Here's What Happened To ParaBreakdown YouTube Channel
About a week or two ago, Phi Poling's ParaBreakdown was attacked through a proxy YouTube account. The assailant, using the name "Phil Poling", filed 10 DMCAs against ParaBreakdown and managed to temporarily disabled the Poling's main YouTube account. Here's Phil with an update on what's going on:
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou removed your first!?!?!?!? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!?!?!?!?
DeleteMy pants have been removed by the author.
DeleteOh god, this is unprecedented. What do we do now?? WHAT DO WE DO NOW???????
DeleteThis is worse than when that one dickhead used ... for a first.
Delete"You can't prove something doesn't exist [ . . . ] you can't disprove this."
DeleteTodd Disotell
Skeptards hoisted by their own "skeptard."
#Tooneytards savagely ravaged by their own "mainstream" mouthpiece.
Ooh, it burns.
Dreams of singing a duet with an Ontario imaginary Bigfoot ^^
Delete"The assailant"...good one Shawn. Because his YT account was suspended, he was definitely "assailed". HAHAHAHAHAHA
DeleteTEAM HOMOS!
DeleteAnd the jets
DeleteFirst, the BFRO, then Parabreakdown. Who's next? What do they have in common? They both stand out as Bigfoot enthusiast voices, and apparently should be neutralized before the Brian Sykes report is released, so that he has as much support as possible, pulled out from beneath him. Similarly to what happened to Melba Ketchum, and you can see how successful that was. So it is likely the work of the vocal JREF paid scoftics and also the people that use cryptozoology.com as a front for their public harassment activities, IMO.
ReplyDeleteYes, and this:
DeleteThis news from The Frankfurt Book Fair, via The Bookseller:
Professor Bryan Sykes’ The Yeti Enigma explores the yeti myth, with his surprising findings now on submission.
Alrighty then, Dr Sykes has already submitted his yeti book. This apparently in conjunction with a three-part BBC TV series coming this year. And the paper? When and where? We don't know.
It's surely wishful thinking on the part of skeptards to bleeve that this three-pronged project which was extended a year so far, will produce only results of moose and coyote and squirrel.
Any reasonable skeptic can see that.
But sketpards are extremists, not reasonable skeptics.
What plausible scenario is there in which Sykes will smoke the footers? A book, a scientific paper, and a three-part BBC series, all to show opossum and all just to smoke footers?
It appears obvious that in order for there to be a paper worth publishing, a book worth publishing, and a TV series worth doing, that Sykes has found some "monkey" results somewhere.
The Bookseller also calls Sykes' findings "surprising." Then surely the results must be surprising. Bear and wolf would be unsurprising.
The skeptards need to step out of their delusional position at some point.
More scientists are coming on board in support of the Ketchum study. Swenson never left. More are calling the work good science.
Delete...I agree with skeptard guy with respect to the paper: it is hard to see what is publishable about negative results..As to the the book and TV show, meh..I take those as a bad sign: They imply its more about commerce then science....
DeleteWhere's Joe and the Beanstalk?
DeleteI like that Prometheus comment a lot.
DeleteGood form sir.
Peace.
And how exactly are they negative results? There is no such thing! If you are testing the DNA of samples you are going to get results thus meaning you can publish a paper on these results. Weather it be bear, human or a unknown species. If they come up with a partial exact match to human DNA that could mean contamination. Ketchums were undisputed contaminated because of the way she fort to keep the samples even though they were not owned by her.
DeleteWhat I mean, and I think skeptard guy means, by negative result is kind of what you describe: a failure to find evidence of an undocumented primate. Now, the first criteria for publication in a real journal is originality. It is difficult to picture a peer-reviewed article on bear dna...I imagine that has been described...That is what he is saying and I tend to agree....
DeleteSo what he is saying is a failed hypothesis. I am guessing his hypothesis will say that the results will contain a unknown genome which is effectively Sasquatch DNA. What i think the skeptard is saying is bigfoot is a negative and you can't write a paper on a negative. There is no such thing unless you are testing for a known genome. If he was testing for a gorilla for example and it come back as a bear that would be a negative result but in this case he is testing the samples to see what they are which means you can't get a negative result. Todd Disotell published a paper saying that his sample was contaminated with a known human genome.
Delete..Thanks for the response and clarification....Btw, the poster I was referring to, Prometheus, is "skeptard guy" because he uses that term in his user name..lol..For him, I believe, a negative result is one that does NOT say the samples come from an unknown primate...He can speak for himself of course...Thanks again..
