A little learning is a dangerous thing Drink deep, or taste not the Peirian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again.
Pope.
Our new "researcher" on the block calls itself Nighwalker, real name Ed Skoda.. and claims a fairly obtuse and slightly pompous "double degree in psychology".
Now does this mean a BA and a Doctorate.?
Sadly for Ed, he aint half as bright as he thinks he is..he has come off badly on every little encounter I and a few others have had with this slightly deranged and obsessive head case..
ED Skoda
The main problem we see here is when, for the sake of argument, "psychologists" (Personally,I think he his lying about even being a psychologist) try and act like scientists. Since they have no idea how science works they lack consistency but wrap sophistry with ridiculous demands and think that by playing scientific games.. they are actually being scientific. From the arts degree quackery that gave us repression/subconscious/multiple personality/satanic ritual abuse/false memory syndrome etc etc But, we digress... Nightwalker appears to have suffered some form of stress when exposed to the "yowie" phenomena and responds with a state that is characterized by nonsensical or wrong answers to questions or doing things incorrectly. What prognosis fits the above. :) Ganser Syndrome.... Lets get into it for fun...and see if this Nightwalker, is logical and consistent.
No - that is not what I suggest at all. The Naked Yowie Project is opposed to pondering "what might be yowie evidence". That is speculation and the Naked Yowie Project rejects speculative evidence. Simple. source
First, the term "speculative" means theoretical, so, theoretical evidence...does not make sense. Perhaps the author meant the evidence must be associated with an encounter with a yowie. So, if witnesses heard bipedal sounds, witnessed unusual eye shine within 15 metres of themselves,some smelt an unusual stink and one person claims to have been knocked over by something large and bipedal..and then a footprint was discovered in the general area the next day and cast... So the cast taken from the Dean encounter fits all those parameters..excellent starting point. So Nightwalker would have to accept this cast..lets see..
NW Quote"The image above is a comparison between a supposed yowie footprint cast (the footprint was conveniently found by Harrison while alone at camp the morning after allegedly being attacked by a yowie) and Harrison's own foot. I would say that it is pretty conclusive proof of hoaxing - or am I jumping to conclusions? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77665&page=4 19th January 2010, 01:54 AM
Pure speculation, or..Yes..you are jumping to conclusions..thats why you were reduced to asking, cap in hand, such an idiotic question....on a sceptics forum.. ...I could go on..the reader gets the point.. But..this game gets better..
NW Quote"Since, technically, we don't know what a yowie foot looks like perhaps the footprint is actually that of a yowie. Couldn't we expect a bipedal hominid or hairy man-like creature to have human-like feet or toes? We may know little to nothing about yowie feet but we do know a great deal about human feet and it is the footprint's clearest feature - the toes - which are the surest indicator that this is a very modern human footprint. http://ozcrypto.net/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4%3Aanalysis-of-the-dean-vs-yowie-enounter-2009&catid=2%3Ayowieresearch&Itemid=8&limitstart=3 Thursday, 03 September 2009 17:33 Lets look at this part... Since, technically, we don't know what a yowie foot looks like perhaps the footprint is actually that of a yowie. Couldn't we expect a bipedal hominid or hairy man-like creature to have human-like feet or toes? Yes, we could expect that speculative summary..!! Lets see..most humans have a gap in their toes..Harrison has a gap..the plaster has a gap..ergo..its Harrisons footprint. So...from a logical perspective, where did our pseudo scientist go wrong. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, Absurd Extrapolation, Appeal to Belief, Amphiboly, Appeal to Emotion, Argument from ignorance etc etc etc Yawn...Its Pure speculation.. And since we are chatting about the foot print..let us go back to this
"..the footprint was conveniently found by Harrison while alone at camp the morning after allegedly being attacked by a yowie.."
If someone like Joe or Mikka had found the print..you would have called it an AYR Hoax.!! If the space cadet brothers had found it..you would have said AYR placed it there. How could any print found there..or anywhere be presented without lazy mendacious wretches like yourself popping up and crying "cheat". Whats that silence...????????????????????????????????????
