dmaker Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) Your approach makes little sense. Attach yourself to the "trash" in order to get your message out? In the meantime you risk alienating some of your dedicated followers and tarnishing what public image you have worked to establish. And how successful was this approach? Are the masses now discussing the serious doctors Meldrum and Bindernagel because they heard them talking on that Todd Standing guy's podcast? Hardly. Why, do you suppose, they did not choose to ally themselves with any number of bigfoot researchers who do not have a blatant history of hoaxing? As you said quite clearly, they had to have been aware of what a phony, baloney, hoaxer that Todd Standing is before they agreed to team up. It would seem to make more sense to me if they were to find some more reputable folks to hop into business with. Unless you care to suggest the alternative: that two of the most respected phd researchers in all of Bigfootery cannot tell a muppetsquatch when they see one? Edited August 12, 2014 by dmaker
Guest DWA Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 No, you just didn't think about this, that's all. Look, for example, how much attention you are paying to the serious stuff. And look how much attention "any number of bigfoot researchers who do not have a blatant history of hoaxing" are getting. You know, they devote a whole section of the New York Times to just those people. Oh, not. Fact is, most people see no distinction between the noise and the signal in this field. And 99.9% of the attention goes to the trash. if one wants exposure, that is where one goes. Marketing 101. It's made thousands of people rich. 'Coz: it works.
dmaker Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Maybe NAWAC should put Standing on their dance card then...
Guest DWA Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 What NAWAC is doing, they don't need Standing for.
southernyahoo Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 The field needs some very interesting biological evidence to move it right now, and Meldrum is working that angle as we speak. I'm sure there is more TV shows around the corner which could bring those findings forward. It's always a positive light to put science at the forefront and let the evidence do the talking.
Guest DWA Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 What the field needs as much as that is for the mainstream media to recognize that they aren't covering any of the interesting stuff. They're largely responsible for the state of the field. Their job is to inform; and this is far from the only field where that just ain't happenin'.
Guest LarryP Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) Noted: Larry wishes to be included in the "very smart" basket. You may wish to disassociate yourself from the pseudo-science end of things, Larry. The two don't mix, very well. You keep bringing up that "science" word . Where are those "Laws of Science" that you supposedly have such a grasp of? Edited August 23, 2014 by LarryP Edited for name calling
Recommended Posts