Team Tazer Takeover?

Michael Merchant.....

I couldn't stand him on Into the Wild reality show. I can't stand him plastered all over this blog. He's beyond abrasive, and when did his opinion become so important? He has little to no experience in this field. His ignorance is very evident.

Phil Poling.....

Who in the Hell is Phil Poling? Who gives a rat's ass about his breakdowns? What qualifies him exactly? Go get another bucket of chicken, and save us the condescending diatribes.

CmC is right, they are producing their own documentary to make some cash. Why are we giving them free publicity? Or is it free? I'm starting to wonder.

Please stop whipping on all of us with the ass-whip that calls themselves Team Tazer. They dominate the blog now, and I'd like to see a show of hands on who finds their input valuable or even entertaining?

It seems to me they've been lured by the devil called YouTube. Once you monetize your account with AdSense, it becomes a constant quest to add Subscribers and build your view count. For that, you need frequent, fresh new content on your channel. (I also suspect there's an inside TTBF competition to be the first to claim a "viral" vid of 1 million+ views, not to mention the ~$10,000 that would earn.) For Shawn, it's another bit of content for his blog.

Two perfect examples of this game are Timbergiantbigfoot and Fasano. Neither gives a rat's ass about what you, I, or the rest of the "community" think about their research. Reasonable questions or doubts are simply deleted from the video comments. (One group laughed at how they forced TGBF to start waking up 3 hours earlier lol). Both have their little legion of followers who believe they can do no wrong ~ that they are "real friends". Smells, but it sells ~ especially when they stutter through a dramatic "It's us against the world"-type rant about the "haters" who don't believe them.

TTBF began as a parody and debunking channel with MM, Phil and V00D006 (the funniest one that has departed the group, unfortunately). They targeted urban legends, conspiracy theories, religions and myths such as Bigfoot. I believe they intended to create enough footage to pitch a TV show.

Michael Merchant was a full-blown BF skeptic who seems to have been cornered into at least listening to Believers stories, after he was criticized for his constant mocking and negativity. Along the way, some of his interview subjects convinced him he should at least consider the possibility.

Because of his upcoming film about Sierra Kills, I'm afraid Ro has too much of a vested interest in handling the story with kid gloves. Likewise, MM backed away from criticizing it. Time will tell.

Now, all that said, I'm happy TTBF came on the scene. This "community" has for too long ignored the known or suspected hoaxers with an attitude of "it makes us all look bad". Don't offend or accuse ~ just sweep it under the rug, even when the evidence is plain as day. Just yesterday, I read a comment at the BFF where somebody suggested a blackout on discussion of Melba Ketchum until she's had time to present her "fix" for the garbage paper she presented. Five more years?

The dirty players need to be exposed if BF research is ever to be respected (or "look good"), and because TTBF had no dog in the fight or inside relationships, they turned out to be the best group to start taking that harder look at what is presented. They're a little too smarmy for me, but I do think having a "watchdog" has been a real benefit to Bigfoot research.

Ro and Justin are suppose to be working with Spike Tv for a Bigfoot show.
So yea no money involved in this LOL

Kel wrote:The dirty players need to be exposed if BF research is ever to be respected (or "look good"), and because TTBF had no dog in the fight or inside relationships, they turned out to be the best group to start taking that harder look at what is presented. They're a little too smarmy for me, but I do think having a "watchdog" has been a real benefit to Bigfoot research.

Yeah, this. Groups like FB/FB have been churning out all sorts of terrible theories and video breakdowns in the last few years and it's getting to the point where it seems like they either don't know or don't care how to make their rubbish sound convincing or believable. It's groups like that which make me embarrassed to admit to my friends that I have an interest in this field.
TTBF might rub most people the wrong way but at least they're willing to point out when people say really dumb things, which will hopefully encourage people to say less dumb things.

but they don't point out their own Dumb things so Meh

CMcMillan wrote:but they don't point out their own Dumb things so Meh

They're not an official watchdog service, it's up to others (such as us!) to point out their dumb things.

NobleSavage wrote:Who in the Hell is Phil Poling? Who gives a rat's ass about his breakdowns? What qualifies him exactly?

Just to reply to this, I really wish people would critique people's videos (or papers!) on their contents and not dismiss them by judging the creator's experience or lack thereof. Ad hominem attacks are arguments in bad faith. It was similarly annoying when people dismissed Melba Ketchum because she's a Texan veterinarian or because she doesn't have a PhD or similar academic credentials rather than judging her paper on its merits.

