Jump to content
DWA

Well...hmmmm. What Have We Here.

Recommended Posts

DWA

You can *imagine* whatever you want to imagine.  But the thing about bigfoot skeptics is:  they imagine what they want to the moment they see something, and that's just the way they are.  Anyone telling me they knew exactly what that was the first time they saw it:  well, they're not providing me evidence they know anything else about this topic.  So why trust them on that?

 

Why would someone "open to the possibility" *not* be considered a skeptic?  As I have said before:  the only true skeptics I have encountered in this field have been proponents.  Bigfoot skeptics have a child-like credulity that never ceases to surprise me.

 

You *think* my responses are funny because you need to read more.  But I can wait.  In fact, I'm not concerned one way or t'other 'bout that.


(If you're tuning in late:  "bigfoot skeptics" is a pejorative.  It doesn't describe actual skepticism.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

OK, you didn't see it when it, um, first came out.


Oh.  The joke video wasn't there neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Agree on this. I don't think it's a great 'joke'. It's not posted on April 1st for a start, ...

 

People I think underestimate how important that is.  It's geek sneaky to post something March 31;  cloak it in all the garb of one' s profession; use a legit website as the vehicle; construct an elaborate backstory; and think that it somehow reflects on one's skill when people take it seriously.  And this is before we get to the ignorant part:  they might as well be describing the actual research in Area X, which they either know nothing about or can't think about properly.  It's hard to laugh at ignorant stuff, except for reasons the ignorant might not like.

 

A good April Fool's joke, at the very least, features that date.  It's a cue that, if the joke is actually good, people miss anyway.  If.The.Joke.Is.Actually.Good.

 

secondly they go on to create an elaborate backstory and claim to have DNA tested hairs etc. I think anyone who is serious about nature and apes would be very interested in the initial story as the source is supposed to be legitimate, respectable and accountable. It piqued my interest certainly but I think anyone who got slightly excited is due a mulligan on this one due to the originator and backstory.

 

Right.  It's *not even a joke.*  Imagine a scientist saying "we have harnessed muons, and are at most two years away from time travel.  APRIL FOOL!"  I know, I was rolling on the floor too.  Scientist Humor is one of the best arguments for scientists sticking to their knitting.

 

How many bigfoot jokes have I seen like this, in 47 years?  This is the first one.  Most scientists know how 'funny' they are, and consider this sort of thing beneath them, as it should be.

 

I wouldn't hire any of these three jokers.  Using your profession to set legitimate research in that profession back?  If it's not considered unethical, it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

That whooshing sound? What some heard after DWA's IP.  (Back it up....back it up....that's good!)

 

No, the premise is that somebody with the apparent credibility would squander it on this kind of silly nonsense is a great explanation of why we find ourselves where we are. The subtlety of the point was obviously lost on many here. We know skeptics don't do subtle though. I'm sure he regrets thinking otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

You got duped on an April Fools joke - accept it and move on. The premise that credible people or websites would never do such a thing is false. Apparently even they are human and have a sense of humor.

 

When you suspected an April Fools joke you should have been more skeptical, but instead you dug yourself deeper by claiming how legitimate this was:

 

"Those who specialize in hip-shoot analysis and never think about the details will totally gloss over how practically every single subtlety one would expect in a legitimate scientific newsflash is present here".

 

Quit trying to blame skeptics for anything here because that's not the case. You want to know what the really bad thing is? They used one of the most common cheesy costumes you can buy and it still worked.

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Well to be fair, the track photo and first video were pretty convincing, obviously this was released BEFORE the 1st.

 

The second video was an obvious fake when the dude in the costume attacked the camera. 

 

I'm guessing that was released after the 1st?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^Even in the first video when you pause it you can see big giant wrinkles going across the chest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
steenburg

Hoax attempt. or was this just done for fun?

 

Thomas Steenburg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Divergent1

You can *imagine* whatever you want to imagine.  But the thing about bigfoot skeptics is:  they imagine what they want to the moment they see something, and that's just the way they are.  Anyone telling me they knew exactly what that was the first time they saw it:  well, they're not providing me evidence they know anything else about this topic.  So why trust them on that?

 

Why would someone "open to the possibility" *not* be considered a skeptic?  As I have said before:  the only true skeptics I have encountered in this field have been proponents.  Bigfoot skeptics have a child-like credulity that never ceases to surprise me.

 

You *think* my responses are funny because you need to read more.  But I can wait.  In fact, I'm not concerned one way or t'other 'bout that.

(If you're tuning in late:  "bigfoot skeptics" is a pejorative.  It doesn't describe actual skepticism.)

Right now, I am enjoying the fact that for one brief moment, you were convinced that video was real. You ought to be embarrassed, however, you can still ask a moderator to pull the thread off the public forum. We will all forget about it by next week and no one will be able to quote mine it and use it against you in a future discussion. 

Edited by Divergent1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Hoax attempt. or was this just done for fun?

 

Thomas Steenburg

Just for fun.  They were ignorant enough to think it was actually funny.  No surprise there.

Well to be fair, the track photo and first video were pretty convincing, obviously this was released BEFORE the 1st.

 

The second video was an obvious fake when the dude in the costume attacked the camera. 

 

I'm guessing that was released after the 1st?

The press release was up a good portion of the first, with no dude, no April Fool.  Just the first video and track photo and narrative of the 'discovery.'  Spader came on here probably not an hour after the additions were posted to call the whole thing off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape
Know what I am hoping?  Karma bites these folks. 

I'd be careful about that. It can boomerang on you.

 

 

Those who specialize in hip-shoot analysis and never think about the details will totally gloss over...

 

 

 

Well, thankfully you would never do that now, would you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

This is seriously the funniest thing to happen to Bigfootery in a long time.

 

Knee jerk reaction, foot in mouth, blame everyone except OP's gullibility...

 

No humility whatsoever.

 

I love it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...