DeleteI know the poster he is the one always posting "you can't prove a negative." Even though I have repeatedly posted study's where negatives have been proven. What he needed to say was a failed hypothesis. In this case Syke's is not looking for a particular genome wich can be a negative. He is looking to see what the genome in the sample is this can't yield negative results.
DeleteThe other way Syke's may have addressed this is using multiple hypothesis. Now he still can't get a true negative result but he can get a false negative result. Which mean's if he has bear samples and fails to reject the bigfoot hypothesis. In hindsight we could call Ketchum's results a false negative.
DeleteI understand now, and from your Disotell example it appears sequencing in of itself is publishable at this relatively early stage of the game....
DeleteYes he will have published a paper all ready. Syke's has what 30 samples that means their will be 31 published papers at the end of it. There's your book. only the summery of all the results will go forward to a pair review though which cant be published until all the results have been tested.
DeleteI see..I guess when its all wrapped up he will get 1 or 2 peer(I know what you meant) reviewed papers out of the project in addition to the book...
DeleteYes exactly. It's going to be interesting to see if that skeptard troll reads this
DeleteAs the first had been removed i was going to claim it but then realised Anon 11:28 had already done it xx
ReplyDeleteGood luck to Phil,i like his breakdowns xx
ReplyDeleteAll this time Dan has denied the existence of Bigfoot but all this time he has had a Bigfoot friend called Ralph? Is this a actual Bigfoot or a Footer called Ralph? That's pretty creepy if it's a footer called Ralph don't you think? Eva? Joe?
ReplyDeleteIf you ask me Dan's creepy full stop xx
ReplyDeleteWhat's up Eva
DeleteEvery dog needs a few fleas to keep him occupied. Danny will be back to bite at Joe our greyhound.
DeleteIs that what crabs are for to keep me from boredom
DeleteMaybe the Ralph scandal is true. He has gone quiet since it all emerged.
ReplyDeleteAnon,are you being naughty and trying to stir things up lol xx
ReplyDeleteJust giving him a taste of his own medicine. Of recent he has been getting a bit of that and its been good with out him here
DeleteI agree totally,his imposter had me stitches xx
DeleteHad me in stitches xx
DeleteHis imposter impersonated Joe today
DeleteThis imposter does make me laugh xx
DeleteIf its this cut and paste guy he said he would if Joe and Dan start fighting again. I like the way he's doing it. He's not attacking them in a cruel way more a funny way. Everyone knows its not them but it's funny seeing their avatar and name with a post there's no way they posted. It seem to shut them up and put Joe back on track schooling real trolls
DeleteCome to think of it,it's not you is it Anon 1:05? xx
DeleteNot me. he was posting as King Paste before.
DeleteMy imposter made me cry
DeleteMMG
Back on topic....no matter what your opinion of Phil may be, no one deserves to be harassed or hacked liked this. Hope he wins out.
ReplyDeleteProbably Monkeymaker
DeletePHIL P. was a FOOL, to mess with ME !! as I am a PARALEGAL" and the HOTTEST reseacher in the u.s.a ,,,PHIL P can LICK MY PINK SNAPPER!! HA HA. as always MELLISSA H.
DeleteIs your pink wet
DeleteAND HOW!! as always MELLISSA H.
DeleteSitting on your computer chair Reading all these posts about Dan and Ralph
DeleteParabreakdown parabrokedown.
ReplyDelete..lol..Obvious in hindsight....
DeleteJP Smith & Freeman Young.
ReplyDeleteTop guys.
Peace.
paracitses always get found out.when u lck talent and your job is tput people down,one day you ll get yours, welcome you got yours
ReplyDeleteyou do nothing but break down others work frm the comfort of your p. you do oting for footery apart from mock it
so fuckff into obscurity.yes im a hater
And a lousy speller too. Phill's Breakdowns are great and most of the videos are made by hoaxers or idiots so either way they have it coming to them so not sure how Phill is mocking Footery exactly? Mocking morons like yourself, maybe. Either way you're a dick
DeleteYou might ask yourself what video has he confirmed? The only one I know of is the Sierra thermal. Pretty handy.
DeleteSelf inflated wind bag. Break downs? More like ripping off other people's stuff and then harassing them with it. Now we get to listen to Shawn and Phil whine about their loss of income. Get a clue, no one cares.
ReplyDelete