NW Quote"If the yowie once existed or still exists today it is a type of hairy man (and woman) - not an ape, monster, or giant - with a cranial capacity comparable yet with a brain structurally different to our own - lesser frontal lobe but larger occipital lobe (often referred to as the occipital bun). Intelligent, but in a different way to us and without a dependency on tools - Nature Man, so to speak. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77665&page=4
Pure shite..and pure speculation..which is not even based on "speculative evidence".. More gold
NW Quote"That many "researchers" focus on the story while little is collected in the way of tangible data only further increases suspicions that it is largely bogus. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77665&page=3
I love the "researchers" in quotations...add a dash of obsession and pomposity and no idea about logic..and we could all lose the " ". Anyway..I will explain it for our obtuse friend.. The word Tangible for a start.. adjective 1.capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial. Is a piece of plaster..tangible..sure.. Is a plaster print tangible..yes.. But is plaster..data..Of course not. So our fearless hero must have meant something else.. The only other thing is..the reports..which are in a book form..so we can touch them..so.. we pass our "genius" the book of reports..thats must be what he meant.. Data...is just collections of stories..its tangible because..? Thats right..NW expert eye goes over "data" like "Out of the Shadows" and NW decides that around 10% is legit..based on speculation of course.. "We" focus on the story because in yowielore..thats about it..apart from plaster casts that Nightwalker`s jaundiced eye accepts..rejects...depending on which audience you are playing up to.
NW"I acknowledge that there is no evidence other than what is misidentified, misrepresented, and fabricated so, obviously, it cannot really be argued otherwise. I'm not sure how seriously I take it but even the ongoing fakery and storytelling is interesting from a sociological point of view at the very least. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5597578
Mmm, lets look at this bit.I acknowledge" .is very odd language Mr Ganser. :)
Lets examine this "pearl" I'm not sure how seriously I take it.
But NW knows because he read a book...brilliant..!!
Or, rather than spanking you for making a complete fool of yourself..in the obvious ways you do so well, lets try another tact.
You have this insane "logic", which is just crap speculation..again..groan..which goes like this.
Allow me to paraphrase your position.
I realise that a few pea brained "sceptics" like Marius always gets confused with the term "paraphrase"..
"I, Nightwalker, think this case/specimen/witness is a fake, ergo, it is a fake.
End of story, and thanks forthe applause..
Now Watch the bouncing ball!!
Because you "think" a case is fraudulent, based on your gut feeling, even you, in your madness, must understand..that this is just pure SPECULATION.
You look for fraud and lies everywhere(due to something inside yourself perhaps)and fuck me dead..you find fraud and hoaxing everywhere.
Everything you touch is found to have been hoaxed..
What are the odds of that..
Its called confirmation bias..you must have heard of it..oh great man of science.. HA
You have been wrong on every call so far, which I admire.
It takes a special idiot to be wrong, consistently, so many times..and still keep popping up.
The trick is..you pretend you are about to do something "scientific"...that other mere mortals have failed at..
And the bait and switch is..you dont do anything at all..
Ever..except cry hoax..liar..faker..and my favourite.."yowie researcher"..
Which would be more reliable - yowie sightings reported via the media or via "yowie researchers"? If you saw something out of the ordinary in the bush what would you do? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=937e2878bb753091cc4b8ad82d5f264e&t=77665&page=2
All I can say to that is.... WTF...too much cough mixture on an empty stomach perhaps?
NW"This year I will be starting a review called "The Naked Yowie Project" which aims to examine the yowie phenomenon as it is - fictions, fabrications, and all. I need people to investigate new alleged sightings in their area (Is there an area of bush along the east coast that doesn't claim any yowie sightings?) which, if the 2009 yowie stories in the media are any guide, will be more of an exercise in debunking. Debunking is important yet is an often neglected exercise. I would value any contributions which are accurate and honest. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5597578
And, as we predicted... you didnt start anything..
Not even one witness...nothing..it was all a crock..
All that time of frothing and blather produced a surplus of really sad ad hominem attacks/defamatory accusations.. and nothing else..
And we were so surprised...
Nearly as predictable as the bubble head brothers thermal camera experiments...
Wow...nothing...
I would value any contributions which are accurate and honest..
Oh please..why?
You are neither accurate or honest..or logical..
even the ongoing fakery and storytelling is interesting from a sociological point of view at the very least.
The main problem we see here is when, for the sake of argument, "psychologists" (Personally,I think he his lying about even being a psychologist) try and act like scientists. Since they have no idea how science works they lack consistency but wrap sophistry with ridiculous demands and think that by playing scientific games.. they are actually being scientific. From the arts degree quackery that gave us repression/subconscious/multiple personality/satanic ritual abuse/false memory syndrome etc etc But, we digress... Nightwalker appears to have suffered some form of stress when exposed to the "yowie" phenomena and responds with a state that is characterized by nonsensical or wrong answers to questions or doing things incorrectly. What prognosis fits the above. :) Ganser Syndrome.... Lets get into it for fun...and see if this Nightwalker, is logical and consistent.
