Reaction To The Penn And Teller Episode, aired on 04/24/06 Options

[maxx]

It was a lot less brutal than I expected it to be. Most of the episode was spent on Loch Ness. They did show how they made the sanoma video. They rented a Bigfoot costume and put a 6'7" actor in the costume and had him stomp around the bushes about 20 minutes outside their studio. They then read through some letters from Bigfoot enthusiests that had contacted them. They focused on two people in which they labled Asshole #1 and Asshole A. Asshole #1 offered them press and interviews in the SF chronicle (not sure who that would be). Asshole A which has his own website was labled a greedy bastard, due to the fact he wanted to broker interviews for them. All in all this show is not going to change anyone's point of view. The BFRO took some PR damage but nothing too bad, cause no names were mentioned. They kept pushing the point of actual biological evidence, and that photos and footprints were a silly waste of time.

This post has been edited by maxx: Apr 24 2006, 08:09 PM

[Redwolf]

How much do I win for guessing the names of Asshole #1 and Asshole A????

[TimMcmanus]

Did they out-and-out say that there was absolutely, positively, no way for something like sasquatch to exist?

[maxx]

Did they out-and-out say that there was absolutely, positively, no way for something like sasquatch to exist?

Not for sasquatch they didn't. They had several scientist say that it was higly unlikely. They stated that if anything it was an excuse to go outside and enjoy the outdoors. Loch Ness monster was the only item they really went line by line and ripped apart. The bigfoot section was mainly just to show how gullable the bigfoot community is, and the total lack of useful evidence.

[MasterBlaster]

How much do I win for guessing the names of Asshole #1 and Asshole A????

$5000.00 for a film

$6000.00 for an interview....

[TimMcmanus]

Well, I agree with them when it comes to the Loch Ness Monster. There ain't hardly a chance in hell.

What about the P/G Film and/or scientists who *do* buy into it, like Krantz and...uh...Krantz?

[Hairy Man]

How much do I win for guessing the names of Asshole #1 and Asshole A????

Oh, that's just way too easy....

How about guessing the name of the female professional anthropologist??? Too bad they didn't include her entire phone call...I bet she had something very interesting to say about that hoax of a film... :new_whistle:

[OKBFFan]

Hey come on guys... I didnt see it, so have no clue what you are talking about. Clue me in?

[maxx]

What about the P/G Film and/or scientists who *do* buy into it, like Krantz and...uh...Krantz?

They had no "qualified" scientists or even experts for the opposing of view for sasquatch. Nessie had a pair of Zoologists they followed around.

Oh, that's just way too easy....

How about guessing the name of the female professional anthropologist??? Too bad they didn't include her entire phone call...I bet she had something very interesting to say about that hoax of a film... new_whistle.gif

I was gonna ask if that was you...lol. Well of all the letters, yours was pretty normal ...not even sure why they read it.

This post has been edited by maxx: Apr 24 2006, 08:27 PM

[Hairy Man]

I was gonna ask if that was you...lol. Well of all the letters, yours was pretty normal ...not even sure why they read it.

To bad they didn't have the rest of it, because I said that we thought the film was a hoax and he (Mark) needed to call me or John Freitas back to clear up some of the inconsistencies. Pretty nice that they didn’t include that part!!

Now that I’m famous, can I charge $6,000 for an interview???? :new_lmaosmiley:

Oh, and just so the record is straight, this is on the AIBR website.

This post has been edited by Hairy Man: Apr 24 2006, 08:36 PM

[Redwolf]

$5000.00 for a film

$6000.00 for an interview....

:new_lmaosmiley:




:laugh:

[Saskwatcher]

Penn & Teller like to call :bsflag: .....
Well... I"M CALLING :bsflag: on them..... gut-less punks !!!
They took on Scott Norman... a REALLY nice, sincere guy...
& left the biggest SUCKER in their scam completely unscathed:
Matt Moneymaker !!!! :new_thumbsdownsmileyanim:
What a couple of WUSSYS !!!
The 'Eunich Eels of Loch Ness' aren't the only ones with no B*LLS !!!

