Hoax Museum Archives
Hoax Museum Hall of Fame
|
Angel Light Sees Through Walls
Troy Hurtubise claims that he's invented a machine, dubbed the Angel Light, that can see through walls. It doesn't really matter what the wall is made of: wood, ceramic, steel, tin, titanium, even lead. The Angel Light can see right through it, just as if a window had opened up in the wall. Of course, he built this thing in his garage (where else?). The idea for the invention came to him in a dream, and he built it without the aid of any blueprints, drawings or schematics. Although Troy may hope to one day be known throughout the world as the inventor of the Angel Light, he's already well known as the inventor of the URSUS MARK VII, a suit that can help a man withstand the attack of a Grizzly Bear (see that suit in the right corner of the thumbnail? That's the Grizzly suit). So from Grizzly Bear suits to Machines That Can See Through Walls. No one can accuse him of not having an interesting resume.
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 12 of 20 pages « First < 10 11 12 13 14 > Last »
Alex, would it be possible to move all of the posts by and/or about "tyrannybytes" to a new thread on the forum dealing specificly with Masonic/Satanic/New-World-Order/Numeralogical conspiracy theories?
Posted by JoeSixpack on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:43 AM
I just deleted some of tyrannybytes's posts since they were clearly way, way off topic. Should have done it sooner, but sometimes it's hard to check everything that's posted. I just kind of scan things to make sure they're not spam, and in the case of tyrannybytes his posts slipped under my radar. I'm sure he'll return, however. Guys like that never just go away. But if he does return he should start his own thread about conspiracy theories on the forum.
Posted by Alex in San Diego on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:01 AM
Alex, did you delete those post's because they were "way off topic" or because you felt tyranny bytes was getting a little, how shall we say, close to the truth?!?!? I can't believe but it's true! Alex is a member of the illuminati!http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=illuminati+alex&btnG=Google+Search 100,000 hits! read for yourself!
Posted by JoeSixpack on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:32 AM
tyrannybytes says,
Before you disbelieve Troy, ... if most posts here would focus as much energy into stopping the ... numeric obsessed, wack jobs...we might have a bit of hope.
yes, tyrannybytes, let us know if you run into any of those "numeric obsessed whack jobs". some may be hiding under your bed but i suggest the first place to check is in the mirror.
this cat makes troy look like a Quaker librarian. let's take up a collection to get him into an Ursus V11 before he hits breakup velocity
Posted by Geebs on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 03:21 PM
Before you disbelieve Troy, ... if most posts here would focus as much energy into stopping the ... numeric obsessed, wack jobs...we might have a bit of hope.
yes, tyrannybytes, let us know if you run into any of those "numeric obsessed whack jobs". some may be hiding under your bed but i suggest the first place to check is in the mirror.
this cat makes troy look like a Quaker librarian. let's take up a collection to get him into an Ursus V11 before he hits breakup velocity
It's just too bad it isn't real.
Posted by elementc on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 12:23 AM
intjudo and JoeSixpack, I too was originally upset by the Guardian covering this story in their Science pull out - being one of those people who beleives pretty much everything he reads... then gets upset when he finds out it isn't true.
I was going to contact the Guardian to 'vent my spleen' after I did some research myself and found out how ridiculous this thing was -
however I think you have missed what the journalist in question was trying to say when he replied. The column that he writes is a small section called 'Far Out' and does indeed generally cover issues which would not get any coverage in a serious broadsheet - recent columns have covered all sorts of topics that would not look out of place on these message boards - Scientology, million year old frogs etc. - the point he was making about this piece was that it is a 'science' story that, if true, would revolutionise how we look at physics. However, he doesn't say that it is true, and most Guardian readers (like myself) would have the sense to look into the story further - if they didn't, then they don't deserve to be reading a groovy liberal broadsheet like the Guardian.
I think the Guardians' journalistic integrity remains intact, and if the Science section hadn't got a 'wacky' corner, then it wouldn't be such a good read.
Posted by matzusdog in work on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 01:37 AM
I was going to contact the Guardian to 'vent my spleen' after I did some research myself and found out how ridiculous this thing was -
however I think you have missed what the journalist in question was trying to say when he replied. The column that he writes is a small section called 'Far Out' and does indeed generally cover issues which would not get any coverage in a serious broadsheet - recent columns have covered all sorts of topics that would not look out of place on these message boards - Scientology, million year old frogs etc. - the point he was making about this piece was that it is a 'science' story that, if true, would revolutionise how we look at physics. However, he doesn't say that it is true, and most Guardian readers (like myself) would have the sense to look into the story further - if they didn't, then they don't deserve to be reading a groovy liberal broadsheet like the Guardian.
