Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: BF convention covered by Vanity Fair Magazine
Bigfoot Forums > Bigfoot/Sasquatch Discussion > Media
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Witzansky
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/culture/2...t-in-texas.html
QUOTE
Everything's Bigfoot in Texas
Click to view attachment
In a high school cafetorium, a small man in his mid-70s was lecturing to a rapt audience of several hundred people. Dr. Henner Fahrenbach, a retired zoologist from Oregon, is also a self-proclaimed expert in the behavioral habits of a bipedal ape sometimes known as Sasquatch.

“Their top speed for running is between 42 and 45 miles per hour,” Fahrenbach told the crowd, in a thick German accent. “They can cover 90 feet in just three steps, or 30 feet per step. So obviously, they have immensely powerful thighs and legs in general.”

Fahrenbach, one of the featured speakers at the seventh annual Texas Bigfoot Conference, held on October 18 in the north-eastern Texas town of Jefferson, seemed an odd choice for an event that promised to “establish the legitimacy” of the field. Unlike his colleagues—an assortment of authors, academics, and independent Bigfoot researchers—Fahrenbach made no secret of his beliefs. He didn’t speculate about the “possibility” of Bigfoot’s existence. He’s convinced that Sasquatch is not only real but borderline supernatural—a monster straight out of Greek mythology.
Click to view attachment
Dr. Henner Fahrenbach delivers his lecture to a dubious audience.

“Sasquatch has been observed walking with two 200-pound pigs under his arm through the countryside,” Fahrenbach declared. “On another occasion, he’s been witnessed grabbing three goats with one arm and walking over a five-foot fence without breaking stride.”

Drawing on interviews with dozens of eye-witnesses, Fahrenbach went on to say that Bigfoot’s diet is rich in mussels, clams, peacocks, and the “hindquarter” of deer. He insisted that Bigfoots enjoy wrestling, tickle fights, and, most surprisingly, gangbangs. He assured us that even a horny Sasquatch has an impeccable sense of orgy etiquette.

“When an especially large male came onto the scene,” Fahrenbach said, describing a sexual pileup involving one willing female and lots of dudes, “he didn’t try to buck the line but simply stood there and took his turn in good time.”

In the beginning of his lecture, there was some nervous giggling from those in the audience. After a while, they just stared at Fahrenbach, a few with jaws agape. Somewhere in the back row, a woman turned to her husband and whispered, “I can’t tell if he’s kidding.”

It’s been a rough few months for Bigfoot true believers. Last August, a pair of hoaxers in Georgia tried to convince the world that they’d found a Sasquatch carcass, which turned out to be a cooler filled with animal entrails and a rubber gorilla costume. The Bigfoot legend has always been a hard sell, but after such a high-profile scandal, it hasn’t been easy to keep the faith when even casual cryptozoologists are portrayed as gullible or insane, and sometimes both.

At least during the first half of this year’s conference, the speakers tried to prove that all Bigfoot researchers aren’t con artists or rednecks who subscribe to the Weekly World News. Most of the morning was devoted to raw data, delivered in a grave monotone by Daryl Colyer, a member of the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy. He rarely used the word Bigfoot, opting instead for vague descriptions like “unlisted primate species” or “unknown, upright hair-covered species.”
Click to view attachment
A map showing reported Bigfoot sightings.

Colyer numerated a staggering amount of minutiae from reported Bigfoot sightings, including the creature’s hair color (31 percent of witnesses claim it’s red-brown), location of sightings (2 percent of Bigfoots hide up in trees), what the witness was doing during sightings (11 percent were fishing, 5 percent were biking, and just 2 percent were in the midst of a picnic), and a vast array of Bigfoot’s vocal sounds, from growls and screams to whoops, grunts, roars, howls, moans, and hoots.

“A hoot could be interpreted as being the same thing as a whoop,” Colyer admitted without cracking a smile.

Later, a wildlife biologist from Oklahoma named Alton Higgins talked about Bigfoot hoaxes, using a PowerPoint presentation to demonstrate how costumes and obvious frauds could be identified. There were the obvious clues—thick, tubular lower legs and zippers—and also more complicated hoax telltales, like irregular arm-leg symmetry and head/humerus proportions.

The audience nodded appreciatively, and those clutching notebooks wrote down every detail, as if these observations directly affected their own research. They were primarily male and middle-aged, an even mix of grizzled hunters and fantasy fan-boys. It was a sea of grey beards, plaid jackets, and Bigfoot-kitsch t-shirts.

But just how serious are they? According to Brian Brown, the conference’s M.C. and the host of several Bigfoot podcasts, their interest level is somewhere between aloof skepticism and giddy enthusiasm.

“A lot of people here try to be as conservative as possible,” he said. “It’s all about the results and not jumping to conclusions. But as in any field of study, there are a large number who just want to believe. They want to go out into the woods and get scared. They love the idea that there’s a hairy monster out in the shadows somewhere.”

Michael Cathey, a Bigfoot enthusiast from Oklahoma (he runs his own canoeing business called Bigfoot Floats), falls into the latter category. “I remember doing reports on Bigfoot in Junior High,” he said. “That’s what I wanted to do someday, go out and find Bigfoot. But you know, the older I get, I kinda don’t want him to be found anymore. It’s better as a mystery.”