MM = ASSHOLE 'A' .... who's ASSHOLE #1 ???


I hate to admit it... but... I totally cracked-up when they defined the word:
" CRYPTOZOOLOGY - ZOOLOGY - meaning 'ANIMAL' ... & ... CRYPTO - meaning
's**t-we-made-up' !"
:rolling:
Now THAT'S Funny, I don't care who ya are !

[damndirtyape]

Sorry, but with all the work done I would have to say they might have been talking about John and Matt on that show. John was probably pretty hard on them trying to get to the bottom of it all. Guess there can be two types of AO's... LOL.

[Huntster]

...They did show how they made the sanoma video. They rented a Bigfoot costume and put a 6'7" actor in the costume and had him stomp around the bushes about 20 minutes outside their studio....

Where does one rent a bigfoot costume for a 6'7" man?

....They then read through some letters from Bigfoot enthusiests that had contacted them. They focused on two people in which they labled Asshole #1 and Asshole A. Asshole #1 offered them press and interviews in the SF chronicle (not sure who that would be).....

How did the bigfoot enthusiasts know that they shot the film? By knowing enough to contact them, they would know it was a hoax.

...All in all this show is not going to change anyone's point of view. The BFRO took some PR damage but nothing too bad, cause no names were mentioned.....

This is the new standard set by Dfoot, another Hollywood type. It's called the Embarrassment Tactic. It's already old, too, IMO.

You can't prove that the creature doesn't exist, so fling s**t on those who believe it to be so with a cheap hoax, not because their belief changes anything, but because you just don't like people who believe things.

This post has been edited by Huntster: Apr 25 2006, 06:01 AM

[maxx]

How did the bigfoot enthusiasts know that they shot the film? By knowing enough to contact them, they would know it was a hoax.

They didn't contact "Penn and Teller", they contacted Mark Nelson. A made up person, and probably was actually a producer for the show.

Where does one rent a bigfoot costume for a 6'7" man?

I imagine in LA there are plenty of places. It was a costume, and he looked to be well over 6' tall.

This post has been edited by maxx: Apr 25 2006, 06:21 AM

[ecwool]

Where does one rent a bigfoot costume for a 6'7" man?

Try here for a thread on a costume for up to a 6' 10" man

[Saskeptic]

Caught the show quite by accident - loved it.

Scientific merit? 3/10

Entertainment value? 8/10


On sasquatch: Their scientific authorities basically said "show me a body." On the notion that not _all_ the eyewitnesses could have been mistaken, duped, lying, etc., P&T basically responded "yeah they could." No one came out and said "there's no f%^& way for sasquatch to exist." All three points pretty much taken out of the "Saskeptic's Guide To Stuff I Think About Bigfoot."

On Nessie, however, I think they blundered. It's not that I think there's anything particularly mysterious in Loch Ness, but their evidence against a "giant ball-less eel" was flawed. For those who missed it, the Nessie enthusiasts proffered the hypothesis that a mutant eel that did not achieve sexual maturity would never be stimulated to leave the Loch to go breed, as most eels do when about (?) 4-5 years old. This eel would just keep eating, and growing bigger, rather than invest its energy in spawning.

(Quick zoology lesson time: salmon are anadromous - they live as adults in marine environments and, upon reaching sexual maturity, return up rivers and streams to freshwater areas to spawn. Eels are the opposite - catadromous - that means they live as adults in FRESHwater rivers and lakes and, upon reaching sexual maturity, return TO THE SEA for spawning.)

So the "lake expert" they interviewed said there was no way for a giant eunuch eel to develop and be supported in Loch Ness because there simply isn't enough food in the lake to go around.

BULLS%^T!

First "neotony" - reaching adult size but retaining juvenile characteristics - is a well-known biological phenomenon, especially among aquatic organisms. Just ask your friendly neighborhood mudpuppy.

