snopes.com's David Mikkelson Interviewed 268
pipingguy writes "Online Journalism Review interviews David Mikkelson of the Urban Legends Reference Pages. While the Internet has taken its share of knocks for helping scammers perpetrate e-mail and Web hoaxes (the Bambi hunt reportedly was staged to sell videos on the proprietor's Web site), not enough credit is given to the folks who are using the Internet to debunk them. Snopes.com is the work of the husband-and-wife team of David and Barbara Mikkelson, who have taken their passion for urban myths to the Web since 1995."
A matter of trust (Score:4, Insightful)
I know about half the mindless net followers will believe everything they read in email. Most of those who follow up to check if something is valid or not turn to snopes. That's a big responsibility.
Re:A matter of trust (Score:2)
Anyone who admits to having both cats and rats for pets is pretty impressive.
Besides, if you RTFA, you'll see they engaged in a little leg-pulling themselves, just to see how much people will swallow.
Re:A matter of trust (Score:5, Informative)
I guess at the end of the day you make up your own mind. Snopes don't force their opinions down your throat, they simply present their findings and leave it up to you.
Re:A matter of trust (Score:5, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, the Star Tribune in Minneapolis recently addressed [startribune.com] the issue of corrections and accuracy. Ironically, newspapers that report more corrections are perceived as less trustworthy, even though they are often more accurate for the effort! Another story on this issue found here [msn.com].
Who Believes Half of what they read in email ? (Score:3)
My Point is if you know people that believe half of what they read in their email do them a favor. Unplug their computers and reacquaint them with reality Its the kind thing to do before they start taking HGH, Viagra and herbal estrogen mixtures.
Re:A matter of trust (Score:3, Informative)
snopes, along with his wife, little gator, are well known in the online urban legend neighborhood going back to afu and are pretty dedicated to debunking urban legen
Re:A matter of trust (Score:3, Funny)
Bribery? Do you know how much I had to pay to get this story submission on the front page?
Paul (not snopes)
Re:A matter of trust (Score:2)
I don't think I've ever heard Barbara referred to as "little gator". Maybe you are thinking of Tommy from www.sewergator.com [sewergator.com]
Paul
Re:A matter of trust (Score:2)
IFAICR, that's her nickname on afu.
Could be an urban legend, though...
Re:A matter of trust (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A matter of trust (Score:2)
I'd want about three-fifty.
Re:A matter of trust (Score:5, Funny)
Those are my relatives, you insensitive clod!
Worst. Moderation. Ever. (Score:2)
uhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:uhhh (Score:2)
Re:uhhh (Score:3, Informative)
Even though their website is somewhat outdated... (Score:3, Interesting)
You want to learn how to troll? GO HERE [freewebs.com]
LINUX for the DESKTOP? (Score:5, Funny)
What about the Liberal Media? (Score:5, Funny)
Really.
Re:What about the Liberal Media? (Score:4, Funny)
What isn't widely known is that the U.S. has a large military presence in California. And our troops are coming under attack from angry locals. "Two off-duty Marines were stabbed, one critically, when they and two companions were attacked by more than a dozen alleged gang members early Thursday," KSND-TV reports from San Diego, a city in California's south.
How many young American men and women will have to make the ultimate sacrifice before we realize it isn't worth it? Is the Bush administration too proud to ask the U.N. for help in pacifying California? Plainly California has turned into a quagmire, and the sooner we bring our troops back home, the better.
Re:What about the Liberal Media? (Score:2)
And another thing - what about conservatives predicting doom and gloom all over the airwaves during our actions in Kosovo? Were they being liberal?
most important statement (Score:5, Insightful)
MG: "What about the role of the Internet in hoaxes?"
DM: "I think in general, nothing's changed but the technology. There's a lot on the Internet that you can't trust. But frankly, there's a lot on your bookshelf and the library shelves that you can't trust either. There are books on UFOs and alien encounters that require some examination. There's never been a medium that you could inherently trust. You still have to look at who's telling you this and why are they telling you this. Is there anything else they should be telling you? That concept hasn't changed. The Internet has made it easier to debunk hoaxes while at the same time making it easier to perpetrate them. Nothing's really changed but the technology."