Those who’ve devoted their careers to studying Bigfoot, however, aren’t content to let it remain folklore. And they certainly don’t like being dismissed by a cynical media. David Paulides, a conference speaker and Bigfoot researcher from Northern California, complained that “the biggest headlines are for the hoaxes and the people who probably aren’t doing the best kind of research. The guys in the background, who are sitting in the woods and doing the hard work, they aren’t getting the press they deserve.

“Like Dr. Meldrum,” he continued, pointing to a man sitting behind a table and selling plaster cast Bigfoot footprints for $40 a pop. “He put his entire career on the line by coming out and saying, ‘Hey, these things are real.’ And he’s still ridiculed about it. There’s a hero for you to write about.”

He may have a point that the media can be too quick to judge, but he and his peers need to share at least some of the blame. It was impossible not to smile during the conference when a lecturer was introduced as “the foremost expert and collector of Sasquatch hair,” or when a speaker discussed Bigfoot’s criminal history (according to Native American legend) of kidnapping young boys and eating human flesh, or when Paulides made the disturbing revelation that Bigfoot might be drawn to menstruating women, and has been observed digging though garbage cans, looking for used tampons.

If they don’t want to be ridiculed by the media, then they should try a little harder not to make it so easy.

They haven’t exactly received a warm reception from mainstream science, either. “Obviously there is no official consensus when it comes to a controversial topic,” said Dr. Jeff Meldrum, an associate professor of anthropology at Idaho State University, where many of his fellow professors have publicly dismissed his Bigfoot research as a “joke.” “Such a thing is a rarity in the scientific community, especially one such as the possible existence of Sasquatch. Those most vocal are the ideological or professional skeptics. But I find more and more colleagues interested to learn more about what I am doing to investigate this question.”

Dr. Henry Gee, a senior editor for Nature magazine, doesn’t think the climate is quite so accepting. “In my opinion, the scientific community at large regards Bigfoot as either a figment of peoples’ imagination or a hoax,” he said. Which doesn’t mean he doesn’t subscribe to his own special brand of crazy. “That’s not to deny the possibility, even if remote, that unknown human-like creatures might await discovery in some part of the world,” he said. “The discovery of fossils of Homo floresiensis, otherwise known as “The Hobbit,” a strange humanoid creature that lived in Indonesia until at least 14,000 years ago, increases that possibility.”

In other words, Sasquatch is probably fictional. But Hobbits running around in a prehistoric Middle Earth? Totally real!

*****
Click to view attachment
The author poses with a Bigfoot head.

“Some day a good picture’s going to come out,” said Robert Swain, author of an unsyndicated comic strip called “Laughsquatch,” in one of the most heartfelt speeches of the day. “And it’s not going to be the Georgia hoax that we’ve all cringed about. It’s going to be something that you can really put stock in, and people are going to start looking at this community as something that’s really credible and something they need to take seriously. We probably have an endangered species that’s a very important scientific find, right here under our noses. We need to help science because science doesn’t know what to look for. It’s going to be up to us to find it.

“I appreciate everybody that’s out there looking for Bigfoot,” he added. “Because I think it’s only a matter of time before we bring him home.”

Perhaps the most telling moment of the conference occurred during the panel discussion. Asked if they thought it was ethical to shoot and kill a Bigfoot—if only to collect DNA samples for research—every speaker, without hesitation, said no.

“It doesn’t have to be killed,” said Craig Woolheater, the conference’s director and founder. “Somebody could be hiking in the woods of north Georgia, for instance, and actually find a Sasquatch body. But until that happens, we’ll stick with documenting it with video and photographic evidence.”

Kathy Strain, the author of a collection of Bigfoot lore called Giants, Cannibals & Monsters, just shrugged and said, “I don’t know that DNA is necessarily going to make or break this case.”

It’s unlikely that Bigfoot research will ever gain the credibility its proponents crave, at least while they consider DNA overrated. Real science requires more than blurry photos and first-person accounts from jittery hikers. But maybe scientific legitimacy isn’t as important to them as they claim. After all, gathering too much information might backfire, accidentally disproving the creature they’ve come to love and need. Better to keep Bigfoot at a safe distance, where it can remain mythical and larger than life, leaping over canyons and kidnapping women and hosting forest gangbangs.

The last word on Bigfoot hunting went to Dr. Fahrenbach. The question of whether to shoot Sasquatch was moot, he said, because such a plot would never succeed. “Bigfoot would just swat at the bullets as if a bee had stung him.” The audience laughed, but it wasn’t a derisive laugh. It almost sounded like a sigh of relief.

The mystery of Bigfoot, at least for now, is safe.

Illustration by John Hogan

Photos by Jim Lichtenwalter



Commented by Cryptomundo:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bf-sex-tex/

Sorry if this is old news.
wbh
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bf-sex-tex/

Sorry if this is old news.
[/quote]

I agree, my wife and I were at Texas and we found it to be very informative as well as entertaining. The reporter was just doing his job, but it doesn't appear that he shared the same views as the majority of the people that were there.
Maybe someday there will be proof positive that will sway this person.
longtabber PE
QUOTE(wbh @ Oct 31 2008, 09:04 AM) *
Maybe someday there will be proof positive that will sway this person.


From the article
>>>“They can cover 90 feet in just three steps, or 30 feet per step.

>>>He’s convinced that Sasquatch is not only real but borderline supernatural—a monster straight out of Greek mythology.


>>>Sasquatch has been observed walking with two 200-pound pigs under his arm through the countryside,” Fahrenbach declared. “On another occasion, he’s been witnessed grabbing three goats with one arm and walking over a five-foot fence without breaking stride.”

