32 Responses to “Penn & Teller Swear By Cryptozoology”

1. Jtucker responds: April 25th, 2006 at 3:12 am

   Okay, so they’re not funny and you didn’t fall for the Sonoma footage (What an accomplishment!) but you’re not really saying anything about their main points. You’re not proving them wrong on anything except that it’s not nice to make fun of people’s hats. What about the lack of physical evidence? What about the lack of food needed to support large unknown animals? Answer those questions.

   What makes Richard Ellis a “rabid” skeptic? Is it that he actually demands evidence for something’s existence? Does he actually evaluate the known data? That doesn’t really sound “rabid” at all….I think “reasonable” may be a better term. Also, yes he does use monsters to sell his books. But the big difference is that the monsters he writes about are actually real physical beings and not folktales. The cryptozoological elements in his books are used to give some cultural background into his very real subjects.

   And what a funny day it is when someone from the crytozoological field chides someone for not being a scientist. Nice personal attack. Really makes your case look strong. I know there’s a lot of bona fide scientists in the field but there is also a lot of monster hunters that are PhD-less so that really isn’t a good argument against Ellis’ credentials. Also, I’m sure there are A LOT (read 99.9%) of guys with big fat doctorates in biology and zoology that would say the exact same thing as Ellis.

   Penn and Teller actually showed one of them on their show…remember the scientist with the play dough who demonstrated the food web of Loch Ness? Got any bad things to say about him? Care to refute how the food chain works?

2. cor2879 responds: April 25th, 2006 at 7:46 am

   You know I think it’s funny, when you look at the whole of human history as we know it, how whenever People come along that have a new or different or just unpopular view or theory, those who don’t agree or don’t want to see the ‘boat rocked’ will go to great lengths to discredit, defame, and yes sometimes kill those who are proponents of the unpopular view. Look at Galileo, for example, and probably a hundred other examples we could give. Penn & Teller are little better than the Medieval church. And by little I mean they haven’t killed, tortured, or maimed anyone that we know of. Also, I didn’t see the show, but who are they to say that the accounts of natives are unreliable? Just because they haven’t received Western educations? That makes them no less intelligent than anyone else. Uneducated perhaps, but lack of education and lack of intelligence are not the same. I’ll get off my soapbox now… but small minded people do irk me, and Penn & Teller have proven that their minds are quite miniscule indeed.

3. Chymo responds: April 25th, 2006 at 9:21 am

   Laugh it off.

   Cryptozoology actually benefits from even skeptics & those who are able to weed out the fakes, & shake-up over-secure investigators to be more cautious & double-check their data. Even the ridiculous, super-conservative skeptics help, because they are too hard-line to be accepted by most of the public.

   The best way to react to Penn & Teller is to openly *welcome* their contribution, & say that it was a great show & addition to the field as it correctly demonstrated the failures & pitfalls for the diligent cryptozoologist.

   All the rest of the guff of swearing & insulting people, well, so what? Oh, dearie, the man said a bad word!! Goodness! heh heh. They’re on cable.

   First, that presentation is not going to go over with the general public, right? So don’t worry about that part of it, because they are pitching their stuff at young adult uber hipsters.

   The people who are going for their act are the kind of people who mock cryptozoology *anyway*. Trust me, I deal with these people all the time, I’m from that generation.

   Secondly, the targets they skewer may well deserve some criticism. Who knows? Hubris affects even the greatest. Those with real integrity don’t have to defend it to the likes of P&T.

   I’m not a huge fan of Penn & Teller, but I do admit some of their stuff is entertaining. Teller is one of the most gifted magicians I have ever seen, & I’ve seen a few. But remember, these guys are Vegas magicians. They don’t even have time to leave Vegas for most of the year, because of their act. If anyone wants to rile you up by bringing up the Penn & Teller show, just look at them & say, “whut? You wanna believe a couple of Vegas hucksters? You’re more gullible than *me*” - laugh, then turn away.

4. jayman responds: April 25th, 2006 at 9:33 am

   So, I wonder when P&T are going to take on religion?

5. Mausinn responds: April 25th, 2006 at 9:42 am

   Hey guys, we have to keep in mind the fact that Penn and Teller are in all of this for the money. It’s all about drawing in the rube. If they don’t come up with something catchy, they don’t make the money.

   Although I don’t agree with what they have done or how they treat people they go after, it is all show biz. You have to take it with a grain of salt. Folks who watch shows like this and buy into the dog and pony show are not going to believe any different if a Sasquatch sat next to them on the couch and watched the show with them. That’s OK, we need the skeptics and the total nay sayers as much as the crusading believers also. Without them there would be no checks and balances. They keep us on out toes and honest.

