More importantly, since it is a *single* *small* monkey, one can hardly call it "raining animals", and several ordinary explanations seem likely --- such as a pet being thrown out (or being sucked out) of a small plane, an hobbyist testing a catapult or some other bizarre way to fly, etc.. Please share your thoughts on whether this item should be put back or deleted. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Frog Tadpole rains in India:

About: It is an ecological phenomenon during the first rains after the hot summers called as Monsoon which is first rain of the year or first rain after prolonged hot days.It is characterized by falling young frogs also called as tadpoles and egg membranes. Encountered by people who lived the ages of 1970s and 1980s in the southern areas of India namely Deccan. The Deccan region is the arid region with numerous rivers and their tributaries(creeks).

Regions: Most small towns surrounded by deciduous rivers and water bodies in south India like Hyderabad, Nizamabad, Kazipeta, Warangal, Gulbarga to name a few.

Scientific: Proven scientific details of this phenomena are not available to the research workers. But some observational facts and experiences that transcended down the generations are only available. According to some of the educated people who encountered Frog Tadpole rains explain that they are caused due to drying of most rivers in this region of the Deccan plateau during summers. In the Deccan plateau there are many lakes, rivers and ponds that go fully dry during peak summers. These are referred to as deciduous in nature. During the rainy season the frogs of certain species lay eggs in clusters. The eggs laid in the late rainy season become dry and hard and do not hatch until the next year rain and remain in the soil and get blown away with soil and dust and survive the dry season. At the end of the hot dry summer due to changing wind temperatures and humidity, the eggs imbibe moisture and blow up as hot air balloons filled with steam. Eventually, during the cold nights or chilly evenings these hot air balloons rise up to the clouds where they float in the even temperature zone with temperatures up to 95 degree Celsius. Because of the temperature gradient these inflated eggs do not come down. When these eggs grow in numbers and hatch they seed the cloud causing rain. As the rain falls, the baby frogs (Tadpoles) and egg membranes are seen falling from the sky. The frogs are cosmopolitan in distribution. Their even specific migration can be best explained by this phenomena, per se, not all animal species are evenly distributed across the globe. Farmers in the semi-arid Deccan regions have reported frog eggs ascending in the sky after sun down. I encountered a frog egg ascending one day. Most people mistake these ascending inflated frog eggs to fruits of Asteridia and some other plants that are white and feathery, during dark cool evenings.

Present: This phenomena has almost become extincted in recent times due to global change in climate. During those days no effort was taken to document and research about these phenomena. This region of Deccan has always had leadership disadvantages right through the ages. Moreover, because of the dry weather conditions this area has been dominated by extreme poverty and ignorance. The British who did documentation of India's natural history did not make much presence in these areas because of the area's lack of economic importance. However, these areas are rich in minerals and some oldest rock formations which are important for knowing the planet. - Ritesh Raj Waghray. Aug 2010 EM: waghrayritesh@yahoo.co.nz

Raining small animals

I think name of article is misleading. Raining Animals may refer to species of animals which rain rather than phenomenon of rain which includes animals. Therefore, Article should be renamed with either Rain of Animals or Animal Rain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by REACHist (talk • contribs) 04:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A better explanation?

A recent episode of Skeptoid podcast addressed the phenomenon of raining frogs and fish. This podcast suggests that the explanation has nothing to do with tornados or waterspouts, and is rather related to the natural mass migrations of frogs and fish. Scott Roy Atwood (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also heard this from a number of different sources, not just Skeptoid. I do feel you missed a crucial piece of information however. Natural mass migrations of frogs is perfectly believable; after all, they can move around on land, despite being aquatic. However at first glance, fish migrating across land might seem rather diametrically opposed to what we know about fish. There are, however, species of fish that can move around on land and have organs that are adapted to breathing air.
Even if you don't accept alternative (and better) explanations, the article fails to explain why these frogs, fish, et al, aren't splattered where they fall. If they really were carried far up above land by some freak weather event, they would be traveling with some force; surely enough force to splatter the poor creatures into goo when the ground interrupts their jolly flight.
I would love to find a reliable and reputable source for these explanations so I could add it to the article. I will see what I can find when I get home, though I am dubious about making the edits as I have a clearly biased opinion (one that is biased towards science and fact!).
Oh, and: "Raining animals is a rare meteorological phenomenon". Really? A meteorological phenomenon? The citation for this - as best I can tell - is a BBC News Magazine article, recounting the often told yet implausible "waterspout" theory. If I can find good sources for the more credible theories and a neutral party agrees to make the edits, then the term "meteorological" has to go! Blcollier (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The force a falling fish or frog is much less than that of larger animals. Force is mass times acceleration, and acceleration is gravity. It is also why snow is not crushed on impact when it falls. Plus I think the damage might be less than you might think. Even a human body at terminal velocity does not explode into goo on impact, it just gets crushed. Even if you ignore the greater effect of updrafts and so on on small creatures, and they did receive similar amounts of damage, the small amount of blood that the small creature has might not be noticed. Ever seen a pool of fish blood outside a fish market? Me neither. If they are falling from the sky, then it would be easy to tell if one looks on rooftops and so forth. Nessie (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