The only other thing he could have mentioned is that people trust TV news and newspapers way too much also. 'nuff said.
hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Or so they would have us believe... what if Snopes is a secret CIA plot to spread deliberate disinformation (the same CIA which is run by Masonic Lizards who would love nothing better than to enslare the world's population using advanced psychic mind-control tactics)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone who's in the know knows that the Masonic Lizards are just a front for the secret organization of International Bartenders.
Bartenders are the most powerful people in the world! Just think about it. I've told many deep, dark secrets to bartenders! They must know absolutely everything!
Even now, they sit in their secret base, plotting the overthrow of the world's governments, using those same governments' leaders as their willing dupes!
Of course... I could be crazy.
Where's the +1 Paranoid mod?
Re:hmm (Score:3, Funny)
However, the International Bartenders are controlled by the Boy Sprouts, who in turn are controlled by the Fnord Motor Company who in turn is controlled by the Fred Birch Society.
Ultimately, to find the real source of the power you have to follow the tiny yellow lucre. Of course, the real problem with world domination is that if someone sneezes, everything is reduced to anarchy.
Re:hmm (Score:5, Funny)
I used to be a bartender.
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean.
That's right, I heard the same thing.
Do you want ice in that?
Nostradamus prediction. (Score:5, Interesting)
In the City of God there will be a great thunder,
Two brothers torn apart by Chaos,
while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb,
The third big war will begin when the big city is burning.
*NOSTRADAMUS 1654
Written by a student to show how vague prophecies can be misinterpreted easily. Popped up after Sept11... now applies only a couple of years later to Uday and Qusay Hussein.
Just thought that curious
Re:Nostradamus prediction. (Score:2, Interesting)
In the City of God there will be a great thunder,
cannot apply to Baghdad, as it's never had great religious significance for christians. It may have been a great city but Nostrodamus would never have described it as a City of God.
Two brothers torn apart by Chaos
Another opposite where the brothers Odai and Q
Two brothers TORN APART by Chaos (Score:2)
I'm not clear on how they died, so I don't know if they were literally 'torn apart' or not.
Re:Nostradamus prediction. (Score:2)
Christians and Muslims both believe in the same God, just disagree in the nature of Jesus Christ. Chrisitians believe he was the Messiah. Muslims believe he was just another prophet. The two, combined with Judaism, are referred to Abrahamic, because they all worship the God of A
Re:Nostradamus prediction. (Score:2)
That's not the question; the question is, would Nostradamus have described Baghdad as "the City of God"? Given the particular views on God and religion that Catholism of the era put forth, I would seriously doubt, especially given as I don't remember any of the people of the book who would consider Baghdad "the City of God". Jersulem, yes. Mecca, yes. Rome, yes. Constantinople - mmm, maybe. But Baghdad, the cap
Christian and Muslims = different Gods (Score:2, Informative)
The Gods are different, the religions are different. They are logically contradictory. The Muslim god has a prophet Mohammed, the Christian god does not. The Christian god is in a trinity with his only Son Jesus. The Musli
Re:Christian and Muslims = different Gods (Score:2)
By that logic (always a tricky thing to apply logic to religion, since it's inherently based on faith, not logic) the Christian God and the Jewish God are different too, since the Christian God has a Son, Wh
Reality check (Score:2)
Re:Nostradamus prediction. (Score:2)
I think you missed the point; that verse wasn't written by Nostrodamus. It was written by a student to demonstrate how vague predictions might be interpreted to mean anything.
Re:Nostradamus prediction. (Score:2)
"Major combat" is over. Unfortunately, the US military is really best at major combat, and has not been doing nearly so well at the war since
Re:Nostradamus prediction. (Score:3, Informative)
cannot apply to Baghdad, as it's never had great religious significance for christians. It may have been a great city but Nostrodamus would never have described it as a City of God.
The Hebrew name for Baghdad, Babel, comes from two words: "bab"=gate and "El"=The Most High. That was actually a good call by the guy who forged that quatrain...Nostradamus was very fond of making puns from things he translated out of Hebrew or Latin. "The Gate of God" could ea
Re:Nostradamus prediction. (Score:2, Funny)
Ah yes, this would be Michel de Nostradame (1503-1566)?
