• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Valley of the Wood Apes

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Could it be a hoax or are the NAWAC being hoaxed? Possible but not probable."

Um...that's the bit that got me.
 
How much actual research did Hill put into the NAWAC? It seems like none. A quick phone call to Arkansas Fish and Game, or to the Forest Service might have given her a clue.

I wonder if she's a mermaid denialist?
 
More gaslighting.

"She lost credibility with me."
"Me too".
"Me three."
Etc.

Gaslighter: "I see no evidence she lost credibility"
 
Drewbot said:
http://sharonahill.com/neutrality-and-the-wood-ape-report/
Click to expand...

How many fallacies and emotional manipulation can you pack into one space?

It's so pathetic for being the same old same old. Fallacy of the golden middle. Denialists on one side, 'footers on the other, and the golden middle of "neutrality" where you lablel skeptics with derogatory terms like "denialist" and "pathological".

No, really, honestly, I have no reason whatever to suspect these people are ****** with me. None whatsoever.

Not even the suspicion. They're above suspicion. Because the report was long. It had staples in corner and everything. Boy, that's some hard core skepticism.

Lying by omission: the tax benefits of recreation being deductable: not even commented on. My last research expedition was thousands. (I do have photos, and they're not blurry.) Should I be able to write those scorching hot dollups off on my taxes? Er, I mean research assistants.

"I really want to know what is going on". That's why I've done no investigation. That's why I don't know anything about Live Action Alternate Reality Gaming. Because a skilled investigator, who does nothing to investigate, never ever considers the work other people have done in the field, especially other skeptics.
 
Jodie said:
Anyway, I haven't seen any change in her "skepticred" as a result of her stance on NAWAC or Area X in general.
Click to expand...

She can't explain, in words, what she found compelling about the report; the closest I recall her coming to that was her personal incredulity that someone would spend so much effort on a fake report. I think I heard that one in defense of the Hitler diaries.

When she was called out she got conveniently offended.

I stopped going to her site.
 
Personally, I thought the activity as described in Area X was more akin to something the fae would do rather than bigfoot activity. I bet there is a lot of things going on out there that don't jive with supposed bigfoot activity that never makes it into their logs/diaries. Now that's unscientific :)

Obviously her readership hasn't suffered due to anyone's boycott from this forum so I would say you guys are in the minority, or as ABP says "gaslighting". I never knew that term could be applied to a simple difference in opinion.
 
Last edited:
John Nowak said:
She can't explain, in words, what she found compelling about the report; the closest I recall her coming to that was her personal incredulity that someone would spend so much effort on a fake report. I think I heard that one in defense of the Hitler diaries.

When she was called out she got conveniently offended.

I stopped going to her site.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, she did insinuate they were careful.

Careful to stay inside and not even look out the window when they hear noises that are allegedly causing them panic. Look at me writing down how scared I am!

I guess you convince yourself that you can fool people.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Well, to be fair, she did insinuate they were careful.

Careful to stay inside and not even look out the window when they hear noises that are allegedly causing them panic. Look at me writing down how scared I am!

I guess you convince yourself that you can fool people.
Click to expand...
:biggrin: So f'n funny! "I was so scared I didn't know what glass was anymore, and then I could but only imagine the monster outside."
 
Jodie said:
I don't remember her stomping off in a huff. I went back and reread what I could find of her blog posts about NAWAC. What I saw was more or less a conclusion that more investigation/research needed to be done. As for being held to a higher standard, why? Isn't that one of those conditions in debate where authority shouldn't matter, assuming you hold skepticism as the perspective from a higher authority?
Click to expand...

http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/yy242/RCM944/3CF90595-B9CC-49B9-9482-4681E153FDC3.jpg

She also edited out many post she didn't like, it was an astounding display from someone who claims to be a skeptic. The argument she presented was exactly like any discussion on BFF "look at all the reports....there must be something to it!!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cervelo said:
[qimg]http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/yy242/RCM944/3CF90595-B9CC-49B9-9482-4681E153FDC3.jpg[/qimg]

She also edited out many post she didn't like, it was an astounding display from someone who claims to be a skeptic. The argument she presented was exactly like any discussion on BFF "look at all the reports....there must be something to it!!"
Click to expand...

I never got that she thought it was definitively bigfoot. I'm not faulting her for being conned by BB and that shouldn't take away from her skeptical perspective. We are all human, we all get angry at times, and we all make errors in judgement.
 
Jodie said:
I never got that she thought it was definitively bigfoot. I'm not faulting her for being conned by BB and that shouldn't take away from her skeptical perspective. We are all human, we all get angry at times, and we all make errors in judgement.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is suggesting that she believes in Bigfoot, where do come up with such hand waving?
But she most definitely failed in supporting her postion that the NAWACKYs gibberish warranted investigation and when pressed by mostly her supporters on her site, huffed and puffed got a bad case of potty mouth, then closed the discussion down for further comment from her bully pulpit.
Are you sure you read the comments, she didn't just make a mistake, she embarrassed herself in a most bizzare way considering she claims to be a public and for hire skeptic.
 
Last edited:
Cervelo said:
[qimg]http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/yy242/RCM944/3CF90595-B9CC-49B9-9482-4681E153FDC3.jpg[/qimg]

She also edited out many post she didn't like, it was an astounding display from someone who claims to be a skeptic. The argument she presented was exactly like any discussion on BFF "look at all the reports....there must be something to it!!"
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting that, because it had a date stamp, so incredibly it has been two years since she's made multiple emphatic statements about wanting to "find out more".

Same old, same old - look at what people do instead of what they are saying. Two years and not a single update on this urgent desire to find out more.

I'm sure she's been there herself and camped out through many a cold night, doing many experiments like removing the staples from the corner of the report and moving them to the opposite corner in order to see if it changed the results. You want robust results. Seeing if changing the font produces additional information. Dipping the pages in various substances and carefully recording the results. These kinds of validation tests take a lot of time and resources.
 
Who the **** are we talking about again? Oh yeah a self proclaimed "skeptic" (the nerve!) with a selfie fascination whom I've known little of before or since. She's like every other Zuckerberg out there, out of her league in almost every way but just not sharp enough to realize it. The Wood Ape Betrayal Complex™ definitely brought out the defects in her "skeptic" stance. In related news, she also bought a time-share in the resort town of Canconu in southern Mexicoponzischeme that same week. :eye-poppi
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
...I'm sure she's been there herself and camped out through many a cold night, doing many experiments like removing the staples from the corner of the report and moving them to the opposite corner in order to see if it changed the results. You want robust results. Seeing if changing the font produces additional information. Dipping the pages in various substances and carefully recording the results. These kinds of validation tests take a lot of time and resources.
Click to expand...
:D :D :D That's the ******* funniest thing you've ever written!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom