...
I am positive from the guy's tone that he thinks he's being informative as heck, but what is he really telling us? He's telling us a bunch of peripheral shit that doesn't get near why the seeing of the shadow thing is predictive, even partially, of the actual, if not technical, arrival of spring. He's not saying whether this was just made up out of whole cloth or if there was any folk perception of it that gave rise to the observation of Groundhog Day. I mean, do groundhogs actually do this? He doesn't go near any of that. He's just a good droid, pumping you full of more left brain twaddle so you will go away, lose yourself in endless games of Trivial Pursuit, sock it out of the park when the Jeopardy category is Groundhog Day, never giving you an iota more insight into wildlife, meteorology, humanity... nothing whatever to do with the actual.
...
HERE IS A SOMEWHAT IMPROVED EFFORT... giving us, at least, a better idea of its antiquity, and some reasons people might assign some significance to it, that there were people out there looking for it, but I'm not getting any clarification on the matter of what difference the shadow, or lack of one makes... why it would be that a sunny day would not bode for the early spring when a cloudy one would.
Fine, fine if Phil's accuracy sucks. Duly noted. They're not getting to the root.
.