According to National Geographic, birds falling from the sky is a frequent occurrence. The remark in this article, "The animals most likely to drop from the sky in a rainfall are fish, frogs and birds, in that order" is completely unfounded and has no reference. I'm removing it, and adding in a comment to that effect. In general, this article is a bit of a shambles imho... Therealpowerflower (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

'Raining cats and dogs'

I believe this whole topic is incorrect.

Based on one personal experience, I believe this is an (obviously rare) optical illusion. The one event occurred while waiting to cross a carpark flooded to a depth of 2-3cm during extremely heavy rain--probably classed as a cloudburst. It genuinly looked as if small animals were falling from the sky. What I think was happening was that the raindrops were exceptionally large and on impact with the shallow water produced a very large splash. The brain interpreted the upward splash as an object about to impact--imagination said it must be small animals. Obviously it only took a second or two to realise there were no animals there. I cannot believe I am the only person to have experienced this illusion. This is not exclusively an English expression I have heard it used in Germany ( 'Es regnet Katze und Hunde'). JohnC52 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC52 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Credible Evidence?

As far as I can tell, this phenomenon has never been shown with any kind of proof to have actually happened anywhere. The only semi-decent source in this article is the credulous BBC article which takes reports of this at face value and presents, again, no proof. If this happens why are there no pictures even after the fact, EVER? Wild stories and breathless repetitions of the claim that this is "widely reported" with not even one example even of anecdotal evidence seem suspect to me. An article in Wikipedia should base its claims on reliable sources and not just repeat wild tales. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See my post above. Blcollier (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this article hasn't been ripped to shreds. The report about the cow came from some crackpot's 1919 book and is currently being preserved on sacred-texts.com? Seriously? --SweetNightmares (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Beebe in opening

The Beebe stuff seems very topical in this article. Couldn't it be limited to a "for instance" / link when it is explained that the article is about flightless animals. Should the name be changed to Raining flightless animals? --12.213.80.55 (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Actually, since the article clearly states that it is about flightless animals, I would agree. I had not paid much attention to that qualifier before, but it does make sense. Beebe should be a "while not exactly the same, see Beebe" or removed altogether. At the very least, the paragraph should better CONTRAST the event to Raining Animals, since they are not the same. Either way, as it is now, it doesn't fit properly. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Frogs

I lived for a year (1976) in Greasbrough Rotherham. One night during a rainfall I heard the sounds of the rain increase dramatically and went out to look. The small narrow road by the yard adjacent to the cottage was covered in something that was moving. I went to look and it was a large mass of frogs, all the same size, all alive. No pond debris, nothing else just uniform sized small frogs. There was no place I could think of where they could have come from except for having fallen in the rain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.165.170 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC) This is not clear evidence that frogs dropped from the sky.75.161.105.76 (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Bayes Theorem

the question is not whether your data could be explained by your hypothesis, but "what do I expect my world to look like if my hypothesis is valid?" The first obvious argument against raining fish is that security cameras have been installed in just about every store in the first world. If your security camera caught fish raining down from the sky on tape. That video would be famous, or at least heard of. Since it is in fact astronomically unlikely that a severe weather event is not caught of some sort of film, particularly because many people actively study and record weather events.

Secondly, although a bit redundantly, where are the primary sources? Why has no one stepped up to the plate on this one? If I saw fish falling out of the sky, I would do everything in my power to figure out how. If no one else had documented the phenomena of fish actually falling from the sky. I would make sure that I got my 15 minutes of fame.

I am going to categorize this post as an urban myth, and cite alternate explanations for the OBSERVED phenomena until someone cites some observed phenomena that indicates this hypothesis over an alternative.75.161.113.253 (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


Moved the Terry Pratchett entry from "In anime, comics, and manga" to "In literature". He is largely an author of books; comedic books, but books nonetheless. In fact, he received his knighthood for services to /literature/.90.195.185.48 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Convection

I am a glider pilot. Hay chaff is often seen at heights in the normal convective range, up to a few km high. I have seen tufts of grass with lumps of dirt attached, maybe up to 20mm across. A small fish? I find it impossible to conceive that this would not happen sometimes. And fish often swim in schools.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.23.7.23 (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Any solid evidence?

