|
Post by Lensman on Feb 23, 2005 22:25:59 GMT
Bacteria, as far as I understand, find it much easier to cross species since they just need the right stuff to feed upon in the host Thanx for the correction, Topaz! I bow to your expertise. And you have an excellent point about it being far more likely to be a bacterial disease than a viral one. BTW -- "Budding festival..." LOL!
|
|
|
Post by twistedrabbit on Feb 23, 2005 22:27:11 GMT
So far these are the only pieces I have seen indicating how the Martians might feed.
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Feb 23, 2005 22:45:58 GMT
Thanx for the correction, Topaz! I bow to your expertise. And you have an excellent point about it being far more likely to be a bacterial disease than a viral one. Correction? I thought I was agreeing with you.
|
|
Winky
Full Member
May 21st, 1999
Posts: 131
|
Post by Winky on Feb 23, 2005 23:00:50 GMT
god that pic still gives me shivers ever since i found it!
i never thought that the Martians would go straight to the heart, but makes sense doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by twistedrabbit on Feb 23, 2005 23:08:58 GMT
Scary stuff. I can imagine an oversized needle impaling and breaking through the chest. They wouldn't waste time with a vein most like...unless they wanted to keep the human alive.
|
|
|
Post by BrutalDeluxe on Feb 24, 2005 4:28:39 GMT
They have absolutely no empathy for humanity, so they wouldn't care about how much it hurts the victim, just what is the most efficient way to obtain fresh blood. Presumably it would either be a tube in the jugular or the left pulmonary artery.
|
|
|
Post by DarkElastic on Jun 9, 2005 13:56:10 GMT
I think they could have done it in another two different ways:
1. Giant blender, make us into a nice froffy drink.
2. Squeeze us like we do to oranges.
|
|
|
Post by Commandingtripod on Jul 2, 2006 9:56:24 GMT
So far these are the only pieces I have seen indicating how the Martians might feed. God that's freaky. But something else I've been thinking about. How often would a Martian need to 'feed' anyway. And are the Martian feeding patterns ok ones? I mean, if they drain everything in site, their gonna run out of food real quick. But to be able to have a good meal, surely the Martians must feed on adults? And it can take roughly 20 years before a child becomes and adult - a long time to wait for dinner if you're a Martian.
|
|
|
Post by wotwfan48 on Jul 3, 2006 17:09:07 GMT
For me it was already pathetic, to realise, they really did'nt give a Dam about us, torching everybody eather in the book movies etc. but when you realise they dring our blood, whow, this is a lot more than Dracula lol. This is serious stuff, I am so happy it is fiction lol. Chantale.
|
|
|
Post by beecus on Jul 3, 2006 17:54:46 GMT
I like to think of it like spiders or some insects... they inject us with serum that essentially liquidates us inside then suck up the results ;D Beastly things!
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jul 4, 2006 5:13:28 GMT
The natural predator-to-prey ratio for large animals (like lions to zebras) is about 200 to one. But humans take much longer to reach the age at which they can reproduce, so if the Martians feed only on "wild" humans, the ratio of human cattle to Martians needs to be correspondingly much higher; maybe 1200 to one. However, "farming" the humans-- breeding them for food-- should be much more efficient, and should reduce that ratio quite a bit.
As near as I can tell, there were only 50 Martians in the initial invasion, so they would need a wild population of 60,000 humans to feed on. Anybody have estimates of the prehistoric human population of the British Isles?
Anyway, I don't think that number is very important. One of the Martians was already reproducing by budding, and there are indications in the novel the Martians had trouble with the Space Gun. If that had been fixed and the invasion had been a success, they would very likely have sent more Martians in a second wave, and they would have gone on to conquer at least part of the European mainland, thus giving themselves access to more food.
Actually it would be much more efficient to only take a relatively small amount of blood from each human, so it would recover and could be fed on again. The Martians didn't initially do this during the invasion, perhaps because they needed to reduce our numbers to a managable level anyway, so it didn't matter if they killed any individual or not. Perhaps if they shifted to "farming" us, they would also shift to allowing the victim to usually survive.