On food, I say there is plenty of productivity in Loch Ness to support a big eel, say, 20 feet long. Why? Unlike us, eels most likely exhibit indeterminate growth. That means they keep growing throughout their lives - the longer they live, the bigger they get. Now once a eunuch eel gets to be about 4-5 feet long, there's really nothing else in the lake likely to eat it. Voila! Now there's a big eel in the lake with no predators and nothing to do but eat and grow. How long can such a creature live? Decades wouldn't surprise me. Why? Because of the next reason why there's plenty of food in Loch Ness for such a creature - it's got a really slow metabolism. Who says this thing needs to eat tons (or even tonnes) of fish to survive? I'd picture such a creature hanging out on the bottom (hidden in sediments BTW, and therefore undetectable by sonar) and every so often (once a week? once a month?) snatching a fish.

So, say we start with a 5' eel, and it adds a foot of length every three years. After 30 years, this thing has added 10' to its length to become a 15' monster. How long could it live, 60 years? That would put it in the 25' range. When it dies, where would it go? Nowhere - it lives in the muck and returns there.

Such a thing would be rare, but not outside the realm of possibility. Whatsmore, in the "olden days" before our modern fisheries became so %^^$ efficient at harvesting certain age classes, creatures like this would have been more likely to have the chance to survive, and inspire monster stories on ship's decks on foggy nights at sea . . .

BTW, this hypothesis would be easy to test: Catch some eels from the lake, sterilize them, and keep them in an aquarium. Feed them and track their growth through time. Surely there's enough "Nessie" interest out there for someone to commit to a long term research project like this.

~Sas MacSkeptic

This post has been edited by Saskeptic: Apr 25 2006, 06:45 AM

[damndirtyape]

Maybe I am wrong but...

That particular suit (the one on the set of P&T) was advertised right here in one of the bottom page ads... it also was used for the Bellingham Film Festival TV ad with Jason Valenti walking around town in it...

The one on the hill side may have been different. I didn't get a good look at the head piece.

To really prove that they did the original video hoax, and not just recreated the event for their own pleasure and show after the fact... they should have included something more like... Sure they showed a man holding a small video camera up in the air, pointing down hill and something looking like the "sonoma video" was moving from left to right...

Sure they had the emails sent by real people to that web page... but to get all those emails they could have struck up a deal with whoever recieved them...

Remember that these guys are illusionists and to pull off a slight of hand con is not beyond them. They would have you look at convincing (but not absolute) proof that they created that video, a man walking in a suit on a hill side that may have been described to them by the original photographer for money. They could have been in the exact same spot or not. They could of panned the camera around after videoing to show a bcity in the background... but didn't.

These are the same guys who would shoot at one another and catch the bullets between their teeth. They live and thrive in fooling everyone into believing BS. They have done double illusions on people... watch some card tricks or an elephant dissappear infront of a live audience...

This post has been edited by damndirtyape: Apr 25 2006, 07:33 AM

[maxx]

To really prove that they did the original video hoax, and not just recreated the event for their own pleasure and show after the fact... they should have included something more like... Sure they showed a man holding a small video camera up in the air, pointing down hill and something looking like the "sonoma video" was moving from left to right...

They showed several times the view of the video through the view screen of their camera. There is no doubt whatsoever that Penn and Teller created the sanoma video.

[damndirtyape]

They showed several times the view of the video through the view screen of their camera. There is no doubt whatsoever that Penn and Teller created the sanoma video.

So you don't think they could have pulled a trick on the viewers with that video camera going?

The Loch Ness sectioned focused on odd personalities and equated that as proof that it is just a bunch of deluisonal oddieties that believe there is something there. It was too far away for them to try and set up something to fake out the audience. Bigfoot was closer to home and guess what... they could if they wanted too produce a Bigfoot in an illusion, which is what they are claiming they did... but

I watched Z&R once live and they had a cage on stage with a tiger in it, chewing on a pice of meat. They covered it with a cloth and then pulled the cloth up and the tiger disappeared and a woman was in its place. The cage was then lifted up on a zip line to the corner ceiling covered once again with the cloth... reaching the top, it was released with a bang and came quickly back to the stage but half way down the cover was released and the tiger was back in it before it hit the stage.

It's their job...

[Wildman]

From what I've seen of Penn & Teller, claiming a hoax as their own when they had no part in it seems beneath them. It just isn't clever, or smart-assed enough. No, it is more like them to take a few minutes out of their day to hoax a video and fool some overzealous cryptozoologists.