>>>Fahrenbach went on to say that Bigfoot’s diet is rich in mussels, clams, peacocks

>>>He insisted that Bigfoots enjoy wrestling, tickle fights, and, most surprisingly, gangbangs. He assured us that even a horny Sasquatch has an impeccable sense of orgy etiquette.

>>>Fahrenbach said, describing a sexual pileup involving one willing female and lots of dudes, “he didn’t try to buck the line but simply stood there and took his turn in good time.”

>>>The last word on Bigfoot hunting went to Dr. Fahrenbach. The question of whether to shoot Sasquatch was moot, he said, because such a plot would never succeed. “Bigfoot would just swat at the bullets as if a bee had stung him.”

Thats gonna take a LOT of "proof"
wbh
I agree. I have heard similar stories from other sources. I don't know if they are true or not.

But you are correct. It's gonna take a "lot" of proof.

The story I heard involving the 30 foot steps, were jumping, not walking or running.
Yea, maybe hard to believe, but I don't think it's immpossible.
longtabber PE
I hate to say it but that article will do more harm to the cause and credibility to the world of BF than 10,000 Ga Boyz.

Any objective observer ( or even the general public at large) can see hoaxers and such as not true representatives of the field but this comes from a Phd who is supposedly one of the foremost "experts" in the field at an official function?

If anyone ever wonders why mainstream science wont touch this subject and the "leaders' ( professional types- not the rank and filers) are the subject of scorn and ridicule- this is your flagship example.

All these claims ( listed above) from reports that have no evidenciary support at all "believed' and professed as scientific FACT? by a real PhD? ( who cannot even say he directly witnessed any of it- he is basing his "science" on stories)

Even if the article sacrificed some verbatim "accuracy" ( but according to Loren- its reasonably accurate)- this article is damning in regard to BF "science"

Remember in the Bindernagle thread where several people cautioned that at the PhD level- you have standards and need to watch words carefully? Here is an example of what we were referring to.

Sit back and imagine teachers, scholars, PhD's and such ( and this magazine has that kind of presence)

( not to mention people on boards and at the highest echelons) reading a PhD ( of all things) saying this- now read that Meldrum is on the card as well ( guilt by association)

Now, imagine what they will think and remember and the "shadow" cast on the entire subject.

You think the Ga Boyz, Biscardi, Green , Coy and ilk have torpedoed the credibility of BF ? Nah, that article was a DEFCON IV level full nuclear ( or nucular for some Texans) strike.
billgreen2005bigfoot
interesting new article about sasquatch convention. good afternoon & happy halloween. bill new_thumbsupsmileyanim.gif
damndirtyape
Henner’s talk at the TBRC convention was prefaced by a statement concerning habituation encounters he has been researching. He stated this information came from predominately single women living on the outskirts of rural towns. I look at his talk more as an exercise in cultural anthropology versus physical. Yes, he is a PHD but not in that particular field. This should not prevent him from discussing the information he has come across as long as those sources and the context is included.

Henner spoke differently than when Loren Coleman spoke of similar characteristics and behaviors some attribute to the physical being. Henner had a shopping list of items that he organized into something that might help in defining the animal being discussed at the conference. He spoke of one type of animal, not many different versions.

I see no problem with this making it into main stream scientific journals as long as it was associated to other cultures that have belief structures describing similar fantastic and as yet undiscovered myths.

I have run in to the same kind of information in the past. It comes from the same type of source as well. I would never make a paper about it or give a lecture concerning it but I have read some concerning native South Americans where this would have fit right in.

Henner’s talk was interesting in that people got to hear the extremes attributed to this animal. I talked extensively with Henner before and after his talk. He finds these claims fascinating but has never once said to me that he believes them to be true. Most of the time when asked if there was any proof he simply states (with a chuckle) ‘well of course the camera jammed’ or ‘the creature left when they went to go get their camera’, etc.

As far as the article is concerned, many have been written in the same mindset and it is more a reflection of the writer then the subject being written about. Time has proven this out over and over.
longtabber PE
Good attempt at damage control

>>>Henner’s talk at the TBRC convention was prefaced by a statement concerning habituation encounters he has been researching. He stated this information came from predominately single women living on the outskirts of rural towns.

??? Am I to understand that he is/was researching habituation encounters of Bigfoot using information from "single women living on the outskirts of rural towns"?

How is all of this tied together and correlated to information regarding Bigfoot?

>>>This should not prevent him from discussing the information he has come across as long as those sources and the context is included.

was the source of the 30' "step" and the "gangbang" cited?

>>>defining the animal being discussed at the conference. He spoke of one type of animal, not many different versions.

was some other "animal" other than BF the subject?

>>>I see no problem with this making it into main stream scientific journals as long as it was associated to other cultures that have belief structures describing similar fantastic and as yet undiscovered myths.

The gangbang or swatting bullets?

>>>He finds these claims fascinating but has never once said to me that he believes them to be true. Most of the time when asked if there was any proof he simply states (with a chuckle) ‘well of course the camera jammed’ or ‘the creature left when they went to go get their camera’, etc.

Apparently he has no problem with stating them and implying belief

>>>As far as the article is concerned, many have been written in the same mindset and it is more a reflection of the writer then the subject being written about. Time has proven this out over and over.

