Confirmed Hoax Mermaids the Physical proof.

[Octavusprime]

When I first watched the original I thought it seemed credible but searching online others claimed it was a mockumetary. I took that to heart but now I'm feeling that is all part of the cover up.

The following websites have been seized by the US government. Why would they shut them down unless there is information to hide... Apparently the sonar tests that kill dolphins and whales also effects mermaids. I'm with Sam in that my beliefs in this matter have swayed.

Perhaps the fourth kind is also a true documentary that was forced into the mockumetary status to silence the truth...

The Real Evidence on Mermaids, from Dr. Paul Robertson, NOAA researcher

http://www.believeinmermaids.com/

 

[Samstwitch]

The legends and paintings of Mermaids go back to Ancient Times and are worldwide. That is also BIG evidence to consider.

 

[BlastTyrant]

One thing to account for and i believe was mentioned earlier that in shows like this, the big thing to notice is how everyone is pretty, not one bad looking Scientist. Thats like walking into a IT building a doing a documentary and seeing nothing but pretty girls and guys, not gonna happen.

 

[Samstwitch]

One thing to account for and i believe was mentioned earlier that in shows like this, the big thing to notice is how everyone is pretty, not one bad looking Scientist. Thats like walking into a IT building a doing a documentary and seeing nothing but pretty girls and guys, not gonna happen.

Yes, I thought about that too. I noticed it. Except it doesn't work for Dr. Paul Robertson, the main interviewee in the films. In the first documentary, Dr. Robertson has a short beard and trimmed reddish hair. In the 2nd documentary, his hair is longer and disheveled, untrimmed. In the 2nd film it's very obvious that he's nervous about being filmed. This isn't obvious in the first film. In the 2nd film, he's sitting at a table, while the host to his left talks. He isn't actually interviewed until half way through the film or more. During the wait time, the camera still has him in frame. That's when you can see that he's nervous and later when he actually talks he is somewhat nervous.

In the first film, he's directly in front of the camera talking, so he doesn't come across as nervous, because he's focused on the subject. But it's a whole different story in the 2nd film. My point is that it's obvious in the 2nd film that he's no actor. In the first film, he's focused on the story. In the 2nd film, he has to wait and he's apprehensive about being on camera, as any non-professional actor would be. Also, it's obvious in the 2nd documentary that his dialogue is not scripted...it's more obvious that he's not an actor.

(When I reference the first and 2nd documentaries, I'm talking about the two that aired on TV that I listed earlier. I didn't get to post any videos from the 2nd documentary on this thread, as it's not yet available on Youtube.)

 

[BlastTyrant]

Ya i sadly missed the 2nd documentary.

 

[Samstwitch]

Ya i sadly missed the 2nd documentary.

That's why I posted that it will be airing through Thursday. You can still watch it. Look it up in your TV Guide.

 

[BlastTyrant]

I really liked the first one regardless if it was fact or not, so i will make a note to watch the 2nd

 

[Samstwitch]

Here is a (very poor quality) video clip of an excerpt from the 2nd documentary, Mermaids: The New Evidence. This clip is from later in the program, when the Host and Dr. Paul Robertson are joined by another scientist who presented new evidence of a Mermaid filmed while submerged under water.

Dr. Paul Robertson is seen as the gentleman with the red beard and shaggy long hair. He was the same person in the first documentary, but he was well trimmed in that film. Dr. Robertson is more relaxed in this clip, but earlier it was obvious that he was nervous. IMO, he doesn't appear to be an actor. The other scientist doesn't come off as an actor either.

I hope you get to see the Mermaid documentaries. There is also an "extended cut", more footage, to the first documentary that is airing.

Here's a Preview Video for Mermaids: The New Evidence below.

 

[BlastTyrant]

I recall seeing a post on facebook last night about it, and the producers have said again that it was fake, i could not copy it or paste the text.

 

[Samstwitch]

I recall seeing a post on facebook last night about it, and the producers have said again that it was fake, i could not copy it or paste the text.

You're right! Here's the article about it.

So somebody makes 2 Mockumentaries about Mermaids, and so-called Scientists tell the public lies, leading people to believe Mermaids are real...Why do people do things like that? I call them liars. That old saying applies: A man (or woman) is only as good as his word, and if his word is no good (then neither is he).Well, I never! Today's trends are not popular with me. o_0

Mermaids Still Not Real, Despite ‘New Evidence’

Animal Planet stirred up some maritime mythology last year when it released Mermaids: The Body Found. The documentary, which attempted to prove the existence of mermaids, had people around the country wondering if there was a race of aquatic humanoids living deep in the ocean. NOAA even released a statement denying the existence of mermaids but now, thanks to Biologist Dr. Paul Robertson, there’s more video evidence to the contrary.

Animal Planet released Mermaids: The New Evidence this weekend and people are starting to get curious again about the existence of mermaids. The documentary features new footage taken by Robertson in the Greenland Sea which allegedly shows more mermaids.

The documentary had people glued to the television screen and soon Twitter was full of questions about the existence of mermaids. NOAA hasn’t released a statement to debunk the new documentary but Robertson admitted that the documentary was a bit of a hoax.

The biologist told the Mother Nature Network that the program is scientific fiction based on scientific theory.

Robertson said that he made Mermaids: The New Evidence appear like a documentary because he wanted it to be believable.

Robertson said: “I wanted the story to appeal to a sense of genuine possibility, and incorporating real science and evolutionary theory and real-world scientific examples — such as animals that have made the transition from land to sea, much as we suggest mermaids did — and citing real, albeit controversial theories like the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, grounded it. Using a straight, documentarian approach made the story more persuasive by appealing more to a sense of intellectual possibility as well as emotional possibility. I think the story works because it’s possible to believe that mermaids might have an evolutionary basis; I think it works because you can believe they are real. And personally, I don’t think there’s any story more appealing than a legend that can be believed.”

CLICK ME to see the video of the new mermaid evidence.