Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
For him it's "they get paid to make the show seem, despite the impossibilities, interesting."You don't actually know what "unbiased" means, do you?
For him it's "they get paid to make the show seem, despite the impossibilities, interesting."You don't actually know what "unbiased" means, do you?
You don't actually know what "scientist" means, do you?You don't actually know what "unbiased" means, do you?
Nobody dismisses it out of hand, as you are fully aware.
Any rational person watching them would come to the same conclusion. "We found Atlantis!" And nobody gets to see it. "Consider the source" makes them look stupid.You don't even have to watch it because you know in advance it is all a hoax.
What a clown you are.You don't actually know what "scientist" means, do you?
Claiming a TV reality series is totally faked based on no evidence whatsoever is dismissing it out of hand.
You just don't get it, do you? There is nothing the least bit threatening to my "belief system" in all the fluff you post.That way you protect your disbelief system from the very possibility of it turning up threatening evidence.
Again, I have not claimed it is "all a hoax". Get your facts straight.You don't even have to watch it because you know in advance it is all a hoax.
Hardly. Remember, you're the one who just claimed that there is no evidence whatsoever that the show is in any way faked.Your bubble of disbeliefs thus remains perfectly sealed off from any outside conflicting information.
Several false imputations here. I watched an episode, explained the procedural errors I saw in the data gathering, and made no accusations that the series as a whole is a fake or hoax. My point was that poor procedure yields compromised data. In the Bottle Drop xperiment, cheap GPS configured for surface use and resulting in points of failed triangulation in aerial use would be the most likely explanation for the descent path anomalies. I am in no way ruling out odd geophysical or other effects somehow particular to that area, or saying that scientists and engineers with more competence should not go there. A team which is well paid to generate drama for a tv show is NOT the competent and impartial team required for such research. This isn't biased debunkery, just a basic reality of the entertainment biz.Claiming a TV reality series is totally faked based on no evidence whatsoever is dismissing it out of hand. That way you protect your disbelief system from the very possibility of it turning up threatening evidence. You don't even have to watch it because you know in advance it is all a hoax. Your bubble of disbeliefs thus remains perfectly sealed off from any outside conflicting information. And so you remain blissfully ignorant.
Remember, you're the one who just claimed that there is no evidence whatsoever that the show is in any way faked.
A perhaps useful parallel may be drawn to the mystery lights of Marfa, Texas - when a trained scientific team went out there, a quite ordinary physical cause was found, based in atmospheric optics. When a state highway was rerouted, the lights vanished.
He is a gentleman, and sticks with analysis of the procedures and data (when he can obtain it). From what I've seen of Metabunk, it's a group of science folk who are doing proper science, i.e. carefully sifting all the evidence, poking holes in that which is weak or compromised by collection errors, pointing out mundane explanations that fit the data well, pointing out missing data, and suggesting future avenues of research that might resolve presently ambiguous results, etc.And as far as I can tell Mick West doesn't think the show is a hoax. He is actually taking their experiments seriously, though questioning ofcourse some of their conclusions
Though I was just using Marfa as a parallel, I suspected MR would chomp on the bait and veer OT with a gigantic wiki quote dump.
Incorrect. I posted that a scientific team had made a satisfactory explanation using atmospheric physics. The fact that I knew you would jump on it, as bait, does not mean that was my primary intent. I was drawing a parallel:So you deliberately posted something untrue just to "bait" me?
When I posted a mundane procedural explanation of the bottle drop results, you persisted in your narrative of some weird anomaly possibly paranormal.
Nope. This seems to be the kind of slander that gains you a reputation for bad faith argument here. I mentioned Rayleigh scattering once, in passing, in regard to a shot in the video you posted of a laser experiment, a shot where the laser seems to "stop" up in the sky, and which is a well known optical illusion with lasers so directed.I'm just surprised you didn't invoke rayleigh scattering again to explain it away. That seems to be your "go to" debunk for everything.
Not necessarily paranormal. Just a spacetime anomaly of some sort. I learned all my physics from watching Star Trek.
This seems to be the kind of slander that gains you a reputation for bad faith argument here
That seems unfortunate. A lot of tv sci-fi employs rubber science to propel its storylines.