I think the Guardians' journalistic integrity remains intact, and if the Science section hadn't got a 'wacky' corner, then it wouldn't be such a good read.
I'm really tired of my father watching O'Reilly every single time it comes on including reruns. :(
Posted by elementc on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:00 PM
matzusdog, to some extent I can go along with your assessment of The Guardian's journalistic integrity, subject to a few things:
1. Granted the article was in the "far out" section but the reporter still didn't do enough to qualify the statements he was making. Furthermore, he did *nothing* to investigate them. Also, it's important to remember in this Web-enabled age that people who read your articles don't necessarily read your entire paper, and might not know the article is in the "far out" section.
2. The Guardian has another section in their paper that would have been more appropriate: the "bad science" section.
People like Hurtubise use institutions like The Guardian to transfer responsibility for the claims they make away from themselves and onto the institution. It's a simple, age-old process, and it works like this:
1. Wacko makes claim
2. Institution parrots wacko's claims, without sufficiently investigating and/or qualifying them.
3. Wacko proclaims to the world, "My claims are valid - see, even says so."
4. The public believes wacko's claims, because they appear to be endorsed by.
The Guardian can't be so naive as to be unaware of this dynamic, and putting the article in the "far out" section doesn't do enough to absolve them of bad journalism, in this case, in my opinion.
Posted by intjudo on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 10:54 AM
1. Granted the article was in the "far out" section but the reporter still didn't do enough to qualify the statements he was making. Furthermore, he did *nothing* to investigate them. Also, it's important to remember in this Web-enabled age that people who read your articles don't necessarily read your entire paper, and might not know the article is in the "far out" section.
2. The Guardian has another section in their paper that would have been more appropriate: the "bad science" section.
People like Hurtubise use institutions like The Guardian to transfer responsibility for the claims they make away from themselves and onto the institution. It's a simple, age-old process, and it works like this:
1. Wacko makes claim
2. Institution parrots wacko's claims, without sufficiently investigating and/or qualifying them.
3. Wacko proclaims to the world, "My claims are valid - see,
4. The public believes wacko's claims, because they appear to be endorsed by
The Guardian can't be so naive as to be unaware of this dynamic, and putting the article in the "far out" section doesn't do enough to absolve them of bad journalism, in this case, in my opinion.
"The Guardian can't be so naive as to be unaware of this dynamic, and putting the article in the "far out" section doesn't do enough to absolve them of bad journalism, in this case, in my opinion"
It's nice to see that the general democratic right, the freedom of speech, withers and falls to pieces under the weight of your critical thumb,intjudo.
People are going to believe whatever their little people hearts desire, despite your crusade for glaringly obvious truths. I for one couldn't give a rat's ass...without stupidity, we wouldn't have a relative measurement for genius.
I enjoyed the article for its' entertainment value, and was rather heartened that there's still backwoods Canadians tinkering away in their shops.
My question to you is this:
Why are you so threatened by Mr.Hurtubise? The amount of time, effort, and consideration you've put into this 'quack' is quite involved...nearly prolific.
Posted by SweetBabyJeebus in Canada on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 04:59 AM
It's nice to see that the general democratic right, the freedom of speech, withers and falls to pieces under the weight of your critical thumb,intjudo.
People are going to believe whatever their little people hearts desire, despite your crusade for glaringly obvious truths. I for one couldn't give a rat's ass...without stupidity, we wouldn't have a relative measurement for genius.
I enjoyed the article for its' entertainment value, and was rather heartened that there's still backwoods Canadians tinkering away in their shops.
My question to you is this:
Why are you so threatened by Mr.Hurtubise? The amount of time, effort, and consideration you've put into this 'quack' is quite involved...nearly prolific.
SweetBabyJeebus, I don't think intjudo is arguing against free speech, he's simply pointing out an erosion of journalistic credibility at the Guardian, an otherwise respectable newspsper.
Free speech and the right to give crackpots a stage to spread BS aside, news media that doesn't inform the public about the real world IS a real problem that has very negative consequences.