No - that is not what I suggest at all. The Naked Yowie Project is opposed to pondering "what might be yowie evidence". That is speculation and the Naked Yowie Project rejects speculative evidence. Simple. source
First, the term "speculative" means theoretical, so, theoretical evidence...does not make sense. Perhaps the author meant the evidence must be associated with an encounter with a yowie. So, if witnesses heard bipedal sounds, witnessed unusual eye shine within 15 metres of themselves,some smelt an unusual stink and one person claims to have been knocked over by something large and bipedal..and then a footprint was discovered in the general area the next day and cast... So the cast taken from the Dean encounter fits all those parameters..excellent starting point. So Nightwalker would have to accept this cast..lets see..
NW Quote"The image above is a comparison between a supposed yowie footprint cast (the footprint was conveniently found by Harrison while alone at camp the morning after allegedly being attacked by a yowie) and Harrison's own foot. I would say that it is pretty conclusive proof of hoaxing - or am I jumping to conclusions? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77665&page=4 19th January 2010, 01:54 AM
Pure speculation, or..Yes..you are jumping to conclusions..thats why you were reduced to asking, cap in hand, such an idiotic question....on a sceptics forum.. ...I could go on..the reader gets the point.. But..this game gets better..
NW Quote"Since, technically, we don't know what a yowie foot looks like perhaps the footprint is actually that of a yowie. Couldn't we expect a bipedal hominid or hairy man-like creature to have human-like feet or toes? We may know little to nothing about yowie feet but we do know a great deal about human feet and it is the footprint's clearest feature - the toes - which are the surest indicator that this is a very modern human footprint. http://ozcrypto.net/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4%3Aanalysis-of-the-dean-vs-yowie-enounter-2009&catid=2%3Ayowieresearch&Itemid=8&limitstart=3 Thursday, 03 September 2009 17:33 Lets look at this part... Since, technically, we don't know what a yowie foot looks like perhaps the footprint is actually that of a yowie. Couldn't we expect a bipedal hominid or hairy man-like creature to have human-like feet or toes? Yes, we could expect that speculative summary..!! Lets see..most humans have a gap in their toes..Harrison has a gap..the plaster has a gap..ergo..its Harrisons footprint. So...from a logical perspective, where did our pseudo scientist go wrong. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, Absurd Extrapolation, Appeal to Belief, Amphiboly, Appeal to Emotion, Argument from ignorance etc etc etc Yawn...Its Pure speculation.. And since we are chatting about the foot print..let us go back to this
"..the footprint was conveniently found by Harrison while alone at camp the morning after allegedly being attacked by a yowie.."
If someone like Joe or Mikka had found the print..you would have called it an AYR Hoax.!! If the space cadet brothers had found it..you would have said AYR placed it there. How could any print found there..or anywhere be presented without lazy mendacious wretches like yourself popping up and crying "cheat". Whats that silence...????????????????????????????????????
NW Quote"If the yowie once existed or still exists today it is a type of hairy man (and woman) - not an ape, monster, or giant - with a cranial capacity comparable yet with a brain structurally different to our own - lesser frontal lobe but larger occipital lobe (often referred to as the occipital bun). Intelligent, but in a different way to us and without a dependency on tools - Nature Man, so to speak. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77665&page=4
Pure shite..and pure speculation..which is not even based on "speculative evidence".. More gold
NW Quote"That many "researchers" focus on the story while little is collected in the way of tangible data only further increases suspicions that it is largely bogus. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77665&page=3
I love the "researchers" in quotations...add a dash of obsession and pomposity and no idea about logic..and we could all lose the " ". Anyway..I will explain it for our obtuse friend.. The word Tangible for a start.. adjective 1.capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial. Is a piece of plaster..tangible..sure.. Is a plaster print tangible..yes.. But is plaster..data..Of course not. So our fearless hero must have meant something else.. The only other thing is..the reports..which are in a book form..so we can touch them..so.. we pass our "genius" the book of reports..thats must be what he meant.. Data...is just collections of stories..its tangible because..? Thats right..NW expert eye goes over "data" like "Out of the Shadows" and NW decides that around 10% is legit..based on speculation of course.. "We" focus on the story because in yowielore..thats about it..apart from plaster casts that Nightwalker`s jaundiced eye accepts..rejects...depending on which audience you are playing up to.