Still, it is television. :wink:

[Saskeptic]

Umm, I'm assuming people here always recognized the Sonoma Video for the obvious fake that it is.

[damndirtyape]

Trust No One.

Use the figure of a six sided star with three points used for Bigfoot evidence... the opposite star point is the counterpart for that piece of evidence. Rate the evidence by placing a point along a line connecting these points of opposites. Kind of gives you an idea of where something is... one sided, half way inbetween video and hoax or story and lie or track and missidentification... whatever titles you give the points.

I haven't seen anyone use real good judgement yet with this subject, it is all off the top of their heads. There is no quantitative chart for things about any one event. Seen no rating system for context, photography, surface details, subjectivity, romanticisim, ability, knowledge, predisposition... etc.

Penn and Teller did not answer the question for me at least. I trust them as much as I laughed... not much!

[Ty]

Trust No One.

Use the figure of a six sided star with three points used for Bigfoot evidence... the opposite star point is the counterpart for that piece of evidence. Rate the evidence by placing a point along a line connecting these points of opposites. Kind of gives you an idea of where something is... one sided, half way inbetween video and hoax or story and lie or track and missidentification... whatever titles you give the points.

I haven't seen anyone use real good judgement yet with this subject, it is all off the top of their heads. There is no quantitative chart for things about any one event. Seen no rating system for context, photography, surface details, subjectivity, romanticisim, ability, knowledge, predisposition... etc.

Penn and Teller did not answer the question for me at least. I trust them as much as I laughed... not much!

So what are you saying..P&T may not have hoaxed the video and your still holding on to the hope that the video was real?

This post has been edited by Ty2: Apr 25 2006, 09:25 AM

[Snow Kitty]

Nah, Ty2, I think he is saying that it is possible that P&T are claiming cred for a hoax that was not theirs to begin with.... Stealing someone else's thunder so to speak :laugh: Basically when you apply the same rules of evidence to the hoax claim.... it doesn't stand up either :wink:

[MasterBlaster]

Sorry, but with all the work done I would have to say they might have been talking about John and Matt on that show. John was probably pretty hard on them trying to get to the bottom of it all. Guess there can be two types of AO's... LOL.

Could be... and what an honor that would be!!! WOO HOO!! Finally called an asshole on TV, and to be NUMBER ONE ASSHOLE… WOW!!!! … My peers would be proud.

The verbiage quoted as being from “Asshole # 1” is quite different than what I actually said, as anyone that knows me will attest to. However, I did use several ruses in an effort to get him out from behind the computer, as he only sent identical cookie cutter responses to anyone and everyone that emailed him.

After a couple of emails and several phone messages later, he did call me at home and the following is a summary of theses calls:

I did ask him if he wanted to be on a radio show, BUT, I told him that BEFORE this would happen he would have to do some things:
1. show me the whole film and have it authenticated
2. help me personally find the exact film site location
3. face to face interview with his girlfriend Jill
4. take his number off the website so I could easily reach him

But as far as mentioning the San Francisco Chronicle, that wasn’t me… I never gave a name of any paper other than “National Enquirer”, “Weekly World News” and the TV show “Current Affair” in a statement that he could sell it to them and get some bucks (as it appeared that was possibly a motive), but… I told him “if this was a real Bigfoot, the scientific value would be priceless”. I made it extremely clear if he wanted to sell it to a tabloid, I didn’t want to continue any relationship with him. Of course he chose the “scientific path” as he wanted more material for this program.

Along with the ruse, I told him the only way you will get the right publicly/money is if this film is authenticated. Along with that, I said that I didn’t want any money, didn’t need any money, and to beware of those that do.

So bottom line is this; if I am Asshole # 1, is it because of this ruse, or is it because exactly 27 days after “they” put Mark Nelson’s site up, I publicly called it a hoax. My guess would be the latter. I wonder if my article slowed down or even stopped any inquires to them… I guess I would be pissed if I thought I would get a million hits and enough material for a full 30 minute show with just an afternoon invested in creating this segment, and then some asshole comes along and exposes the witness as a liar early in the game… Now that’s Bullshit, and I sure would be pissed off!

