The Pixies of Erwin Saunders

[Golden Duck]

8 hours ago, Resume said:

My PapaJohn's meter gives this silliness zero (0) pizzas.

I would've called 'em a chuzwuzza.

[jethrofloyd]

If I form a rock band one day it will be called The Papameter! 

[psyche101]

32 minutes ago, jethrofloyd said:

If I form a rock band one day it will be called The Papameter! 

I will throw eggs at you.

[onlookerofmayhem]

52 minutes ago, jethrofloyd said:

If I form a rock band one day it will be called The Papameter! 

 

21 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I will throw eggs at you.

[jethrofloyd]

And the name of our first album will be...The Papameter - .'Confidence Level: Very Low'.

[stereologist]

The video in question is clearly a fake video in the sense that there are no creatures such as those shown in the video. All we see here is a video put out for amusement.

It is amusing with the fine acting by the beardo who pretends that they are doing this by themselves or maybe with the help of someone named Tom.

The video really shows how easily a bit of acting and some CGI fools many people who so much want the existence of magic to be real. These people have nothing but their mumbo jumbo. They can't show that any of their yackity-yack is in any sense real. Excuses. They rattle off the excuses. They go on and on about beyond the senses and science can't do this or that. But 100% of the time they reveal they know zero about science. Clueless. Absolutely, utterly clueless and no learning curve. It's not can't learn. It is won't learn. They seem to be so happy wrapped up in their mumbo jumbo to learn how the word works.

The video shows a simple CGI scene. What the people have done well is to get the shadows and lighting right which most CGI videos get wrong. But it's clearly a set stage. The character arrives in front of a camera. Does a little performance on the "catwalk" and is gone. The camera is perfectly positioned. The focus is correct. The framing is well done.

[XenoFish]

10 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

 

If you notice very carefully how the impact actually knocked the guys brain out. 

[papageorge1]

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

The video in question is clearly a fake video in the sense that there are no creatures such as those shown in the video.

So although not a scrap of evidence showing him guilty has been presented so far in the first three pages of this thread, our bearded friend is guilty of hoaxing us all by the pseudo-skeptic reasoning presented: 

Pseudo-Skeptic Reasoning: It is a hoax because this clear picture claiming video capture of an unknown creature is not of a known creature.

The logical error is clear and I'm sure has no place in good science.

Edited July 7, 2020 by papageorge1

[XenoFish]

13 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

So although not a scrap of evidence showing him guilty has been presented so far in the first three pages of this thread, our bearded friend is guilty of hoaxing us all by the pseudo-skeptic reasoning presented: 

Pseudo-Skeptic Reasoning: It is a hoax because this clear picture claiming video capture of an unknown creature is not of a known creature.

The logical error is clear and I'm sure has no place in good science.

What if the video is just entertainment?

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

So although not a scrap of evidence showing him guilty has been presented so far in the first three pages of this thread, our bearded friend is guilty of hoaxing us all by the pseudo-skeptic reasoning presented: 

Pseudo-Skeptic Reasoning: It is a hoax because this clear picture claiming video capture of an unknown creature is not a known creature.

The logical error is clear and I'm sure has no place in good science.

It's hoax and the reason has given. Just because you don't like some other person's opinion does not lead to being as you call it a "Pseudo-Skeptic Reasoning"

Besides I didn't state that. That's a straw man argument from someone that can't read.

There are no creatures like that. None. The fossil record is clear on that. If you'd care to show that there are creatures like that then please post the evidence. 

This video is for entertainment and for fooling the extremely gullible and foolish.

Papameter 100% hoax for amusement 0% real Confidence 100%

Please don't pretend you know anything about science because, let me check the Papameter.

Papameter  0.001% chance papageorge1 understands anything about science 99.999% of basic science for papageorge1 to learn

Confidence 100%

The video has nothing to do with science. It is for amusement. It has a charming old man pretending to find pixies. No science here. No hypotheses. No formal data collection. No replication by others. No working theory. Nothing. No science here. It's just for fun.

And let's not gloss over the explanation I gave instead of allowing the foolish to cherry pick what I posted.

The video really shows how easily a bit of acting and some CGI fools many people who so much want the existence of magic to be real. These people have nothing but their mumbo jumbo. They can't show that any of their yackity-yack is in any sense real. Excuses. They rattle off the excuses. They go on and on about beyond the senses and science can't do this or that. But 100% of the time they reveal they know zero about science. Clueless. Absolutely, utterly clueless and no learning curve. It's not can't learn. It is won't learn. They seem to be so happy wrapped up in their mumbo jumbo to learn how the word works.

The video shows a simple CGI scene. What the people have done well is to get the shadows and lighting right which most CGI videos get wrong. But it's clearly a set stage. The character arrives in front of a camera. Does a little performance on the "catwalk" and is gone. The camera is perfectly positioned. The focus is correct. The framing is well done.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

What if the video is just entertainment?

??  Then we should just enjoy it as entertainment.

[papageorge1]

10 minutes ago, stereologist said:

It's hoax and the reason has given. Just because you don't like some other person's opinion does not lead to being as you call it a "Pseudo-Skeptic Reasoning"

Besides I didn't state that. That's a straw man argument from someone that can't read.

There are no creatures like that. None. The fossil record is clear on that. If you'd care to show that there are creatures like that then please post the evidence. 

This video is for entertainment and for fooling the extremely gullible and foolish.

Papameter 100% hoax for amusement 0% real Confidence 100%

Please don't pretend you know anything about science because, let me check the Papameter.