Looking at the references, there is virtually no picture of the event or its aftermath, it's almost only secondary accounts, alternate explanations are often proposed in the rare cases where there seem to be multiple witnesses, accounts are very inconsistent, a lot if not most of the references in the "Occurences" section are dubious and at least one outright said the event was staged. There is a jokey halloween article from a meteorologist's blog, and this book used as a reference. No contemporary occurences seriously documented in any way.

The "explanations" section gives none. Only theories and the arguments that discredit them, and occasionally alternate, more credible explanations.

Is it just a popular urban legend? I can't find a solid source describing it as one either. Estabr (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the "raining cats and dogs" section. The intro of the article itself mentions it has no clear relation to "raining animals":
"The English language idiom, "It is raining cats and dogs" (referring to a heavy downpour), is of uncertain etymology, and there is no evidence that it has any connection to the "raining animals" phenomenon." Estabr (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The article also defines the phenomenon as "flightless animals" raining from the sky, but has a large, illustrated paragraph on bird and bat rains. Do you think the definition should be changed or the paragraph altered/removed? Estabr (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Only if you consider stunned or dead birds/bats as able to fly. 89.204.153.186 (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

PopCulture list

This is not TV Tropes. Shouldn't it stick to iconic and/or representations that significantly effect the way this phenomena is perceived.ZayZayEM (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Expressions

The expression in French for heavy rain -still widely used in North America- is not "il pleut des seaux" ("it's raining buckets") but "il pleut à seaux" ("it's raining to [fill] buckets"). The expression with the wrong preposition ("des") is probably a local variety stemming from an error, and does not make much sense. I have never heard it, personally. The correct, usual expression is easy to find in any online dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by François Pichette (talk • contribs) 02:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Intention to overhaul

I am announcing an intention to overhaul this page. There are a lot of complaints above, generally expressing one of two ideas: 1) saying it has insufficient reliable sources and/or calling the explanations offered dubious. 2) the "cats and dogs" material doesn't fit in. Little has been done to address these concerns over the years. I have done some research and it appears that a few (real) scientists investigated the phenomenon between the 1920s and 1950s. Unfortunately, there is nothing more recent, but old scientific explanations are still better than pop-media explanations. Thus, I will rewrite the explanations (which include inaccurate eyewitness reports) to focus on these scientific sources say. Unrelated to that, I will split the cats and dogs material into a separate article as its origin, while an interesting subject, is likely unrelated. (A hat note and a single sentence in the leads will link the two topics.)

It might be a while before I get to this, so please express any disagreement with these plans here. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do so, and I will buy you a pint or three. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed your "further reading" section - that will be most helpful when I get to the overhaul. Thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Definitely necessary, considering this is the first time I've seen such a dubious article on Wikipedia with no warning note in the header. Have any editors at Wikipedia looked at this in a year? 2602:306:34AB:CF60:6C23:9376:D073:6D70 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rain of animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rain of animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

ToothFairyScience

Before we go into explanations for fish-falls, we should determine whether the fish-fall at all. Given that walking catfish migrate over land, maybe it is a case of the catfish moving over land rather than falling from the sky. We need to determine whether fish fall before we can determine how they get into the air, because maybe they do not and we attempt to figure out how something happens when it does not happen at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C002:C120:6410:8ECF:DD38:55B7 (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rain of animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement contradicting Wikipedia itself

This page says, "Given that waterspouts do not actually lift anything (the water droplets visible in the column are merely condensation)", right while linking to the waterspout article that says, "anything that is within about one yard of the surface of the water, including fish of different sizes, frogs, and even turtles, can be lifted into the air." Kumagoro-42 (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. The article needs some overhauling, but for starters, I deleted that entry stating that it lifts nothing, as the Skeptoid (Science Friction) blog is not as reliable as a scientific publication. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rain of animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Michell, John (2000). "Strange Rains >> Falls of other animals". Unexplained phenomena: a rough guide special : [mysteries and curiosities of science, folklore and superstition]. Rough Guide. Rough Guides. p. 37. ISBN 1858285895. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Steiger, Brad (1991). "Falling Flesh and Flying Rocks". Beyond Belief. Scholastic. p. 75. ISBN 059044252X.
  3. ^ "Who's Throwing Monkeys at the Earth?". San Francisco Chronicle. October 27, 1956. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rain_of_animals/Archive_1&oldid=1257563633"