I know when I pick up the Sun, The Weekly World News, or Policeman's Gazzette, I'm not getting a reliable source of news. But when I pick up the Washington Post, the New York Times, or turn on CBS or CNN, I would assume that I am getting a reliable source of news. The problem is, all of those media outlets have been the victims of outright journalistic fraud over the last 20 years. In some of these cases, journalists have won Pulitzer prizes for stories that they simply made up.
People's understanding of the world effects how they vote and how they treat others, and people get that understanding of the world through the "non-fiction" section of the news stand. It would be nice if it really were non-fiction.
". I for one couldn't give a rat's ass...without stupidity, we wouldn't have a relative measurement for genius."
Does it make you feel better about yourself when you see people who are slow witted or crackpots?
Posted by JoeSixpack on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 06:00 AM
Free speech and the right to give crackpots a stage to spread BS aside, news media that doesn't inform the public about the real world IS a real problem that has very negative consequences.
I know when I pick up the Sun, The Weekly World News, or Policeman's Gazzette, I'm not getting a reliable source of news. But when I pick up the Washington Post, the New York Times, or turn on CBS or CNN, I would assume that I am getting a reliable source of news. The problem is, all of those media outlets have been the victims of outright journalistic fraud over the last 20 years. In some of these cases, journalists have won Pulitzer prizes for stories that they simply made up.
People's understanding of the world effects how they vote and how they treat others, and people get that understanding of the world through the "non-fiction" section of the news stand. It would be nice if it really were non-fiction.
". I for one couldn't give a rat's ass...without stupidity, we wouldn't have a relative measurement for genius."
Does it make you feel better about yourself when you see people who are slow witted or crackpots?
SweetBabyJeebus ,
>>It's nice to see that the general democratic right, the freedom of speech, withers and falls to pieces under the weight of your critical thumb,intjudo.<<
...Public discourse concerning the journalistic integrity of particular newspapers is no threat to free speech. If it was my intent to make and enforce laws concerning journalistic standards, that might (for example) be considered a threat to free speech, but that's a far cry from what I'm doing. Happily, The Guardian is free to publish whatever they want, however poorly researched or presented. *And* I'm free to exercise *my* right to free speech by criticizing it, even if my criticism is "overly" critical in someone else's opinion...and it's their right to say *that*...get it?
>>People are going to believe whatever their little people hearts desire, despite your crusade for glaringly obvious truths.<<
On this very thread we've had people decide their initial support of Hurtubise's claims was based on emotional desires, not rational analysis of the validity of Hurtubise's claims. And they've decided to think more rationally as a result. It's my observation that civil and rational discourse has a positive effect on the world. You seem to have adopted a more cynical outlook, but I'd encourage you to re-evaluate this outlook, taking into account the fact that people can and do change their minds for the better.
>>I for one couldn't give a rat's ass<<
Frankly I don't believe that. I think you do care about the world and about other people; most of us do. Sometimes it's hard to 'fess up to, I know I've been there.
>>I enjoyed the article for its' entertainment value, and was rather heartened that there's still backwoods Canadians tinkering away in their shops.<<
I absolutely agree. I've said this before, and I'll point it out once more: in my opinion the funniest part of this whole thing isn't Hurtubise. The funniest part of this whole fiasco is the fact that his fantastic claims have been published verbatim, with little or no qualification and absolutely no fact-checking, by otherwise reputable news sources. I think it is simply hilarious that this guy's stories made it into Bay Today, The Discovery Channel and The Guardian. Maybe Troy can't help it if he's a little deluded. But what a bunch of laughable bumbling "journalists!"
Posted by intjudo on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:51 PM
>>It's nice to see that the general democratic right, the freedom of speech, withers and falls to pieces under the weight of your critical thumb,intjudo.<<
...Public discourse concerning the journalistic integrity of particular newspapers is no threat to free speech. If it was my intent to make and enforce laws concerning journalistic standards, that might (for example) be considered a threat to free speech, but that's a far cry from what I'm doing. Happily, The Guardian is free to publish whatever they want, however poorly researched or presented. *And* I'm free to exercise *my* right to free speech by criticizing it, even if my criticism is "overly" critical in someone else's opinion...and it's their right to say *that*...get it?
>>People are going to believe whatever their little people hearts desire, despite your crusade for glaringly obvious truths.<<
On this very thread we've had people decide their initial support of Hurtubise's claims was based on emotional desires, not rational analysis of the validity of Hurtubise's claims. And they've decided to think more rationally as a result. It's my observation that civil and rational discourse has a positive effect on the world. You seem to have adopted a more cynical outlook, but I'd encourage you to re-evaluate this outlook, taking into account the fact that people can and do change their minds for the better.