Papameter  0.001% chance papageorge1 understands anything about science 99.999% of basic science for papageorge1 to learn

Confidence 100%

The video has nothing to do with science. It is for amusement. It has a charming old man pretending to find pixies. No science here. No hypotheses. No formal data collection. No replication by others. No working theory. Nothing. No science here. It's just for fun.

And let's not gloss over the explanation I gave instead of allowing the foolish to cherry pick what I posted.

The video really shows how easily a bit of acting and some CGI fools many people who so much want the existence of magic to be real. These people have nothing but their mumbo jumbo. They can't show that any of their yackity-yack is in any sense real. Excuses. They rattle off the excuses. They go on and on about beyond the senses and science can't do this or that. But 100% of the time they reveal they know zero about science. Clueless. Absolutely, utterly clueless and no learning curve. It's not can't learn. It is won't learn. They seem to be so happy wrapped up in their mumbo jumbo to learn how the word works.

The video shows a simple CGI scene. What the people have done well is to get the shadows and lighting right which most CGI videos get wrong. But it's clearly a set stage. The character arrives in front of a camera. Does a little performance on the "catwalk" and is gone. The camera is perfectly positioned. The focus is correct. The framing is well done.

I'll repeat: After three pages not a scrap of evidence showing this is a hoax.

Seriously, the only argument I've heard is it is a hoax because it is a CGI hoax (without evidence it is CGI). My grasp of logic does not find that logical. 

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by papageorge1

[stereologist]

I should point out that the video stays in the realm of not of value until it is shown to be correct.

The loonies and wackos and failures of this world want others to debunk each story. There is no need to debunk anything. It is up to the proponent to support their tale. Evidence has been posted showing that the images are clearly computer generated models. Also, there are no such creatures or their ancestors in the fossil record.

In 3 pages there has been zero support for this amusing clip. There have been ludicrous suggestions by the OP such as:

• Inter-dimensional exists
• There are things outside of the physical plane.
• You can't keep one  in a box.

These joke suggestions are the best that the OP can do to support this obvious, but amusing hoax

Edited July 7, 2020 by stereologist

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I'll repeat: After three pages not a scrap of evidence showing this is a hoax.

Seriously, the only argument I've heard is it is a hoax because it is a CGI hoax (without evidence it is CGI). My grasp of logic does not find that logical. 

 

No need to show anything is a hoax. It remains questionable until supported.

The burden is on someone to support the video.

[stereologist]

Papameter 100% hoax 0% genuine

Confidence 100%

[papageorge1]

Just now, stereologist said:

No need to show anything is a hoax. It remains questionable until supported.

Ahhh, EUREKA, progress. That is a very different statement than just calling it a CGI hoax and thinking it has been put to bed!

The Papameter 2.0 agrees it is questionable. 

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Ahhh, EUREKA, progress. That is a very different statement than just calling it a CGI hoax and thinking it has been put to bed!

The Papameter 2.0 agrees it is questionable. 

My opinion still stands. It's a CGI hoax and I gave a reason. And others gave their opinions and posted reasons.

The only progress is your understanding of the issues.

So far this video remains unsupported unless you have to count the laughable gibberish you tossed out.

Edited July 7, 2020 by stereologist

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

My opinion still stands. It's a CGI hoax and I gave a reason.

 

Wait! Is it a CGI hoax or is it 'questionable'?

Edited July 7, 2020 by papageorge1

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Wait! Is it a CGI hoax or is it 'questionable'?

Go back and read the thread.

[Vorg]

Interdimensional, yet need a bow and arrows. Naked, but one has a Cape. One seems over his center gravity in post 7, far right side, unless they can fly too, so why are they walking? These silly things just don't add up to reality.

[papageorge1]

Just now, stereologist said:

Go back and read the thread.

Hmm. No answer to the question posed. I think it's because you are trying to point your feet in two different directions at the same time.

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Hmm. No answer to the question posed. I think it's because you are trying to point your feet in two different directions at the same time.

Go back and read the thread. No need for me to answer your worthless questions.

So far it looks like opinions are clear - it's a hoax. There are plenty of reasons to think this is a hoax. 

Not a single piece of support to date.

If anything is ever posted to support the video I might be back. Until then thanks for posting the amusing CGI

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, South Alabam said:

Interdimensional, yet need a bow and arrows. Naked, but one has a Cape. One seems over his center gravity in post 7, far right side, unless they can fly too, so why are they walking? These silly things just don't add up to reality.

I understand your thoughts: Let me quote from Post #1:

What Are Pixies?

Pixies are wee, magical creatures who throw merry parties and shower blessings across the English countryside, especially in Devon and Cornwall. They are beloved for their childlike appearance and bubbly spirits, even though they do play the occasional prank on travelers.

The video guy and others claim different 'species' from these etheric realms.

We are accustomed to physical things struggling for physical survival. That said I have encountered enough challenging stories and people that have studied these etheric creatures to be unsure of my incredulity.  Could many things that strain the imagination exist through a creative energy. After decades of having my mind blown by the paranormal/alien/cryptid my possibility box is huge.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Ahhh, EUREKA, progress. That is a very different statement than just calling it a CGI hoax and thinking it has been put to bed!

I have offered reasoning. 

You have decided to dismiss rational explanations for fantasy ones. 

The terminology you are using is incorrect. You are using fictional concepts to attempt to create some bastardised version of your fantasies. 

Physics and correct use of the terminology that you have been mishandling puts this idiotic claim to bed. 

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

The Papameter 2.0 agrees it is questionable. 

The creator of the Papameter welches on bets resulting in zero credibility. It's more a measure of how silly a claim is. 

[psyche101]

47 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I understand your thoughts: Let me quote from Post #1:

What Are Pixies?

 

Mythical creatures dreamed up by people.