I saved my emails and voice messages for anyone that would be interested in see and/or hear them.

BTW, I thought the show was slanted, but funny. And like all that do this, beware of all evidence as it could be tainted, hoaxed or just plain bullshit!

[Hairy Man]

Could be... and what an honor that would be!!! WOO HOO!! Finally called an asshole on TV, and to be NUMBER ONE ASSHOLE… WOW!!!! … My peers would be proud.

I would be proud...if I thought that was really you, but I don't think so. I didn't sound like you, but it does sound like someone who lives in the SF area who shall remain nameless....

[Redwolf]

I would be proud...if I thought that was really you, but I don't think so. I didn't sound like you, but it does sound like someone who lives in the SF area who shall remain nameless....

That was my thought too Kathy.


I was really hoping that they would have mentioned the fact that John had called the hoax early on....too much to hope for and it would have been too hard for P&T to admit that sas reasearchers actually have brains and use them to rule out crap like this.

RW

[Ty]

That was my thought too Kathy.
I was really hoping that they would have mentioned the fact that John had called the hoax early on....too much to hope for and it would have been too hard for P&T to admit that sas reasearchers actually have brains and use them to rule out crap like this.

RW

I don't think it really took an investigator to expose this as a hoax when it was obvious to many here that it was a hoax when it was first posted.

[Redwolf]

I don't think it really took an investigator to expose this as a hoax when it was obvious to many here that it was a hoax when it was first posted.

I said researchers. All of us are researchers in one way or another regarding this subject.

:new_rolleyes:

This post has been edited by Redwolf: Apr 25 2006, 12:20 PM

[Saskwatcher]

From what I've seen of Penn & Teller, claiming a hoax as their own when they had no part in it seems beneath them. It just isn't clever, or smart-assed enough. No, it is more like them to take a few minutes out of their day to hoax a video and fool some overzealous cryptozoologists.

Still, it is television. :wink:

--------------
!!! BINGO !!!
Penn & Teller faked a Bigfoot Video for the sole purpose of 'punking' the Cryptozoological / Bigfoot Community.
I'll betcha dollars-to-donuts that the impetus for this "Stunt" came about after they saw the "Manitoba Video" on A Current Affair & then heard about the BIG $$$$$$$ paid out for that piece o' CRAP!
They then went about doing what ALL Magicians do..... "HEY !!! That's :bsflag: ! I can do THAT !!!
EVEN BETTER !!!
WATCH THIS !!!!"

As a former professional Magician, I am becoming less & less enamored with "Illusions" & those that perpetrate them.
Wonder WHY ? :new_whistle:

It is HIGHLY UNETHICAL in the world of Magicians, to portray your ILLUSIONS as REAL.
Otherwise, Houdini could have ruled several small, third world countries !
Tricks are for ENTERTAINMENT purposes only.... to be done with a 'wink' & a 'nudge' .... not portrayed as REALITY !!!
Take for instance the "Miracle Surgery" hoaxers & the Psychic / Medium FRAUDS that are the BANE of every Magician's existence..... they are still out there on the front-lines battling these CHARLATANS, & their portrayals of "FAKE" as "REAL", everyday !!!

Sound familiar ?

Ironically, that's how P & T first came to notoriety back in the '80's.... they exposed the PRETENTIOUSNESS of Magicians by revealing their methods (another ethical no-no) & raising the ire of Magicians world-wide.

These guys aren't even good Magicians.... just :bsflag: Artists that go around poking people in the eye with a wand ...........
Unfortunately, nowadays, there's a HUGE MARKET for that type "entertainment" !!!

No finesse at all ...............

[Hairy Man]

That was my thought too Kathy.
I was really hoping that they would have mentioned the fact that John had called the hoax early on....too much to hope for and it would have been too hard for P&T to admit that sas reasearchers actually have brains and use them to rule out crap like this.

RW

Oh, you know it may also be Tom Biscardi...

[Melissa]

Oh, you know it may also be Tom Biscardi...

Thats what Im thinking