I wouldnt bet on that.
COGrizzly
I wonder if Vivid would like to be there to cover the Gangbang?!
peregrine
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Oct 31 2008, 11:31 AM) *
Henner’s talk at the TBRC convention was prefaced by a statement concerning habituation encounters he has been researching...
Fahrenbach said most of his info came from scouring through many hundreds of reports, primarily BFRO and TBRC. He also included particulars from his own investigations and interviews. While I don't think it was very prudent to delve, even slightly, into the subject of purported sexual behaviors, his recounting of anecdotal statements made to him wasn't inappropriate, IMO. From talking to him afterward, he doesn't accept everything told to him by so-called habituators at face value (e.g., Janice Coy).

QUOTE
As far as the article is concerned, many have been written in the same mindset and it is more a reflection of the writer then the subject being written about. Time has proven this out over and over.
Yes.
longtabber PE
>>>Fahrenbach said most of his info came from scouring through many hundreds of reports, primarily BFRO and TBRC.

Is this taken to mean that the entire basis and foundation of his "evidence" and his proclamations come from internet postings that are questionable at best, investigated improperly ( or not at all) by people who are neither qualified/equipped/trained or experienced to conduct ( much less make a credibility assessment) anything resembling an investigation in the first place?

His dataset is derived from stories on the net that in almost every case is validated by a phone call and an unqualified opinion that the "witness sounded credible to me"?

And this is a PhD?

>>>He also included particulars from his own investigations and interviews.

Was the orgy, bullet swatting, pig carrying, 30 ft steps or tickle fights from his personal investigations?
( I would love to know how he investigated those and what were the fruits of same)

>>>his recounting of anecdotal statements made to him wasn't inappropriate,

at the dinner or in casual conversation, probably not- but speaking as a legitimate scientist in a professional presentation with an organization that seeks to "prove" the existence of BF- not wise at all

>>>From talking to him afterward, he doesn't accept everything told to him by so-called habituators at face value (e.g., Janice Coy).

Given their reputations, why would a "legitimate" scientist even give their claims audience? ( its a managing perceptions thing)

>>>As far as the article is concerned, many have been written in the same mindset and it is more a reflection of the writer then the subject being written about. Time has proven this out over and over.Yes.

Lets look at the comments from VF

>>>Dr. Henry Gee, a senior editor for Nature magazine, doesn’t think the climate is quite so accepting. “In my opinion, the scientific community at large regards Bigfoot as either a figment of peoples’ imagination or a hoax,”
( I guess no articles there)

>>>Spitznagel nails it. This sad, suffering, respect-craving lot of folks are second only to "Furries" on the lower rungs of geek culture. It's hard to take something this silly seriously,

( that opinion doesnt sound like its reflecting on the author to me)

>>>I hope he does exist and that no one ever finds him. And with these folks "researching" him, I don't think we'll find him any time soon. Great story!

( theres a vote of confidence)

>>>These people, though I think they are beeing rather foolish, keep alive the sparkle of magic and fantasy that makes us truly human.

( theres one opinion specifically on the subject)

>>>Intelligent, funny, and a window into a strange little world

( does that sound like positive legitimate recognition?)

Believe what you wish but I dont see any of that as putting the subject of BF in a legitimate or positive light.
Saskeptic
Ah, the good Dr. Fahrenbach now - with a little Dr. Meldrum selling casts (!) thrown in for good measure!

What's wrong with this? The reason proponents pay ANY attention to what these guys have to say is because of those three little letters at the end of their names: "PhD." When Fahrenbach appears in public and spouts crap like this, he's legitimizing the crap among the masses who place a lot of stock in his opinion. When an established scientist is reduced (by his own actions) to being a mouthpiece for that Coy habituation nonsense, then he has abdicated his position of authority as a scientist.

These guys should be critically evaluating evidence, not publicly repeating any manner of garbage that gets flung their way.
Teresa
I gotta agree with Saskeptic on this one. Criminy.
RioBravo
Does anybody really think the public's opinion of the BF community is any different now than it was 10, 20, or 30 years ago?

The Patterson-Gimlin footage is unarguably the most significant event in BF history and that was 40 YEARS AGO.
Saskeptic
We had a thread not long ago about "the top 3 reasons" for your belief in bigfoot. Interesting reading. For a lot of folks, the PGF (obviously a subject of hot debate) is #1. I bet for about 90% of those respondents, #2 or #3 included something popularized by guys like Bindernagel, Meldrum, or Fahrenbach. These "heroes" as the guy interviewed for the article states, hold enormous sway over the core believers out there.

That influence is fine, if it's used for good. But there is something that strikes me as unethical about helping to perpetuate belief in bigfoot based in part on evidence you know darn well to be suspect* when you yourself stand to profit from believers who buy your book, pay money to hear you speak, buy the plaster casts you sell at a booth, etc.

*And if you can't tell that it's suspect, then you've got some other problems . . .
Texas Tracker
Curious. Here we have people who were not at the conference accepting an unscrupulous journalist's obviously satirical blog as gospel for what actually transpired or how it transpired.

I would estimate that probably 80 - 90% of what the writer wrote was inaccurate, twisted, taken out of context, exaggerated and/or amplified purely for purposes of lampooning the conference and those who attended, no matter who they were, audience and speakers alike. The guy's intent was obviously to make a mockery of the event, so he latched onto anything that might be controversial, dropped it in without context and amplified it.

It would be quite easy for a person to lampoon ANY conference, whether it be a conference of birders, primatologists, stargazers or bigfoot researchers, provided that going into the conference, that person's agenda included doing so.