(Which makes it even more amazing that people fell for it)
Re:Nostradamus prediction. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nostradamus prediction. (Score:2)
Hunting for Bambi. Hoax? Reality? Does it Matter? (Score:3, Interesting)
Right-wing misogynists need not apply....
Re:Hunting for Bambi. Hoax? Reality? Does it Matte (Score:2)
Second, there's he's trying to claim fiction is the same as reality. His argument would have us banning movies like American Histo
Re:Hunting for Bambi. Hoax? Reality? Does it Matte (Score:2)
I don't think his viewpoint is as valuable as you do, if he were arguing against it rather than arguing against its being published, then perhaps I could see some value in it, but knee-jerk reactions like his (even PhDs can have knee-jerk reactions) don't help the argument. His viewpoint is more likely to
Re:Hunting for Bambi. Hoax? Reality? Does it Matte (Score:2)
My interpretation is that this man was simply hoping to get reactions from people like this man. I've heard rumor that it's actually an unliscened escort service, but I'd like to see more evidence of that before I decide either way.
I figure he was trying to get people to be enraged, a la a shock jock. He seems to have succeeded.
Re:Hunting for Bambi. Hoax? Reality? Does it Matte (Score:2)
Interview (Score:3, Funny)
My problem with Snopes.com (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that according to my wife, a podiatric (foot) surgeon, the recovery period following a phalangectomy (ampution of a toe (or finger)) is almost nil. The big toe, let alone a vestigial "pinky toe", is not crucial for balance or stability. You can verify this yourself; lift up your big toe and walk around. Bet you can still do it, can't you? Sure you can, especially if you're wearing a shoe with a sole that is even moderately stiff, which would replace some of the big toe's stabilizing influence.
I reported this via the Snopes.com comment form. After a couple of days, I received a reply that basically said "everyone knows you can't walk right if you have a toe cut off", and my wife's qualified medical opinion was pretty much ignored. Now, I really don't think that Marilyn Monroe had six toes. However, I stand by my assertion that at least one of the reasons they give opposing such an idea just doesn't work.
Why do I think that's important? Because I don't know anything at all about a lot of the subjects that they speak authoritatively about. Since I know of at least one topic where they discarded the opinion of a subject matter expert, I have no reason to believe that they haven't done so elsewhere.
An old saying, paraphrased, is that "the news is accurate, except for the parts you personally know about", and I now kind of feel the same way about Snopes.com. I agree with a lot of their findings, but I have to take it all with a grain of salt.
Re:My problem with Snopes.com (Score:3, Insightful)
I've also seen a few too many cases where they take the most far fetched claims of a story and after disproving those claims state that the whole thing is false. Even most true stories get mangled somewhat after only a few retellings.
That said, they are doing a good job at a herculean task. They just need to talk to the experts in the given
Bias and laziness (Score:2)
>That said, they are doing a good job at a herculean task.
This is spot-on. Any site that deals with countering disinformation on a wide scale has to contend with its own bias, laziness, and limitations. Look at the skeptdic or straightdope.com, they often revise after someone presents them with more information and some of the conclusions reac
Re:My problem with Snopes.com (Score:2)
Is Jan Brunvand [cnn.com] good enough for you? As you mention, "talking to experts in the field" would be nice, but expensive. Plus, that would open the door to subtle manipulation.
Quote from their response email (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Quote from their response email (Score:2)
You introduced the assertion that there could have been "a pro-bono helping hand from a family friend or compassionate su
Re:Quote from their response email (Score:2)
But isn't that what he does? He claims that she did not have surgery, in part because she didn't know any surgeons. I was only trying to explore the posibility that she might have known a doctor willing to do some fancy footwork. Doesn't he have to provide positive evidence for his claim? It seems like he pretty a rather broad and hard-to-prove claim, and used that as evidence for his case. That's the part that b
Re:My problem with Snopes.com (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, as someone who has had a relative (grandfather) lose a toe due to diabetes related gangrene, and having seen him walk awkwardly afterwards for a while until he was used to it, I would say that your "proof" is false based on my own observations.