Secondly, I just watched the recent Squatcher's Lounge podcast featuring Phil Poling and it turns out that he was previously employed as a police forensics photographer, he's got extensive experience in film technology and he's been doing paranormal breakdown videos for 5 years or more so he's got excellent qualifications for examining Bigfoot videos and looking for signs that they're hoaxes. Since pretty much all the evidence for Bigfoot is secondary (videos, footprints and vocalisations instead of a physical Bigfoot body) and there's a long history of hoaxers in this field I would have thought it was crucial that researchers developed protocols for determining which evidence was genuine and which evidence was suspect but it seems to me that whenever a new video gets uploaded to youtube most groups are trying to find evidence that the videos might be real (FB/FB I'm looking at you) and not nearly enough people are making a genuine effort to look for evidence that the videos might be fake.

I know it wasn't always this way. Grover Krantz allegedly had a set of criteria that allowed him to determine if a Bigfoot track was real or fake but he didn't want the hoaxers to discover his techniques so he never shared them with anyone and the secret died with him.

Squatchmaster G wrote:

NobleSavage wrote:Who in the Hell is Phil Poling? Who gives a rat's ass about his breakdowns? What qualifies him exactly?

Just to reply to this, I really wish people would critique people's videos (or papers!) on their contents and not dismiss them by judging the creator's experience or lack thereof. Ad hominem attacks are arguments in bad faith. It was similarly annoying when people dismissed Melba Ketchum because she's a Texan veterinarian or because she doesn't have a PhD or similar academic credentials rather than judging her paper on its merits.

Secondly, I just watched the recent Squatcher's Lounge podcast featuring Phil Poling and it turns out that he was previously employed as a police forensics photographer, he's got extensive experience in film technology and he's been doing paranormal breakdown videos for 5 years or more so he's got excellent qualifications for examining Bigfoot videos and looking for signs that they're hoaxes. Since pretty much all the evidence for Bigfoot is secondary (videos, footprints and vocalisations instead of a physical Bigfoot body) and there's a long history of hoaxers in this field I would have thought it was crucial that researchers developed protocols for determining which evidence was genuine and which evidence was suspect but it seems to me that whenever a new video gets uploaded to youtube most groups are trying to find evidence that the videos might be real (FB/FB I'm looking at you) and not nearly enough people are making a genuine effort to look for evidence that the videos might be fake.

I know it wasn't always this way. Grover Krantz allegedly had a set of criteria that allowed him to determine if a Bigfoot track was real or fake but he didn't want the hoaxers to discover his techniques so he never shared them with anyone and the secret died with him.

Well let's see SG, you think those critiquing Phil Poling have a bias and predetermination to see what they want in alleged bigfoot videos. Please describe for us how many videos submitted as evidence Poling has not shredded, and whitewashed with his condescending critiques. How about his ad hominem attacks on the posters of such videos such as MK Davis, attacking the credibility of the people themselves, their behavior, etc? That's not indicative of a professional analyst IMO. It's damaging to his credibility to without fail give zero credence to any video evidence submitted. His snide and dismissive persona and commentary doesn't present well either. He seems himself to have predisposition of bias. Many of his opinions stretch what's on camera to untenable positions. Every bit as untenable as what he critiques the submitter of.

I have, and others have every right to voice opinion on the worthiness of his appearances on this blog. I'm simply stating my opinion on his value to the blog. Not everything is an attack on your skeptical world. I hate to break it to you, but you are one of a few that frequent the forum that obviously have a desire to debate the reality of existence itself, or debate topics in general. It's very rare to see a post of yours when you are not arguing with someone. Although I find your frequent interest odd, I've come to understand that some would rather be here to debate than discuss. I have accepted that despite being quite annoyed by it. I will not entertain such, as I feel it's a waste of time and energy. I'm entitled to my opinion on Phil Poling and I've stated it. That is that.

Team Tazer altogether come across as a very negative crew. They seem to have built a reputation for attacking and deriding just about every member of the bigfoot world at some point. They could be spot on, and they would still leave people with a bad impression. A broken record of negativity gets old really quick. It's a tired, and unbecoming bit, and I think most of us here have grown weary of it.