Sptiznagel thought it was a joke to begin with. His intent was to lampoon the event and those present. He did so. This is not the first time that someone in the press has expressed disdain for bigfoot researchers and it won't be the last.

Regarding PhD behavior dos and don'ts, one might include on the list of don'ts: thou shalt not hang out and make hundreds or thousands of posts on a forum dedicated to a subject that according to a Vanity Fair hit job article is obviously only for nutjobs.
Teresa
Thou shalt not tell another member that they should not hang out and post on the forum.

You were there TT, for those of us not there how about a transcript of what Henner said?
damndirtyape
No need. Its all on video.
damndirtyape
QUOTE(Saskeptic @ Oct 31 2008, 12:32 PM) *
Ah, the good Dr. Fahrenbach now - with a little Dr. Meldrum selling casts (!) thrown in for good measure!

What's wrong with this? The reason proponents pay ANY attention to what these guys have to say is because of those three little letters at the end of their names: "PhD." When Fahrenbach appears in public and spouts crap like this, he's legitimizing the crap among the masses who place a lot of stock in his opinion. When an established scientist is reduced (by his own actions) to being a mouthpiece for that Coy habituation nonsense, then he has abdicated his position of authority as a scientist.

These guys should be critically evaluating evidence, not publicly repeating any manner of garbage that gets flung their way.


I would agree also except for the fact that all I know of the subject is from a bad attempt at book writing, posts here on the BFF, a strange talk given by a new researcher at a Ray Crow meeting, a slanted NG sequence and what Henner said during his talk. I have never been to Coy's home or the California woman's place so I can only go so far with this. Just when I think I know something for sure I'm usually proved wrong.

In private, Henner and I discussed these kinds of things being witnessed by single women after the conference... in the dark but with perfect visual accuity. Didn't make sense to either one of us. Autumn could be questioned on it I guess, as well as Kristine.

Still think too much emphasis is being put on the PhD thing. They are human just like us and make the same mistakes, whether it be in being misunderstood or gullible. As smart as Jeff, Henner, Krantz or who ever with that PhD thing attached are, I wouldn't let them near my cameras or bike to work on.

Faulting Jeff for selling copies of casts from his collection... no comment on that one. I have always maintained that copies do nothing but provide ammo for would be hoaxers. This has proven the case on several occasions. The more famous a cast is though, the safer it is to copy and cover the costs in selling I suppose.
ThisIsJack
QUOTE(longtabber PE @ Oct 31 2008, 07:58 AM) *
I hate to say it but that article will do more harm to the cause and credibility to the world of BF than 10,000 Ga Boyz.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
And, oh c'mon... just admit it... you loved saying it..

QUOTE
If anyone ever wonders why mainstream science wont touch this subject and the "leaders' ( professional types- not the rank and filers) are the subject of scorn and ridicule- this is your flagship example.
Because of whatshisname's hitpiece? Is Vanity Fair among mainstream science's peer-reviewed and/or influential references? The BFF Record generally shows that the critical examination, accountability and range of opinion generally balances out well among this community, as reflected here.

QUOTE
Remember in the Bindernagle thread where several people cautioned that at the PhD level- you have standards and need to watch words carefully? Here is an example of what we were referring to.
Obviously, Bindernagel let some slip, but he was also careful with his words. Some critics/skeptics/experts weren't watching his written words well..

QUOTE
You think the Ga Boyz, Biscardi, Green , Coy and ilk have torpedoed the credibility of BF ? Nah, that article was a DEFCON IV level full nuclear ( or nucular for some Texans) strike.
Methinks again.


QUOTE(Texas Tracker @ Oct 31 2008, 05:52 PM) *
Regarding PhD behavior dos and don'ts, one might include on the list of don'ts: thou shalt not hang out and make hundreds or thousands of posts on a forum dedicated to a subject that according to a Vanity Fair hit job article is obviously only for nutjobs.
Methinks thou dost kick ass.
StacyInMI
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Oct 31 2008, 12:31 PM) *
As far as the article is concerned, many have been written in the same mindset and it is more a reflection of the writer then the subject being written about. Time has proven this out over and over.

I completely disagree with that.

And I'll admit right off the bat that I'm posting mad, which may be a mistake but oh well.

Normally I don't care how the media portrays us, and usually appreciate a humerous, sarcastic article. But this is not the media making bigfoot research look ridiculous, it's the researchers themselves.

I'm actually upset about this one. Angry, disgusted... not at the writer ('cause who can blame him with the precious gems of wisdom he was given to work with), but because of people like Fahrenbach and Paulides making idiots out of us all. Who can blame the writer for treating it as a joke with them making such asinine statements as they did? Who can blame the general public for thinking we're all a bunch of deluded morons when we're represented that way? For the first time ever, I actually feel embarrassed about doing this. The writer himself put it best: "If they don’t want to be ridiculed by the media, then they should try a little harder not to make it so easy.

GEE, YA THINK?? headbang.gif
Pywacket
Isn't Vanity Fair a girly magazine, anyway? smile.gif
Teresa
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Oct 31 2008, 10:14 PM) *
No need. Its all on video.


Are those available to the public now, and at what price?
damndirtyape
QUOTE(Teresa @ Nov 1 2008, 07:53 AM) *
Are those available to the public now, and at what price?