Re:My problem with Snopes.com (Score:2)
Re:My problem with Snopes.com (Score:3, Insightful)
While this may be true, one would think that the actual act of having an operation would cause that foot to be a bit tender/sore for a while, which would cause someone to walk awkwardly. After such a surgery, I would be very surprised that she could walk "n
Re:My problem with Snopes.com (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yeah, you try it (Score:2)
It's a joke, laugh (Score:4, Funny)
Status: False
Example: Somebody installed Linux where they work and found they could answer email and visit Slashdot, thus claiming that the OS can replace the ever popular Windows.
Origins: Slashdot is the home of a number of self-righteous Linux zealots who...
Ya know, I really wanted to continue writing this but I'm not sure how to dodge a Troll moderation!
Strangest TRUTH (Score:4, Interesting)
BTW excellent site, been reading it for years
I did (Score:3, Interesting)
What I couldn't believe was that this was the mistake that
Come on now (Score:2, Insightful)
"Online Journalism Review", links to that periodical's site, which is logical enough -- but why would "David Mikkelson" link to anything but a page about Mr. Mikkelson? "Interview" should be the link to the interview.
Am I a crank? Or do I make sense? (Or both?)
Re:Come on now (Score:2, Interesting)
I have to say I really agree.
I think some of the poster are better than others. Sure, link the parent site, but if you link the interview, the link should be embedded in the word 'interview' or better yet, 'interview with ###'. If you link somebody's name, that link should point to a bio or vanity page of that person.
Hey editors, maybe
Re:Come on now (Score:2)
I humbly apologize for my apparent inability to clearly link.
Are you a crank? I can't tell.
James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:5, Informative)
Look at his lecture Series [randi.org], If he comes to your city it is well worth attending the lecture.
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:5, Informative)
Clearly though the folks at Survival Science have a bone to pick with people like him and other debunkers.
But either way, what you have said is not in line with what James Randi does. He doesn't take the vantage point that anything paranormal must be false. He simply says that it should be something that should hold up to scientific testing.
Saying he ditches the scientific method is ridiculous, and he has documented the exact tests they have worked with claimants to develop, and these are almost always scientifically sound.
But again, trying to argue about the scientific method with someone from SurvivalScience.org is probably futile, as I'm sure you're convinced that your brand of science is much more valid than anything that is done by the folks associated with the JREF.
-Tom
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:5, Informative)
But he doesn't say it is necessarily false, which is why he does what he does. He affords anyone the opportunity to work with him to design a test both sides can agree on (you mentioned reading the specifics of his tests, but this makes no sense.... he doesn't have one set test, since each claim is different..... the JREF works with claimants to develop a test, set of rules, etc. that BOTH parties agree to, and then set out to enact it).
The details of the JREF Challenge can be read here (and I would suggest reading it carefully because many of the JREF's critics misconstrue a lot about how it works, or complain that the tests aren't fair, etc. even though the challenge clearly states that the tests are designed together by both parties, and nothing happens until the claimant themselves is happy with the conditions): JREF Challenge [randi.org]
But again, Randi never starts out assuming that all paranormal events are false. He simply starts out saying they should be able to pass a test that can show they can do what they claim to do.
One of the most popular types of claims he gets, for example, are dowsers. So, they work to develop a test of their abilities, by setting up a double or triple blind test of their dowsing abilities. And they both agree on what would be a reasonable success rate (i.e. something that would be better than just what someone would get by chance). Randi and the JREF don't automatically assume these are false, but the nice thing about designing double and triple blind tests is that Randi's personal opinions are irrelevant.
Whether Randi personally believes a claimant can do what they say has nothing to do with whether they can pass a test they agree to. If Randi's personal beliefs did affect it, it would be pointless.
And again, Randi doesn't automatically assume that all dowsers, for example, who come to him are not what they say they are. The most he will do is say "I've seen hundreds of dowsers come and try to prove what they can do, and they can't do it" and he will go on that to have a pretty clear idea that a dowser might not be able to do what they say they can do.
But again, that has nothing to do with it, and if someone with a legitimate ability to demonstrate dowsing or any other paranormal abilities would have every opportunity to do it.
But again, I can't stress this strongly enough. Randi's own trustworthiness isn't and can't be related to the tests themselves. If a claimant doesn't want Randi involved in any way, he can make that part of the terms of the test. Randi isn't the one who makes the decisions, and if someone ever could pass a scientific test they all agreed on, that would be it.
