Comments on: Sonoma Shakedown, Shakeup…

by: jayman

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:11:03 +0000

This points out the important distinction between skepticism and debunkery. Skeptics look at evidence, evaluate it, and come to likely conclusions - a preponderence of evidence kind of thing. Debunkers form their conclusions first, usually based on a priori assumptions that certain things are “impossible” and any seeming evidence need not be seriously considered. Also, ad hominem arguments, ridicule, and personal attacks are typical of debunkers, not true skeptics.

by: abmqa

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:46:50 +0000

Being a long time fan of Penn & Teller. I have watched a few episodes of P&T BS!! I found the show amusing at times, but was really struck how they tend to spin the subject matter to favor their BS viewpoint to the extreme. For example, the episode about UFO’s, they interviewed the most retarded UFO “buff” they could find using their brand of sarcastic and mean spirited wit. The result of which made a mockery of any serious UFO investigation efforts to date. I for one felt disgusted by their overt attempt to totally dismiss any UFO events as BS based on the silly person the chose to interview.
As a result of viewing that episode i vowed not to waste my time to watch another.
BTW Penn Gillette has an afternoon radio talk show on in the D.C. region where continues to debunk all that does not fit in his view of things.
Penn, give your BS a break already!!!

by: Mnynames

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:37:52 +0000

It may not be much fun in the short term, but being skeptical, particularly towards the more persuasive evidence, pays off in the long-run. Just look at that recent bigfoot video, where the first part was vague enough to look somewhat convincing…until the second part showed up, and all that funny business with the video being taken down and back up went on. There will always be some people who will use evidence selectively, either pro or con, and some that believe that every guy in a monkey suit must be Bigfoot. I am reminded of the researcher who stated that if the hairs he found were not from an unknown animal (A Chupacabra in this case), he’d quit, convinced that it was whatever he was told it was. When they turned out to be from a dog, he immediately said he’d keep researching until the truth was uncovered. I don’t think he’s wrong to keep looking, but he was a fool for putting his credibility at stake.

As for Penn and Teller, considering I’d never even heard of their show, perhaps they need all the publicity they can get…

by: Loren Coleman

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:34:40 +0000

For a full copy of the release being used by the production company doing the interviews for the Penn & Teller program, please click here.

Interestingly, you will note that Penn & Teller’s release says they would have “the right to edit for any purpose whatsoever (including, without limitation, an informative, instructional, humorous or satirical effect) delete, dub and/or fictionalize the Footage.” Now that’s quite a license to fake whatever they want from anything one might say during their interviews. Yikes, I wonder if they interviewed Matt Moneymaker and he knows what he got himself into? Being on Penn & Teller is more than about getting publicity, that’s for sure. It is being held up to public ridicule.

by: Ole Bub

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:06:31 +0000

Good evening Alton….how about lunch at Chilleno’s in Bricktown on me….TBRC has my email…

seeing is knowing….

ole bub and the Sheba dawg

by: Craig Woolheater

Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:31:46 +0000

The link has been corrected.

by: Jeremy_Wells

Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:12:33 +0000

the link to the website does not work

by: Alton Higgins

Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:06:20 +0000

Craig,

Not to pick a nit, but you state, “General consensus was that it was hoaxed.” I don’t think that’s quite strong enough. It’s probably better in this situation, considering the circumstances, to flat out say that no one who you contacted in the TBRC considered the video to be legit.

The prominence of the BFRO is such that Penn and Teller’s expose´could well cast all individuals and groups involved with the study of the bigfoot phenomenon as a bunch of gullible ignoramuses. I hope that’s not the case, and I hope that this TV program doesn’t serve to diminish the impact of the “Bigfoot in Texas?” exhibit in San Antonio.

by: Baron Von Doren

Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:41:53 +0000

The Sonoma footage was not at all compelling or convincing, as Loren pointed out, but it seems the need to believe amongst many was so strong that it didn’t matter.

The problem I have with some of the researchers out there is that they tend to accept every and any piece of footage, cast, hair, etc. as fact, rather than being skeptical. It should be a researcher’s job to carefully evaluate evidence to prove that Sasquatch exists, not just accept things outright. In reality, the BFRO left themselves open to ridicule here.

I’m as fascinated as anyone by the subject. I’ve read everything there is to read out there. I’ve watched countless TV shows. I’ve talked to witnesses and collected newspaper clippings of our own Skunkape here in Florida/Alabama. I’m even making the 12 hour trek to hear Loren speak at The Bigfoot In Texas exhibit in June.

In short, I want to believe that Bigfoot is out there somewhere, but until that definitive piece of evidence shows up, such as a body or live creature, I have to remain cautiously skeptical.