I thought about putting the students to work cleaning up the lab…

The fat, Christian, Baldwin brother. Is he in the lab?

Christ its Stephen Baldwin!!!!

They blurred out the Mutter-style posters... or were they pictures of Shannen Doherty?

I've seen this before. It's supposed to be a practical joke. With all those camera angles. Uh huh.

But it's pretty funny anyway. Wouldn't it be even more awesome if, instead of PZ's lab -- this was at the Discovery Institute? They finally figured out a research project for Intelligent Design!

Or maybe they're falsifying it. A monkey turning into a man. Uh oh. They can see it happen with their own eyes, too. Punked.

I cried laughing at this the first time I saw it. I wonder, what are the evolutionary reasons for my finding other people's terror hysterically funny?

I got so much more enjoyment out of this the second time knowing that this guy does work for PETA....

Did you catch the feed at the bottom? "Next proof positive for evidence of the paranormal!" I bet that was good.

And here I was being skeptical because the 'victim's' acting was suspicious. Those multiple camera angles put the lie to the whole thing.

Jesus Christ, it's a half man half bear! Or a half bear half pig! Maybe a half man half bear-pig?

For anyone who is getting confused by the multiple camera angles, be aware that they do tape things later for insertion into the show. For instance, shots of the bird or of the rat man scurrying through parts of the lab were likely filmed on other occasions and edited in. Still, all reactions from the participants are genuine and captured through a multitude of hidden cameras. The guy really did have a prank pulled on him and he really was that scared. There is no question of authenticity on that front.

And here I had been so worried that Stephen Baldwin's career had gone into the crapper. Now I can see that his finding God has rejuvenated his stardom.

Good to know.

If the prank precipitated a heart attack, what would be the legal liability, with or without a fatal consequence?

PZ - you are a truly evil atheist. A man after my own heart. (Not literally I hope)

I hate practical jokes. There's enough cruelty in the world without expecting the victims to be "good sports." Fuck all practical jokers. Have the guts to admit you're just sadists who get off on causing distress.

Well, is it a particularly good heart? Any interesting unusual features?

@#14 C.S. Lewis Jr.:

I don't get off on other people's fear. I just find it fucking HILARIOUS. And yes, I am somewhat of a sadist^.^

But, back to the point: People purposely put themselves in positions where they will become scared. It causes a rush of adrenaline and some people really like that. Hence the reason we have people who ride roller coasters, go skydiving, and some really crazy bastards who do things like base jumping. A lot of people like the 'thrill'. Get over yourself C.S. Lewis Jr.

Well, being an atheist, it is a particularly cold and hard heart. It probably wouldn't even need refrigeration en-route to a transplant - or an evil experiment.

Still, all reactions from the participants are genuine and captured through a multitude of hidden cameras. The guy really did have a prank pulled on him and he really was that scared.

And your evidence supporting these claims is ...?

There is no question of authenticity on that front.

No, actually there are questions on that front.

I hate practical jokes. There's enough cruelty in the world without expecting the victims to be "good sports." Fuck all practical jokers.

Yeah, let's torture them.

Stephen Baldwin's still alive?

Learn something new every day.

I cried laughing at this the first time I saw it. I wonder, what are the evolutionary reasons for my finding other people's terror hysterically funny?

This fellow is funny regardless of his emotional state, but I never saw him display any terror, just a bit of alarm.

Um... I'd think most people would be more afraid of dwarfs dressed like rat men then of actual rat men.

And your evidence supporting these claims is ...?

Um, because I know how hidden camera shows work? I mean come on, do you really think that guy is that good of an actor? If you'd like, you can see the creator of the show commenting on the construction of the prank in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP5IxQMAa08

But beyond that, no. I guess I have no "evidence" that could assuage unreasonable suspicion. If you want to believe it the show is really all a big hoax on the viewer, then I guess I can't really stop you. Of course, since you're the one disputing the veracity of the show, I suppose I should be asking where your evidence is to support that allegation.

Have the guts to admit you're just sadists who get off on causing distress.

In fact, I revel in it. Even more fun than kitten BBQs.

For those doubting the authenticity of the "hidden camera" aspect of the show, I actually do have experience with the show. I had a friend who was tricked into being on it. He definitely had know idea he was on it, and the episode featured the same type of camera angles.

I mean come on, do you really think that guy is that good of an actor?

Uh, no. I thought they were both utterly terrible actors.

The real question is this: Would it be easier to play sadistic pranks on PETA members, or to elaborately fake the whole thing? Few TV producers would waste effort if they didn't have to, and personally I think simple ease of execution dictates they actually be sadistic bastards.

The thing that annoys me about Scare Tactics is their usage of gratuitous images that the victim wouldn't see (OMG LOL the rat man is behind the table!).

Personally, I think the Mexican version of the show (Infarto) tends to be funnier as they usually carry their jokes a bit further. It's also kind of funny because whenever they tell the victims that they're on Infarto, none of them ever have any idea what the other person's talking about.

I certainly don't know whether the show's fully scripted, but having multiple hidden cameras isn't an inherently infeasible task.

PZ, pahlease make me one of those.

In exchange, I will start a religious cult focused around worshiping you and squids.

Some of the static wideangle shots look like pretty standard hidden camera stuff, and with cheap digital video it's not hard to plant multiple cameras to get different angles.

However.... there are several shots where the camera pans across the room to follow the guy in medium closeup, and it covers too much area to be an in-frame digital pan. That means a motorized pan/tilt head, and those things are NOT quiet, at all. Hiding something like that in a soundproof blimp where the "subject" wouldn't see it, is non-trivial.

Nah... I'm not buying it. It's either completely faked, or partially faked with "re-creations" after the main setup.

I like how he says, "I really am with PETA, and I was like 'we gotta get some cameras in here'."

No, you were like, "Dude... dude, just get out of here, let's get out of here, ... we can come back with, like, some guns, ..."

Guns, not cameras.

Heh.

That being said, being in a room with some unknown animals -- bears are scary, really scary.

If they have the wide angle shots, provided their cameras have some pretty good resolution, why can't it be a digital pan?

I can't imagine how scary it would be to stumble upon Stephen Baldwin. Oh, and the Rat-man was scary too.

"If the prank precipitated a heart attack, what would be the legal liability, with or without a fatal consequence?"

Or what if one of the victims is armed?

"but I was afraid of what they might find."

Notorious anti-God evilutionist admits to secret experiments on human-rat hybrids.

#33: If they have the wide angle shots, provided their cameras have some pretty good resolution, why can't it be a digital pan?

It's not that easy to see in the low-res clip, but notice the deep focus on the static wideangle shot, the one that looks like a hidden camera on one of the lab benches facing the entrance door. The medium closeup tracking shots have shallower depth of field (objects in the background are less in focus than the main subject). You wouldn't see that in a digital pan/zoom of a super high-res wideangle image. Also I think I'm seeing some autofocus adjustments here and there, which also wouldn't happen with a wideangle view... everything would be in focus.

Hey, this is just amateur forensics and I could be wrong, but I did do this (or something like it) for a living, once. They could have shot the whole thing through a two-way mirror, for all I know. But that's an expensive, fixed installation, and this looks pretty low-budget for that.

Now that was an overactive amygdala!

If this was not just actors, this guy is clearly ignorant or stupid enough to be PETA. Here is a little pigeon experiment by B.F. Skinner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_ctJqjlrHA&feature=related

"I cried laughing at this the first time I saw it. I wonder, what are the evolutionary reasons for my finding other people's terror hysterically funny?"

HH, I'd hazard a guess at competition. A rival would be less intimidating if you were able to convince everyone else that they were not as brave.