Anyway, you're right, it's good to see all sides of an argument, and people can be free to make up their own minds from looking at sites like survivalscience.org and the various other groups and individuals that criticize James Randi, and then they can also look at the arguments of his supporters.
-Tom
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
He simply starts out saying they should be able to pass a test that can show they can do what they claim to do.
This is something I can disagree with on its face. Not everything that exists is provable, not to mention that some claimed phenomena are, at their very nature, random.
Not everyone is interested in taking his test, yet my understanding
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:3, Insightful)
if by "exists" you mean "has effects on the physical world" then you're wrong: if something has effects then you can test it. If by "exists" you mean something else, then you're making a metaphysical claim which science isn't competent to test. Randi doesn't look at purely metaphysical claims (and nor could he).
if by an effect being "random" you mean "only happens sometimes, but more often than you'd expect if there was no effect"
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
(By provable, you mean testable, right?)
That's an claim about the nature of reality, that I think James Randi might disagree with, as might I. If something's not subject to study or is random, then it's like dust on the film of reality; it doesn't help me figure what the movie is about; it's just noise I won't ever really understand it.
Not everyone is interested in taking his test, yet my understanding is that he
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
In the real world, the boy who cries wolf is quickly ignored. If you make claim after unjustifiable claim of alien abduction and anal probing, you're likely not going to be taken seriously when you claim that your detractors are kooks.
Being that anytime Randi has "debunked" a specific person he's provide
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
From http://www.randi.org/jr/03-23-2001.html -
Were I a participant in the Schwartz operation, the kind of information that I would look for, may already be available, either through others who participated in the work, or from video records that seem to come to hand by mysterious means. Please note the video frame shown here. It was made from one of Schwartz's "scientific experiments" with John Edward. The "medium" has just taken his seat in the lab, adjacen
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
It's well known that the movement of people often introduces noise into the measurement of the gravitational constant. Any measurement of the gravitational constant that didn't take proper precautions to reduce that effect would be ignored. Likewise, it's well known that cheating, including such simple things as he mentioned here, often introduces noise (and worse yet, biased noise) into the measurement of paranormal abilities. Why should take any study that
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, there's no little to no evidence of invisible pink unicorns, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The scientific method includes this little thing called Occam's razor; if there's little to no evidence for something, and it would be simpler if you left it out, leave it out.
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
Debunking Debunker's Arguments - Occam's Razor [survivalscience.org].
By the way, The Scientific Method [rochester.edu].
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
Debunking Debunker's Arguments - Occam's Razor.
Let's take one claim from that site and examine how Occam's Razor applies:
Likewise, if someone has a close up encounter of Bigfoot, skeptics will use Occam's Razor to claim that it is more likely that the experiencer was either lying or hallucinating.
Bigfoot, according to most reports, is a primate that stands over six feet tall and lives in the Pacific Northwest, the forests of which h
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
Does it matter if an astrologist follows the scientific method in testing claims, if he/she still assumes that his/her beliefs are true? As my recollection goes, a psuedo-scientist can still "follow the scientific method" in terms of experimental design, but if he/she has made a decision about the 'truth' before the research is do
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
As my recollection goes, a psuedo-scientist can still "follow the scientific method" in terms of experimental design, but if he/she has made a decision about the 'truth' before the research is done, that makes him/her a psuedo-scientist.
But you see, that is the beauty of 'the scientific method' of experimental design (double-blind tests, etc.) -- it does not matter what the personal beliefs of the researcher are if the design of the experiment is sound.
JP
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
I am aware of those facts, and as I have explained in *numerous* posts, I don't doubt that the individual trials follow the scientific method. My point was that the whole set-up of the contest, in my mind, does not follow the scientific method, since it sets out to prove the nonexistence of 'paranormal' phenomena.
For your information,
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
Perhaps I don't understand. A contest, set up by a man who has no qualms about insulting those who do not actively disbelieve in the 'paranormal', sets up a challenge where, if an experiment results in c
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:4, Insightful)
You think it's unreasonable to dismiss a view like this, but really it's the only thing to do. What if I tell you that the world doesn't actually exist anywhere you're not looking or sensing? Do you take my word for it? What if I offer poorly documented third-party claims, and first-person claims from people who "just know" it's true, but are unwilling to try to prove it?