>>I for one couldn't give a rat's ass<<
Frankly I don't believe that. I think you do care about the world and about other people; most of us do. Sometimes it's hard to 'fess up to, I know I've been there.
>>I enjoyed the article for its' entertainment value, and was rather heartened that there's still backwoods Canadians tinkering away in their shops.<<
I absolutely agree. I've said this before, and I'll point it out once more: in my opinion the funniest part of this whole thing isn't Hurtubise. The funniest part of this whole fiasco is the fact that his fantastic claims have been published verbatim, with little or no qualification and absolutely no fact-checking, by otherwise reputable news sources. I think it is simply hilarious that this guy's stories made it into Bay Today, The Discovery Channel and The Guardian. Maybe Troy can't help it if he's a little deluded. But what a bunch of laughable bumbling "journalists!"
>>Why are you so threatened by Mr.Hurtubise? The amount of time, effort, and consideration you've put into this 'quack' is quite involved...nearly prolific<<
Again, the main issue here isn't Hurtubise, it's journalism. Another important issue is credulity. I don't feel threatened by Hurtubise the man. I absolutely *do* feel threatened by bad journalism. I think it's important to talk about bad journalism because of all the bad things bad journalism can accomplish in this world, especially when combined with credulity on the part of individuals and/or large populations of people.
Sometimes, for many people, the best way to release tension regarding things that threaten them is to laugh about them. I'm no different. The spectres of bad journalism and credulity are threatening to me, and I like to laugh. Thus my "prolific" participation in this thread. Plus, I just like talking to people. As long as someone is on this thread who wants to either have a laugh or a serious discussion, I'll keep the conversation going.
Please feel free to agree, disagree or post something funny related to this topic. I'm all ears.
Posted by intjudo on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:52 PM
Again, the main issue here isn't Hurtubise, it's journalism. Another important issue is credulity. I don't feel threatened by Hurtubise the man. I absolutely *do* feel threatened by bad journalism. I think it's important to talk about bad journalism because of all the bad things bad journalism can accomplish in this world, especially when combined with credulity on the part of individuals and/or large populations of people.
Sometimes, for many people, the best way to release tension regarding things that threaten them is to laugh about them. I'm no different. The spectres of bad journalism and credulity are threatening to me, and I like to laugh. Thus my "prolific" participation in this thread. Plus, I just like talking to people. As long as someone is on this thread who wants to either have a laugh or a serious discussion, I'll keep the conversation going.
Please feel free to agree, disagree or post something funny related to this topic. I'm all ears.
Excellent retorts, all. The only real problem I have with the responses is:
"Does it make you feel better about yourself when you see people who are slow witted or crackpots?"
An obvious dig from Mr. SixPack, who can plainly see that I didn't claim as much, nor did I suggest that I was from either the 'stupid' or 'genius' groups. A dead argument best left alone.
As for journalistic integrity, I for one would rather read forteanic/psuedoscientific gibberish than have to digest the reams of finely spun news that regularly pelt dear Canada from our southern neighbor. That isn't to say that we don't have problems within our own border (i.e. the Asper fiasco involving rewrites of AP news releases), but there was a ruling in the US made last year that made me particularly skittish.
The basic statement of the ruling was that FOX news didn't have to 'tell the truth'. That is, there's no provision by the FCC that limits the distortion of the news media.
So, technically, the "Washington Post, the New York Times, ...CBS or CNN" don't HAVE to be accurate. The choose to be accurate, but don't have to adhere to the truth with all stories at all times.
That's my concern.
Here's some nice counterspin on the case that brought the FCC ruling to the forefront...
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/Link8.html
Posted by SweetBabyJeebus in Canada on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 10:50 PM
"Does it make you feel better about yourself when you see people who are slow witted or crackpots?"
An obvious dig from Mr. SixPack, who can plainly see that I didn't claim as much, nor did I suggest that I was from either the 'stupid' or 'genius' groups. A dead argument best left alone.
As for journalistic integrity, I for one would rather read forteanic/psuedoscientific gibberish than have to digest the reams of finely spun news that regularly pelt dear Canada from our southern neighbor. That isn't to say that we don't have problems within our own border (i.e. the Asper fiasco involving rewrites of AP news releases), but there was a ruling in the US made last year that made me particularly skittish.