I just got my equipment delivered home from Texas so no it isn't available yet.
longtabber PE
Based on the evidence available- ( at least regarding the article) it seems to be accurate

Loren entitles his article "BF-sex-tex" and then goes on to praise Fahrenbach for "that appears to have gone way beyond what I said even in my chapter, “Sex and the Single Sasquatch,”

>>>It is highly doubtful that Fahrenbach was kidding, and I’m happy to hear the serious Bigfoot researchers like Fahrenbach are being challenged enough by this issue to detail their findings and thoughts, however misunderstood by the media. Is there a change happening within hominology? I applaud Fahrenbach for swimming these shark-filled waters with me, even if reporter Spitznagel may have been unprepared to hear what was being said.
In general, the account in Vanity Fair appears to be a good, down-to-earth sharing of what happened at the Texas conference.


Now, is he lying? He even says Fahrenbach goes "WAY BEYOND" his own sexual chapter. ( how else can you read that?)

Then theres this ( quoting the article on his site)

>>>It is highly doubtful that Fahrenbach was kidding, ( referenced again for its sheer impact)
Next, I do NOT see anyone ( there or not) saying anything was NOT said- I do see several saying it was taken out of "context" and various other types of spin damage control- yet they dont clarify what "was' taken out of context and then put it in its "proper" context.

I dont see an official "rebuttal" posted on VF by anyone ( or anywhere else) ( you would expect the speakers at least to correct the authors misrepresentations of their words- wouldnt you?)

Now, said or not- what really needs to be brought forth is his EVIDENCIARY case that supports his words ( thats the teller of the final tale)

I really want to see the report from the "witness" that saw this "gang bang" and remembered such "detail" and this 30ft step and the scene investigation regarding the pigs and goats.

And lastly, I would like more detail regarding this "habituation" thing with single women living on the outskirts of rural towns. ( and the dataset and investigation supporting it)

and for Jack

>>>Because of whatshisname's hitpiece?

No, theres the recent Ga Boyz, TB and the "live" BF capture, the original MQ "performance", The MK "massacre" and everything else

>>>Is Vanity Fair among mainstream science's peer-reviewed and/or influential references?

No but Nature is up there and did you see Dr Gee's comments? Also, if you dont think mags like VF have a great deal of "influence" over the "masses" you need to check the "impact" of people like Oprah, Maurey, Tiger beats and others.
COGrizzly
I'm just glad ThisIsJack changed his scary clown avatar
Teresa
All I want to know is did Henner Fahrenbach actually say these items during his presentation at the Texas Conference?

QUOTE
"Sasquatch has been observed walking with two 200-pound pigs under his arm through the countryside," Fahrenbach declared. "On another occasion, he's been witnessed grabbing three goats with one arm and walking over a five-foot fence without breaking stride"

Drawing on interviews with dozens of eye-witnesses, Fahrenbach went on to say that Bigfoot's diet is rich in mussels, clams, peacocks, and the "hindquarter" of deer. He insisted that Bigfoots enjoy wrestling, tickle fights, and, most surprisingly, gangbangs. He assured us that even a horny Sasquatch has an impeccable sense of orgy etiquette.

"When an especially large male came onto the scene," Fahrenbach said, describing a sexual pileup involving one willing female and lots of dudes, "he didn't try to buck the line but simply stood there and took his turn in good time."
(bolding mine)

The DVD isn't ready yet, so could anyone who went confirm whether Henner made these statements?
Teresa
Here's the press kit for the readership of the magazine. Whether true or not they boast about quite an audience.

http://www.condenastmediakit.com/vf/circulation.cfm
longtabber PE
QUOTE(Teresa @ Nov 1 2008, 12:01 PM) *
All I want to know is did Henner Fahrenbach actually say these items during his presentation at the Texas Conference?

(bolding mine)

The DVD isn't ready yet, so could anyone who went confirm whether Henner made these statements?



It might be prudent to note that there was also a photographer with him and its the norm for the press to use recorders too. ( they do it to help them remember direct quotes and at times defend what they write when challenged) so the second question is can the author back up his claims as well. ( they normally can)

There are 2 questions- did he say the quoted words and then were the words referenced in the article quoted in proper context.

I say that because should there be a "defensive" type spin- theres a strong chance it can be countered and that could result in even worse follow up. ( imagine a second article quoting attempts to spin it away and the author laying the facts on the table for all to see)

I have been told ( from another board) that the author has been emailed and is "watching"
longtabber PE
time ran out- in reference to an email i was just sent.

The email in question was referencing anticipated comments ( from people there referring to some who routinely quote Fahrenbach) on a different board's thread and was sent before this thread was made the next day. I would believe that its probable that a follow up email regarding this one has probably been sent but thats me speculating.
hopeful
QUOTE(Texas Tracker @ Oct 31 2008, 08:52 PM) *
Curious. Here we have people who were not at the conference accepting an unscrupulous journalist's obviously satirical blog as gospel for what actually transpired or how it transpired.

I would estimate that probably 80 - 90% of what the writer wrote was inaccurate, twisted, taken out of context, exaggerated and/or amplified purely for purposes of lampooning the conference and those who attended, no matter who they were, audience and speakers alike. The guy's intent was obviously to make a mockery of the event, so he latched onto anything that might be controversial, dropped it in without context and amplified it.

It would be quite easy for a person to lampoon ANY conference, whether it be a conference of birders, primatologists, stargazers or bigfoot researchers, provided that going into the conference, that person's agenda included doing so.