Squatchmaster G wrote:

NobleSavage wrote:Who in the Hell is Phil Poling? Who gives a rat's ass about his breakdowns? What qualifies him exactly?

Just to reply to this, I really wish people would critique people's videos (or papers!) on their contents and not dismiss them by judging the creator's experience or lack thereof. Ad hominem attacks are arguments in bad faith. It was similarly annoying when people dismissed Melba Ketchum because she's a Texan veterinarian or because she doesn't have a PhD or similar academic credentials rather than judging her paper on its merits.

Secondly, I just watched the recent Squatcher's Lounge podcast featuring Phil Poling and it turns out that he was previously employed as a police forensics photographer, he's got extensive experience in film technology and he's been doing paranormal breakdown videos for 5 years or more so he's got excellent qualifications for examining Bigfoot videos and looking for signs that they're hoaxes. Since pretty much all the evidence for Bigfoot is secondary (videos, footprints and vocalisations instead of a physical Bigfoot body) and there's a long history of hoaxers in this field I would have thought it was crucial that researchers developed protocols for determining which evidence was genuine and which evidence was suspect but it seems to me that whenever a new video gets uploaded to youtube most groups are trying to find evidence that the videos might be real (FB/FB I'm looking at you) and not nearly enough people are making a genuine effort to look for evidence that the videos might be fake.

I know it wasn't always this way. Grover Krantz allegedly had a set of criteria that allowed him to determine if a Bigfoot track was real or fake but he didn't want the hoaxers to discover his techniques so he never shared them with anyone and the secret died with him.

It would also lend credence to your own skepticism if you would list the video evidence that you find most compelling below:


Or in your mind is there no such thing, not one video ever submitted that you find even marginally compelling as evidence of BF?

It's important when discussing predispositions to define parameters of such.

NobleSavage wrote:Well let's see SG, you think those critiquing Phil Poling have a bias and predetermination to see what they want in alleged bigfoot videos.

Nope, that's not what I said at all.

NobleSavage wrote:It's damaging to his credibility to without fail give zero credence to any video evidence submitted.

He's posted several breakdowns where he concluded that the video might not be faked and could possibly be a genuine Bigfoot.

NobleSavage wrote:I have, and others have every right to voice opinion on the worthiness of his appearances on this blog.

Oh of course. I never said you weren't allowed to. But freedom of speech goes both ways and I'm also allowed to voice my opinion on your opinion. That's how discussions work, see?

NobleSavage wrote:Not everything is an attack on your skeptical world. I hate to break it to you, but you are one of a few that frequent the forum that obviously have a desire to debate the reality of existence itself, or debate topics in general. It's very rare to see a post of yours when you are not arguing with someone. Although I find your frequent interest odd, I've come to understand that some would rather be here to debate than discuss.

Shawn's Guidelines for acceptable behaviour on the forums says "civil debating and discussion is fine". If Shawn decides that debating is no longer welcome in the forums then I'll stop, but until then I have free licence to debate wherever and whenever I want. In addition, most of my long discussions have been with CMcMillan and Tzeith and I've always been more civil and patient with them than they have with me.

NobleSavage wrote:It would also lend credence to your own skepticism if you would list the video evidence that you find most compelling below:


Or in your mind is there no such thing, not one video ever submitted that you find even marginally compelling as evidence of BF?

It's important when discussing predispositions to define parameters of such.

The PG film is pretty compelling but I genuinely haven't seen anything else even half as good since that. Since we're calling on each other to define our parameters perhaps you'd care to share which videos you find most compelling?

He's posted several breakdowns where he concluded that the video might not be faked and could possibly be a genuine Bigfoot.

Really...several..? Several? I've seen one, and it's often preceded by his own analysis that it's fake/hoaxed/etc.




NobleSavage wrote:I have, and others have every right to voice opinion on the worthiness of his appearances on this blog.



Oh of course. I never said you weren't allowed to. But freedom of speech goes both ways and I'm also allowed to voice my opinion on your opinion. That's how discussions work, see?

This is just silly. Pls examine your own duplicity on Phil's ad hominem, vs. what you label mine. Weak.. and your frequent attempts to provoke others with this sort........ "That's how discussions work, see?"....really don't win you any friends here....that could also be termed as baiting, or goading so reference the forum guidelines that we mods wrote.