The basic statement of the ruling was that FOX news didn't have to 'tell the truth'. That is, there's no provision by the FCC that limits the distortion of the news media.
So, technically, the "Washington Post, the New York Times, ...CBS or CNN" don't HAVE to be accurate. The choose to be accurate, but don't have to adhere to the truth with all stories at all times.
That's my concern.
Here's some nice counterspin on the case that brought the FCC ruling to the forefront...
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/Link8.html
"An obvious dig from Mr. SixPack"
Call me Joe, please. And yes, it was a well earned dig too, I think. There could be only two possible reasons the Guardian ran that story;
1)They wanted to promote pseudoscience,
OR
2)They wanted to showcase a crackpot for public ridicule.
I think the first possibility is dishonest, and the second cruel. Both are immoral. Take your pick.
Posted by JoeSixpack on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 08:54 AM
Call me Joe, please. And yes, it was a well earned dig too, I think. There could be only two possible reasons the Guardian ran that story;
1)They wanted to promote pseudoscience,
OR
2)They wanted to showcase a crackpot for public ridicule.
I think the first possibility is dishonest, and the second cruel. Both are immoral. Take your pick.
SweetBabyJeebus,
I read your comments and the article you posted with interest but can't respond just yet, too much going on...but I'll be back...
Posted by intjudo on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 12:25 PM
I read your comments and the article you posted with interest but can't respond just yet, too much going on...but I'll be back...
It's pretty much un-related, but what the hell:
from nature.com:
Engineers devise invisibility shield
Philip Ball
Electron effects could stop objects from scattering light.
The idea of a cloak of invisibility that hides objects from view has long been confined to the more improbable reaches of science fiction. But electronic engineers have now come up with a way to make one.
Andrea Alù and Nader Engheta of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia say that 'plasmonic cover' could render objects "nearly invisible to an observer".
More at http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/pf/050228-1_pf.html
Posted by intjudo on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 01:44 PM
from nature.com:
Engineers devise invisibility shield
Philip Ball
Electron effects could stop objects from scattering light.
The idea of a cloak of invisibility that hides objects from view has long been confined to the more improbable reaches of science fiction. But electronic engineers have now come up with a way to make one.
Andrea Alù and Nader Engheta of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia say that 'plasmonic cover' could render objects "nearly invisible to an observer".
More at http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/pf/050228-1_pf.html
Alù-Engheta plasmonic coatings might have limited applications for LO (stealth) technology and for hiding spaceships and satellites in orbit.
As proposed, it will not work for light visible to the human eye (this conclusion is also included in the Nature article), because the effect is practically limited to narrow bands in long wavelenghts.
Also, bear in mind that it will only reduce light scattering from the object itself, it will not do anything about the light coming from behind the object (in relation to the observer). This is no problem in space or with radar/IR, because there usually is not much background to compare against. However, imagine seeing during daylight hours an aircraft sized black spot moving accross a clear blue sky, it stands out like sore thumb to a casual observer, doesn't it?
Posted by Codemonger on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 04:31 PM
As proposed, it will not work for light visible to the human eye (this conclusion is also included in the Nature article), because the effect is practically limited to narrow bands in long wavelenghts.
Also, bear in mind that it will only reduce light scattering from the object itself, it will not do anything about the light coming from behind the object (in relation to the observer). This is no problem in space or with radar/IR, because there usually is not much background to compare against. However, imagine seeing during daylight hours an aircraft sized black spot moving accross a clear blue sky, it stands out like sore thumb to a casual observer, doesn't it?
Joe said
"There could be only two possible reasons the Guardian ran that story;
1)They wanted to promote pseudoscience,
OR
2)They wanted to showcase a crackpot for public ridicule."
I would like to refer the Honourable Gentleman to my previous response, and postulate a 3rd idea -
3) They wanted to fill the 'Far Out' column with a quirky science related story, to provoke interest and debate amongst the more intelligent readers.
The context of the article (as described by the author in his email) is that it is in a section of the paper called 'Far Out' and his reason for publishing the story was not to draw attention to the wonders of pseudo science, or indeed to give any undue publicity to the creator (even of an adverse type) but rather to fill a column with roughly 400 words of a science type story that could be considered 'Far Out'. now I agree with previous posters who have been upset by a serious paper giving black and white respectability to a junk of shit like this, and I also agree that the journalist in question could have spent 5 minutes researching the story and written about it from a more negative point of view.