The only reasonable action to take is to act as if a claim like this isn't true unless you can get proof. This is how athiests view the claim of the existance of god.
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:3, Insightful)
See, this is where we disagree. While there is no verifiable scientific evidence of any sort of divinity, there is naturally no verifiable scientific evidence of a lack of any sort of divinity.
To reduce this to the ever popular "invisible pink unicorn" debate, I can't prove there are invisible pink unicorns. I also can't
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
Have you ever taken an action based on the fact there might be "invisible pink unicorns" and it can't hurt just in case? It's easy to be unsure of their existence in a debate, but if you were seriously unsure of the existence of the pink unicorns (and all their kin), you would have seriously co
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the misunderstanding. Athiests don't make the claim because to make a claim requires something with which to prove the claim. Athiests, at least those like me, simply say that because of the total lack of evidence for the existance of a god, there's no reason to believe in one. Of course, they're going to phrase this in the same way as they would for a IPU (the unicorn), "there is no god", because belief in anything else is p
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
However, this does NOT mean that I believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. Once again, skeptics make the mistake of confusing theory and predictions with personal belief.
This whole article is quickly becoming a karma-sinkhole, by the way. I got modded down Troll for pointing out a troll, and my above information, relevant to the conversation, was modded Flamebait. Maybe we can all have a discussion without trying to mod each other into oblivion, k?
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
You said that Randi says "I'm right, even though I have no evidence. Prove me wrong", and you even put quotes around it, even though he NEVER SAID THAT.
I never said he did. I generally put quotes in italics.
I said:
James Randi crosses the line from healthy skepticism to a "I'm right, e
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
Does it matter? If you're the next Thomas Edison and discover a telepathic enhancer and decide to make a quick mill on it, does that reduce the effectiveness of your invention? And as Randi says, if you don't need that money (and I know way too many people who buy lotto tickets to think that
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
Re:James Randy debunking paranormal claims (Score:2)
I only have a limited amount of time, and I'd rather spend it reading credible sources than trying to determine if a non-credible source just happens to print something true. I don't bother looking for information from the weekly world news for similar reasons.
Snopes rocks (Score:2)
Re:Snopes rocks (Score:4, Interesting)
The closest I know to this was a radar system that used to sit on top of the Ford Aeroneutronic building in Newport Beach, CA in the 1980s. This was the development test unit for the DIVAD gun system (a disappointing weapon), and it had a powered gun mount, but no gun. Instead of a gun, the test system had a telescope and a TV camera, and would produce good pictures of aircraft flying into LAX.
The DIVAD was supposed to engage low-flying helicopters, so the system could look down to the horizon. where it could see a freeway. It was usually set to ignore ground traffic below 100mph, but occasionally at night, some speeder would exceed the threshold and be identified as a possible target.
I heard that once the system picked up a speeding car and identified it as hostile. Apparently the car had a "radar jammer" to fool police radar. To a military radar, that helps mark the target better; it's like waving a flashlight around.
But that test system couldn't do anything more than videotape cars; it had no weapons whatsoever.
I love that site. (Score:3, Funny)
Though I was startled to find that there's a transsexual model out there who appeared in a James Bond film and is married to someone who has the same name as I do. I hope that if I ever become famous nobody will look back on that article and draw the wrong conclusions.
you know what amuses me... (Score:5, Funny)
Bizarre coincidence (Score:4, Interesting)
Before Snopes, there was "Straight Dope" (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Article Text for those too lazy to follow links (Score:3, Insightful)
I would hate to interrupt this self-congratulatory pat on the back, but "Hunting for Bambi" wasn't much of a hoax. A publicity stunt, yes. An hoax, n
Re:Article Text for those too lazy to follow links (Score:2)
Exactly what I was taking into consideration when I wrote this article [www.vg.no] for my employer. I read up on the subject, watched the KLAS-TV broadcasts and concluded that this was probably some promotion deal for their video deal.
However, I also understood that if someone would cough up USD 10 000, they would do it. That's why I wrote the article.
Re:Television show. (Score:5, Funny)
That was just an urban legend.
Re:Urban Myth (Score:3, Interesting)
-Tom