Sptiznagel thought it was a joke to begin with. His intent was to lampoon the event and those present. He did so. This is not the first time that someone in the press has expressed disdain for bigfoot researchers and it won't be the last. ...


I was there, and Texas Tracker's post sums it up perfectly. Teresa, yes, Dr. F. did say some of those things, but I certainly don't recall the term 'gangbang.' Several times throughout his presentation he says, "It's been reported ..." and then he would go on to relay what he has read and/or what he has personally investigated. He made several jokes throughout his presentation and given his dry sense of humor I can see how some people may have not caught on. He also said that people should read the available reports and books for themselves and decide for themselves.

The article is only an attempt at lampooning, and whether or not it has a big impact on the public's impression is not important, IMO. We already know that people who don't want to believe will never believe until they themselves see one.

The author's intent is to obviously mock anybody, and, IMO, ironically he makes a mockery out of his own intelligence. From the article:
QUOTE
Dr. Henry Gee, a senior editor for Nature magazine, doesn’t think the climate is quite so accepting. “In my opinion, the scientific community at large regards Bigfoot as either a figment of peoples’ imagination or a hoax,” he said. Which doesn’t mean he doesn’t subscribe to his own special brand of crazy. “That’s not to deny the possibility, even if remote, that unknown human-like creatures might await discovery in some part of the world,” he said. “The discovery of fossils of Homo floresiensis, otherwise known as “The Hobbit,” a strange humanoid creature that lived in Indonesia until at least 14,000 years ago, increases that possibility.”

In other words, Sasquatch is probably fictional. But Hobbits running around in a prehistoric Middle Earth? Totally real!
(My emphasis.)

So, I plan to just take this dude with a grain of salt and concentrate on things more worthy of my energy. (Such as photo shopped cougars and mysterious howling critters in the night!) thumbup.gif
longtabber PE
>>>yes, Dr. F. did say some of those things,

That answers that

>>> but I certainly don't recall the term 'gangbang.'

The author doeesnt attribute that to Fahrenbach nor the dude comment ( they arent in quotations)- thats the author's colloquialism- not the speakers words ( look at the """" arrangements)

>>>Several times throughout his presentation he says, "It's been reported ..." and then he would go on to relay what he has read and/or what he has personally investigated.

And thats what has crushed him ( see SAS's post above) when he parrots things- he's done as a legitimate scientist. ( and if he "investigated" them then he needs to bring his evidence and as a PhD it had better be something more than "it sounds good to me") Its incumbent on a PhD to bring "facts and data" to the table. ( thats what they teach you in PhD school)

Mike Nifong said what Crystal "reported" to him and he "believed" her too and proclaimed it to the masses ( see where that went and he is[ was] a PhD too)

>>>He also said that people should read the available reports and books for themselves and decide for themselves.

I would LOVE to read the report of the orgy, the 30' step, the pig/goat 1 arm carry, the peacock diet. I have had mental images of how those read and I would LOVE to know how they were investigated and determined to be credible. Does anyone know where they are at for review?

>>>We already know that people who don't want to believe will never believe until they themselves see one.

Its much deeper than that. The people there ( by whats on their website) have a mission statement that their goal is to PROVE the existance of BF and to do it SCIENTIFICALLY. ( their words and claims- not mine, just look at the board)

Now put that mission statement together with one of the "foremost" PhD's in the "field' making claims like that ( regardless of what "disclaimers" he may have mentioned along the way just so it can be said he was "scientific sounding") is scientific heresy. Incompetance at that level is worthy of career termination ( ask Mike Nifong)
hopeful
QUOTE(longtabber PE @ Nov 1 2008, 02:45 PM) *
...Mike Nifong said what Crystal "reported" to him and he "believed" her too and proclaimed it to the masses ( see where that went and he is[ was] a PhD too)... Incompetance at that level is worthy of career termination ( ask Mike Nifong)


You seriously expect us to draw relevant parallels between the Duke trial and Dr. F's bigfoot presentation? I highly doubt that the potential relults of Dr. Fahrenbach's light hearted talked based on some of his research can be any where near the potential devastation of human livelihood intended by Nifong with his. That's even beyond an 'apples and oranges' type comparison.
longtabber PE
QUOTE(hopeful @ Nov 1 2008, 03:10 PM) *
You seriously expect us to draw relevant parallels between the Duke trial and Dr. F's bigfoot presentation? I highly doubt that the potential relults of Dr. Fahrenbach's light hearted talked based on some of his research can be any where near the potential devastation of human livelihood intended by Nifong with his. That's even beyond an 'apples and oranges' type comparison.


"Literally" of course not but in concept- they are somewhat parallel and the moral is the same.

At a given level ( in this case the top of a field with the highest of credentials and with the knowledge that your words[ REGARDLESS of how cleverly phrased] have BOTH a significant impact and influence over others and your field in general)- it is your duty by degree and position to be exhaustive to ensure the highest standards of quality and accuracy of everything you say and do when speaking or acting in that capacity. NOTHING less is acceptable.

Would you tolerate a Medical Doctor diagnosing you for a potentially critical disease by just reading stories out of Readers Digest and saying "yeah, that sounds like something you may have too"?

Theres no conceptual difference or honestly practical one either.

Let me ask you this. Was he speaking as good old Henner just having an "informal" squat and talk or was he DOCTOR Fahrenbach speaking as an accepted professional attempting to make a legitimate scientific case for his words at an official conference?