But here is my point - If the article was in the Sun, or on Fox News, then it could have been read or seen by many more people, who due to the nature of their particular demograph would be more likely to believe it unquestioningly. As it appears in a serious newspaper, in the Far Out section I would be very surprised if anyone actually took this as a 100% accurate story.
Anyone, myself included, who read this and had any tiny nagging doubt would try to find out for themselves if there is any truth to this story, and then hopefully realise the story was ridiculous but think about the subject and even join a forum to discuss these hoaxes in good old fashioned debate.
Like I just have.
Posted by matzusdog on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:09 AM
"There could be only two possible reasons the Guardian ran that story;
1)They wanted to promote pseudoscience,
OR
2)They wanted to showcase a crackpot for public ridicule."
I would like to refer the Honourable Gentleman to my previous response, and postulate a 3rd idea -
3) They wanted to fill the 'Far Out' column with a quirky science related story, to provoke interest and debate amongst the more intelligent readers.
The context of the article (as described by the author in his email) is that it is in a section of the paper called 'Far Out' and his reason for publishing the story was not to draw attention to the wonders of pseudo science, or indeed to give any undue publicity to the creator (even of an adverse type) but rather to fill a column with roughly 400 words of a science type story that could be considered 'Far Out'. now I agree with previous posters who have been upset by a serious paper giving black and white respectability to a junk of shit like this, and I also agree that the journalist in question could have spent 5 minutes researching the story and written about it from a more negative point of view.
But here is my point - If the article was in the Sun, or on Fox News, then it could have been read or seen by many more people, who due to the nature of their particular demograph would be more likely to believe it unquestioningly. As it appears in a serious newspaper, in the Far Out section I would be very surprised if anyone actually took this as a 100% accurate story.
Anyone, myself included, who read this and had any tiny nagging doubt would try to find out for themselves if there is any truth to this story, and then hopefully realise the story was ridiculous but think about the subject and even join a forum to discuss these hoaxes in good old fashioned debate.
Like I just have.
I live in the same town as Troy and I happen to know that he is still "shopping" for parts for his angel light. I haven't spoken to him myself and quite frankly I'm not really interested in doing so. The man is an attention whore. I am attempting to find out if anybody has actually seen a demonstration of angel light besides in Troy's imagination. I'll let you know...
Posted by Blondin on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:56 AM
matzusdog,
>>They wanted to fill the 'Far Out' column with a quirky science related story, to provoke interest and debate amongst the more intelligent readers.
<<
I can pretty much agree with everything in your post with the above quote, and well said.
It would have been absolutely *hilarious* if one of the magor news outlets had picked this up. Can you imagine the countless hours of credulous vs. rational debate?
There are plenty of historical examples of bad journalism from a minor outlet being picked up by a slightly bigger outlet, and on up the chain until it's reported by the majors...with no fact-checking, all the way up the chain.
It's interesting that this story started out in Bay Today and got as far as The Guardian (admittedly, in the "Far Out" section), but stopped there. Troy has also got as far as The Discovery Channel, Ripley's Believe It Or Not and his cult "Project Grizzly" pseudo-documentary.
So close, so many times, but he still hasn't scored a major media piece. I wonder if he's got another serious shot at the majors left in him?
Posted by intjudo on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:04 PM
>>They wanted to fill the 'Far Out' column with a quirky science related story, to provoke interest and debate amongst the more intelligent readers.
<<
I can pretty much agree with everything in your post with the above quote, and well said.
It would have been absolutely *hilarious* if one of the magor news outlets had picked this up. Can you imagine the countless hours of credulous vs. rational debate?
There are plenty of historical examples of bad journalism from a minor outlet being picked up by a slightly bigger outlet, and on up the chain until it's reported by the majors...with no fact-checking, all the way up the chain.
It's interesting that this story started out in Bay Today and got as far as The Guardian (admittedly, in the "Far Out" section), but stopped there. Troy has also got as far as The Discovery Channel, Ripley's Believe It Or Not and his cult "Project Grizzly" pseudo-documentary.
So close, so many times, but he still hasn't scored a major media piece. I wonder if he's got another serious shot at the majors left in him?
Page 12 of 20 pages « First < 10 11 12 13 14 > Last »