Moderator: Community Team

















daddy1gringo wrote:Best explanation I've heard is some nearsighted sailors who had been at sea away from their women too long seeing a manatee or Steller's Sea Cow doing something like spy-hopping and mistaking the pectoral fins for large breasts.
















PLAYER57832 wrote:daddy1gringo wrote:Best explanation I've heard is some nearsighted sailors who had been at sea away from their women too long seeing a manatee or Steller's Sea Cow doing something like spy-hopping and mistaking the pectoral fins for large breasts.
Uh, no... this is a Discovery channel show, with people alleging a government conspiracy
What really made me suspicious was the extreme detail they seem to lay out for evolutionary behavior. Nothing in that regard shown could in any way be documented, except the cave painting (if its valid??). So, if they were truly attempting to put forward an honest story, then why do that? Its not how real scientists work.















































Juan_Bottom wrote:
We need to saw the country apart at the mason-dixon line and kick the south out to sea.
















daddy1gringo wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:daddy1gringo wrote:Best explanation I've heard is some nearsighted sailors who had been at sea away from their women too long seeing a manatee or Steller's Sea Cow doing something like spy-hopping and mistaking the pectoral fins for large breasts.
Uh, no... this is a Discovery channel show, with people alleging a government conspiracy
What really made me suspicious was the extreme detail they seem to lay out for evolutionary behavior. Nothing in that regard shown could in any way be documented, except the cave painting (if its valid??). So, if they were truly attempting to put forward an honest story, then why do that? Its not how real scientists work.
Right, I didn't watch the program, but I saw the clips you posted and understand what you are saying. I was just talking about an explanation for the stories of mermaids.
















PLAYER57832 wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:
We need to saw the country apart at the mason-dixon line and kick the south out to sea.
You are under the impression that these scientists were southern? I don't believe they were...



























































jimboston wrote:They recently re-aired this, and I was able to catch it on my DVR.
It was entertaining.
Obviously it was not an honest scientific analysis... it was entertaining. That's all.
If they wanted to have an honest scientific analysis they would have needed to;
1) Get opposing opinions... all opinions on the show agreed with the idea that these things were mermaids.
2) Get specialists to analyse the photographic / video evidence.
3) Show (on screen) when what they were showing was actual footage versus a recreation versus some hypothetical idea.
4) Other things I can't think of....
They did none of this... so it falls into the category of fiction.
















BigBallinStalin wrote:Good points, jimbo, but even if it is fiction, does that really matter for some people?
Look at the Upton Sinclair social justice types, expounding upon their beliefs because The Jungle! was perceived as some hard-hitting evidence. Or look those who cite Lord of the Flies as evidence that free markets won't work.
What can we say about such people?
(let's keep it diplomatic)
















PLAYER57832 wrote:daddy1gringo wrote:Best explanation I've heard is some nearsighted sailors who had been at sea away from their women too long seeing a manatee or Steller's Sea Cow doing something like spy-hopping and mistaking the pectoral fins for large breasts.
Uh, no... this is a Discovery channel show, with people alleging a government conspiracy
What really made me suspicious was the extreme detail they seem to lay out for evolutionary behavior. Nothing in that regard shown could in any way be documented, except the cave painting (if its valid??). So, if they were truly attempting to put forward an honest story, then why do that? Its not how real scientists work.



PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Good points, jimbo, but even if it is fiction, does that really matter for some people?
Look at the Upton Sinclair social justice types, expounding upon their beliefs because The Jungle! was perceived as some hard-hitting evidence. Or look those who cite Lord of the Flies as evidence that free markets won't work.
What can we say about such people?
(let's keep it diplomatic)
That you like to troll.... and go off topic.

















BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Good points, jimbo, but even if it is fiction, does that really matter for some people?
Look at the Upton Sinclair social justice types, expounding upon their beliefs because The Jungle! was perceived as some hard-hitting evidence. Or look those who cite Lord of the Flies as evidence that free markets won't work.
What can we say about such people?
(let's keep it diplomatic)
That you like to troll.... and go off topic.
Focus, player. We're talking about the influence of documentaries and silly fiction posing as non-fiction which serves to reinforce people's cognitive bias.
This is completely relevant to the Mermaids. I'm finding a similarity here. Somehow, that's trolling, but then again, anything which you don't like can be considered trolling. You should go find one of those "what is trolling?" threads, and get back to us on that.























Users browsing this forum: No registered users