You cant have it both ways. Standards of professional conduct dont allow for it.
GuyInIndiana
QUOTE(Saskeptic @ Oct 31 2008, 06:20 PM) *
We had a thread not long ago about "the top 3 reasons" for your belief in bigfoot. Interesting reading. For a lot of folks, the PGF (obviously a subject of hot debate) is #1. I bet for about 90% of those respondents, #2 or #3 included something popularized by guys like Bindernagel, Meldrum, or Fahrenbach. These "heroes" as the guy interviewed for the article states, hold enormous sway over the core believers out there.


Well, thanksfully, you can NOT count me in that lot.
Teresa
I have the deepest respect for Meldrum, Bindernagel and Fahrenbach but Lordy, it's hard to believe he gave a lecture on bigfoots' sex life at the Texas Conference. PhD's are expected by the public to put out scientific information when giving lectures, they aren't generally known for their stand-up comedy if it was a light hearted moment. The subject of bigfoot is out there to Joe Q Public, even when speaking scientifically and sensically about it. When scientists do stand up comedy about bigfoots' sex life... well... does anyone see how that looks besides me? I was associated with Henner when we were both in the BFRO and I think he's a sweetheart, BTW, but ohmuhgawd... bigfoot orgies? Bless his heart.
HOLDMYBEER
Wow. What a collection of poorly vetted reports can do years down the road is a phenomenon unto itself.
Carolina_Dog
QUOTE(StacyInMI @ Nov 1 2008, 07:30 AM) *
I completely disagree with that.

And I'll admit right off the bat that I'm posting mad, which may be a mistake but oh well.

Normally I don't care how the media portrays us, and usually appreciate a humerous, sarcastic article. But this is not the media making bigfoot research look ridiculous, it's the researchers themselves.

I'm actually upset about this one. Angry, disgusted... not at the writer ('cause who can blame him with the precious gems of wisdom he was given to work with), but because of people like Fahrenbach and Paulides making idiots out of us all. Who can blame the writer for treating it as a joke with them making such asinine statements as they did? Who can blame the general public for thinking we're all a bunch of deluded morons when we're represented that way? For the first time ever, I actually feel embarrassed about doing this. The writer himself put it best: "If they don’t want to be ridiculed by the media, then they should try a little harder not to make it so easy.

GEE, YA THINK?? headbang.gif


My thoughts exactly but written much more clearly than I could have done!

I think the author just wrote what he saw.
911Guy
QUOTE(longtabber PE @ Nov 1 2008, 02:33 PM) *
Would you tolerate a Medical Doctor diagnosing you for a potentially critical disease by just reading stories out of Readers Digest and saying "yeah, that sounds like something you may have too"?

Theres no conceptual difference or honestly practical one either.

Let me ask you this. Was he speaking as good old Henner just having an "informal" squat and talk or was he DOCTOR Fahrenbach speaking as an accepted professional attempting to make a legitimate scientific case for his words at an official conference?

You cant have it both ways. Standards of professional conduct dont allow for it.

I have to admit this is a very good point. There is a difference between a couple of us sitting around talking together and maybe just maybe talking about goofy stories we have heard. But in front of the audience and being "the Doc" then you should as the Doc look at that as a different scenario than just being with "friends" and talking about any ole subject.
longtabber PE
It reminds me of the admonishment in "My Cousin Vinny"

You will look lawerly and that suit better be made out of some kind of fabric
CrimsonGoblin
What the bloody hell?? We, by that I refer to the collective group of researchers, can't even get our sh*t together enough to find one solid piece of evidence, and now there are people spouting off about bigfoot orgies and writing papers titled "Sex and Single Sasquatch" headbang.gif

I was'nt there to hear Fahrenbach's talk but I've read enough here to hang my head in shame.
ThisIsJack
QUOTE(damndirtyape @ Oct 31 2008, 07:14 PM) *
No need. Its all on video.

Will you make this available? Post it.
Teresa
You'll probably be able to purchase the video of the conference from the TBRC.
grump13
Stupid is as Stupid does "FORREST GUMP 1990" He didnt make an idiot out of us, He made an Idiot out of himself, boycott the fxxl if he shows up again,
Drew
I am thinking right now that 3 or 4 Georgia-esque hoaxes is far less damaging to bigfootry than a well-respected member of the bigfoot community, and a PHD, speaking at a conference, covered by an international publication, talking about Bigfoot orgies, 45 MPH speeds, and tickle fights.

I really feel for you serious bigfooters out there. This is the 'Ouch' moment of the year for Bigfootry, not the GA hoax.
Ty
QUOTE(Drew @ Nov 3 2008, 03:55 PM) *
This is the 'Ouch' moment of the year for Bigfootry, not the GA hoax.


It could have been worse Drew.

Click to view attachment
vilnoori
QUOTE
“When an especially large male came onto the scene,” Fahrenbach said, describing a sexual pileup involving one willing female and lots of dudes, “he didn’t try to buck the line but simply stood there and took his turn in good time.”


I've witnessed monkeys and baboons doing this in Africa. I wonder what sighting he derived the story from.
ThisIsJack
Teresa asked for a transcript and DDA said "No need, it's on video." Okay. So I asked for the video. No response.
So, for those of us who would like to examine the evidence and then draw our own reasonable conclusions,
Can we get a transcript or see the video? Craig? Rick?
My guess is that context will show this all to be relatively insignificant, harmless, and inconsequential, although dumb, unnecessary and not beneficial.
Dr Onion
I am stunned!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.