NW"I acknowledge that there is no evidence other than what is misidentified, misrepresented, and fabricated so, obviously, it cannot really be argued otherwise. I'm not sure how seriously I take it but even the ongoing fakery and storytelling is interesting from a sociological point of view at the very least. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5597578
Mmm, lets look at this bit.I acknowledge" .is very odd language Mr Ganser. :)
Its almost like you appear to actually think of yourself as being someone of authority..in your mad mind you have spent years meeting witnesses and examining seconday evidence..
The reality is you read one book and have been on some web sites..you have now self annointed yourself..how..sad..
Why do fools..never realise when they are making complete buffoons of themselves..
But if they did...where would my fun be..Lets examine this "pearl" I'm not sure how seriously I take it.
I will tell you how $#@%^ serious you take it..how about hundreds of posts on multiple web sites all over the world defaming loads of people/how about hundreds of hours trawling sites and "thinking" up your retarded answers and brain dead rhetorical questions.
How about lowering yourself to illegally posting private emails on public boards..or..one of my favourites..making your young son obviously lie on the phone twice when DH tried to speak to you ..and you were at home..just because you didnt have the guts to actual speak on the phone with someone you had no problems defaming world wide...you miserable coward..
You could have even rung back..
Just keep telling the gang you were out..its a pyramid of lies anyway..whats a few more amongst friends..
I could go on with this rant you dishonest prick but its too easy...
Tangible data?
Dear god man..then how do you expect us to collect any form of "tangible data" whatever that ridiculous term means, if there is no evidence. So, you try and lament the fact that we dont collect secondary evidence,then you mangle english and start talking about "tangible data", then admit there is no evidence anyway..then how we are supposed to collect it..????
The Fakery...mmmm, yep, we saw your brilliant logic, regarding humans have gaps in their toes, the plaster cast has gaps, therefore its a humans..even though you forgot you had previously posted.."technically, we don't know what a yowie foot looks like perhaps the footprint is actually that of a yowie." But NW knows because he read a book...brilliant..!!
Or, rather than spanking you for making a complete fool of yourself..in the obvious ways you do so well, lets try another tact.
You have this insane "logic", which is just crap speculation..again..groan..which goes like this.
Allow me to paraphrase your position.
I realise that a few pea brained "sceptics" like Marius always gets confused with the term "paraphrase"..
"I, Nightwalker, think this case/specimen/witness is a fake, ergo, it is a fake.
End of story, and thanks forthe applause..
Now Watch the bouncing ball!!
Because you "think" a case is fraudulent, based on your gut feeling, even you, in your madness, must understand..that this is just pure SPECULATION.
You look for fraud and lies everywhere(due to something inside yourself perhaps)and fuck me dead..you find fraud and hoaxing everywhere.
Everything you touch is found to have been hoaxed..
What are the odds of that..
Its called confirmation bias..you must have heard of it..oh great man of science.. HA
You have been wrong on every call so far, which I admire.
It takes a special idiot to be wrong, consistently, so many times..and still keep popping up.
The trick is..you pretend you are about to do something "scientific"...that other mere mortals have failed at..
And the bait and switch is..you dont do anything at all..
Ever..except cry hoax..liar..faker..and my favourite.."yowie researcher"..
Which would be more reliable - yowie sightings reported via the media or via "yowie researchers"? If you saw something out of the ordinary in the bush what would you do? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=937e2878bb753091cc4b8ad82d5f264e&t=77665&page=2
All I can say to that is.... WTF...too much cough mixture on an empty stomach perhaps?
NW"This year I will be starting a review called "The Naked Yowie Project" which aims to examine the yowie phenomenon as it is - fictions, fabrications, and all. I need people to investigate new alleged sightings in their area (Is there an area of bush along the east coast that doesn't claim any yowie sightings?) which, if the 2009 yowie stories in the media are any guide, will be more of an exercise in debunking. Debunking is important yet is an often neglected exercise. I would value any contributions which are accurate and honest. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5597578
And, as we predicted... you didnt start anything..
Not even one witness...nothing..it was all a crock..
All that time of frothing and blather produced a surplus of really sad ad hominem attacks/defamatory accusations.. and nothing else..
And we were so surprised...
Nearly as predictable as the bubble head brothers thermal camera experiments...
Wow...nothing...
I would value any contributions which are accurate and honest..
Oh please..why?
You are neither accurate or honest..or logical..
even the ongoing fakery and storytelling is interesting from a sociological point of view at the very least.
LOL.. Even the mad speculation of ongoing "fakery".and the storytelling by unbalanced "sceptics"with way too much time on their dishonest and grubby little hands is interesting from a sociological perspective..
After all this time..we decided to make this for you...
Tick..tock...
Tick..tock...
ED Skoda