NobleSavage wrote:Not everything is an attack on your skeptical world. I hate to break it to you, but you are one of a few that frequent the forum that obviously have a desire to debate the reality of existence itself, or debate topics in general. It's very rare to see a post of yours when you are not arguing with someone. Although I find your frequent interest odd, I've come to understand that some would rather be here to debate than discuss.



Shawn's Guidelines for acceptable behaviour on the forums says "civil debating and discussion is fine". If Shawn decides that debating is no longer welcome in the forums then I'll stop, but until then I have free licence to debate wherever and whenever I want. In addition, most of my long discussions have been with CMcMillan and Tzeith and I've always been more civil and patient with them than they have with me.

Again....childish and silly....you obviously feel compelled to invent new debate items..............You parsed the above, and deleted my expression of acceptance of that reasoning for being here.

Here is the rest of the paragraph you chose to exclude:

"Although I find your frequent interest odd, I've come to understand that some would rather be here to debate than discuss. I have accepted that despite being quite annoyed by it. I will not entertain such, as I feel it's a waste of time and energy. I'm entitled to my opinion on Phil Poling and I've stated it. That is that."


The posted rules of acceptance are something that I helped write. Get a grip man. The vast majority of your posts consist of argument, debate, conjecture. It's a fact, you can't disavow your record of posts, I've reviewed it's entirety. Just own it. FYI I think CMC and Tzeith are very patient with you. I know I am.



I find the following vids worthy of further research and investigation:

P/G
Freeman F
Brown Therm
Cutino Therm that will soon be out
Memorial Day F
Squeaky Therm
[u][i]

NobleSavage wrote: Really...several..? Several? I've seen one, and it's often preceded by his own analysis that it's fake/hoaxed/etc.

I guess you haven't seen all of his videos in that case? Also you said he gave "zero credence" before and now you admit you know of one video where he admitted a possibility?

NobleSavage wrote:This is just silly. Pls examine your own duplicity on Phil's ad hominem, vs. what you label mine. Weak.. and your frequent attempts to provoke others with this sort........ "That's how discussions work, see?"....really don't win you any friends here....that could also be termed as baiting, or goading so reference the forum guidelines that we mods wrote.

I never said anything about any of Phil's ad hominem attacks, you brought it up after the fact. You asked what his credentials were and that was the question I answered.
(Also note that dismissing Phil's video breakdowns becaused of his ad hominem attacks is itself an ad hominem attack.)

NobleSavage wrote:The vast majority of your posts consist of argument, debate, conjecture.

Well, so are everyone else's on the board including yours. You're arguing with me right now. CMcMillan and Tzeith have argued, debated and conjectured a heck of a lot more than I have and you don't seem to have a problem when they do it, why is it a problem when I do it? Honest question.
(They've also goaded me a heck of a lot and resorted to personal attacks but were never called on it.)

NobleSavage wrote:I find the following vids worthy of further research and investigation:

P/G
Freeman F
Brown Therm
Cutino Therm that will soon be out
Memorial Day F
Squeaky Therm
[u][i]

I obviously can't comment on the Cutino thermal video but apart from the P/G film I honestly didn't find any of those other videos to be that compelling. We can start a new thread in the Bigfoot forum and discuss them if you like.

The bulk of my posts are not argument, so don't lump me in with yourself sir. I've looked at your history, and you can look at mine, though I doubt you will. I form my opinion on your posts from reading them all. YOu obviously have not read all of mine.

You complain that I attacked Phil in the very way he attacks those who post vids. I simply stated an opinion that he is lacking in his professionalism, and abilities.

Please post his credentials, since you are defending them.

Pick and parse all you'd like, his critiques are overwhelmingly negative, the one vid I saw him give credence he prefaced it with why is was bogus.

That's it SG, post until you are blue in the face, I won't feed your contrarian complex any longer.

CMcMillan and Tzeith have argued, debated and conjectured a heck of a lot more than I have and you don't seem to have a problem when they do it, why is it a problem when I do it? Honest question.
(They've also goaded me a heck of a lot and resorted to personal attacks but were never called on it.)


This is information that you have no clue about. Every single abuser of the rules here, gets equal treatment. Cmc, and Tzeith are not above that policy and they are quite aware of it. You are arguing this point out of ignorance.

Just because it's not in the thread doesn't mean, it's non-existent.

Also, don't expect me to address posts within the Unmodded section for deletion or otherwise unless they are way, way over the top like Mr. Bigfoot's earlier filth.

Which I might add you initially questioned.