An unanswered question is whether Martians can or would feed on the bodies of large animals. If so, it would be much more efficient for them to breed them for food instead. They would mature much more quickly, and be much less likely to escape or cause problems such as sabotage.
Presumably the reason Martians fed on humans during the invasion is because we physically resembled the Martian "bipeds" which they brought with them as food. Also of course because humans were available in great numbers, and with their concentration in urban areas were much easier to catch than wild animals. Whether the Martians in time would have overcome their cultural prejudice and adopted the more efficient practice of feeding on animals previously domesticated by humans, such as real cattle... as I said, is an unanswered question.
|
|
2x2l
New Member
"2X2L", Isnt there anyone on the air?
Posts: 3
|
Post by 2x2l on Jul 6, 2006 14:25:59 GMT
Also remember what H.G. Wells is trying to commuincate to the reader. "and in the end, they were slain by the smallest organisms known to man. Minute, Invisiible, Bacteria. Which, God, In his Knowledge put on Earth." or something like that.
Maybe its just a Deus Ex machina? a Plot twist brought on by a Massive inconceivable being or device. All time is predetermined according to God (im not trying to religify this topic but try to se it my way), so God put these bacteria on Earth to stop the martian invasion he knew would occur, when all mans device had failed, it was up to the humans faith in god to save them. Or maybe evolution favoured us by chance.
OFF-TOPIC: I read recently that the Hypodermic syringe will be obsolete soon, scientists have discovered a way to extract/insert fluid IV without puncturing the skin, using laser implements. And judging from their heat ray, they can do it easily.
Darkhorse's web comic offers an interesting view though, check out my topic in general.
|
|
|
Post by wotwfan48 on Jul 7, 2006 15:56:00 GMT
my aunt was here for a few days, I showed her the movie, and explain about the book, showed her a picture of HG Wells, and his tripods, But when she saw, what was the martians, ET, food, She saw how pathetic that story is, pathetic for us humain. at the time, before the end of the story, when they died. She said it is a science fiction, but it make you think, and wondering.Chantale.
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Jul 7, 2006 20:47:43 GMT
How about syphilis?? No thanks. Absolute genius. Thanks for that- really laughed out loud!
|
|
|
Post by Commandingtripod on Aug 16, 2006 8:54:33 GMT
I did find a quote in the book (I can't remember which chapter but an early one in book 2) that has Wells' suggesting to me that the Martians didn't drain all the blood from their victims on the first shot. Don't know what you others think about this but:
There was the part where the Narrator describes a Martian tentacle grabbing a man from the basket before a large hooting started.
Then later the Narrator says (Something like this I can't quite fully remember):
I think that this passage suggests the Martians will last out a human over a few days through the use of "The lad" implying that this is the same man he saw earlier being taken from the basket. Those are my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Herulian Martian on Aug 17, 2006 12:47:20 GMT
So far these are the only pieces I have seen indicating how the Martians might feed. Those mouthparts in yellow...those must be what they use when not using a mechanical needle to drink our blood.
|
|
|
Post by theredweed on Aug 18, 2006 17:11:30 GMT
Because Human blood tastes lush!!!! Especially with some father beans and a liver pate. I agree, but A- is a bit acidic
|
|
|
Post by Killraven on Aug 23, 2006 21:36:58 GMT
Its all down to interpretation really... Wells' use of 'the lad' might have been in reference to the same victim previously mentioned... or he might simply have been referring to the relative age of a second victim? Anyway guys, if you wish to expound further, there's quite detailed discussion on the methods of blood extraction if you scroll down the threads in the "Original Novel" section KR
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Aug 24, 2006 2:25:03 GMT
I'm surprised that anyone would suggest "the lad" referenced later was the same as the "middle-aged man" mentioned earlier. Wells certainly would not have referred to a "middle-aged man" as a "lad", and neither would a modern writer. It's clear to me that Wells intended for us to think they were two different victims.
|
|