   The BF folks who bought the Sonoma video and tried to promote the Mark Nelson character for their own profit and fame got exactly what they deserved. Shame on them. Maybe they have learned something from all this. I hope so.

   I do have to laugh at all this really. It reminds me of the old time snake oil salesmen. Afterall, what do we expect from a pair of hucksters who are based in Vegas. Reality? I think not.

6. Chymo responds: April 25th, 2006 at 9:55 am

   Well, damn, I wish I’d put it that way.

7. chrisandclauida2 responds: April 25th, 2006 at 10:48 am

   I never really found their type of television must see TV. My personal opinion of them is really nonexistent and as such their stance on this subject is really less than meaningless. I have a sense of humor and if someone pokes fun at this area of study and its funny i will laugh. I am secure enough my self that it really doesn’t matter.

   This said i wonder what happened to the bfro’s stance on this footage. they all but claimed it genuine stating if you have seen these creatures as we have you understand why we think this is genuine. I looked for this statement on their site but couldn’t find it anywhere anymore. I know it was there as i have a pretty close to photographic memory of things i read. I remember subject matter very well if not verbatim of what was written. It comes from all the years of not being able to read my own hand writing and having to remember or else i would still be in 3rd grade. I dont remember everything but i do remember their statements on this footage.

   Their credibility would go a long way to being restored a bit if they came out and said we were wrong or we were duped. I guess that is bad for camping trips in the Bigfoot theme parks that they do.

   To me when i look at video certon things jump out at me. The first is if they are trying too hard to be patty like. Too much arm swing too much head turn. Too much fake Bob H in a suit.

   Beyond that is trying to look into the person filming the thing. either they are credible or not. Their story of the particulars around the film or pic stand up to scrutiny and repeated questioning provides the same story or it all falls apart. If like in this case the guy flakes i kinda discount it.

   We all have been fooled at some point. it is the nature of the beast. Many of us were royally screwed with the recent Bigfoot in the snow footage. to many of us it seemed real to others it didn’t sit right. This is just the way things are in this field.

   Until a specimen is captured or killed this will always be the case. there will always be strange people who make fun of those in this field. And there will always be evidence that fools us.

   I gotta tell you all there are even stranger people who are in this field. When you judge a large loud fat man who hangs with a tiny little quiet man who is a stage pet you should be careful. In our field we have a large blond loud man who spouts Bigfoot as a UFO driving inter dimensional traveling shape shifting disappearing mindcontroling entity. We have others who think Bigfoot talks to them asking for garlic or thinks they are paranormal enough to drain batteries whenever you point a camera at them. We have people who draw red circles around every dark spot in a picture of trees saying it is a Bigfoot. We have tour guides who has taken a once respected organization down to being an adventure travel agency. We even have bigfoot mediums.

   You dont have to look far to have our field ridiculed. We have those among us who do just fine at that themselves. What is worse is we let them. Hell what can you do though.If it weren’t for the lunatics among us i fear what the rest of us would seem like to the non crypto types. lololol

   Nope, penn and teller dont do anymore harm than we constantly do to our selves. I mean ourselves as a group. We have to constantly overcome those idiots among us. Penn and Teller really just do what is expected of them.

   I bet one lesson was learned from this whole thing. Groups will be slower to stamp a seal of approval on a video or picture that comes in. They could have saved all the embarrassment if they wouldn’t pick their investigators depending on how many field trips they attend. This guy flaked under questioning and it was reported right here in the pages of this blog. It was any great feat of investigation that did it. just a couple phone calls and proper questioning and follow up. that is. You can never stamp a genuine on someone until you talk to them at least twice then verify what they say. if they are lieing it will be obvious. Just talking to someone one time is not investigating a report. hell you see that on tv cop shows. There are many of us who have years of experience in interviewing and investigating. we have offered help but since we dont go on field trips it was turned down.

   Live and learn. or dont.But dont get mad at penn and teller for making fun of stuff we created ourselves.

8. ecanale responds: April 25th, 2006 at 12:28 pm

   Is it me? Should’nt Penn be trying to take a picture of the hot chic in Red? Rather than taking a picture of Teller?

9. ChadGoulding responds: April 25th, 2006 at 1:24 pm

   Penn & Teller are basically shills for the skeptic movement.

   But Mausinn raised a great point. Despite the existence of dishonest skeptics, skepticism still provides a valuable service. Its all about balance.

10. RocketSeason responds: April 25th, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    Well I wish I would have seen it.

    Part of me is mad that they faked a bigfoot video. Part of me is glad that they did it so that people can learn not to trust everything they see.

    None of me thought that that video was real.

11. mike2k1 responds: April 25th, 2006 at 2:35 pm

    I do agree that a world without objectivity lacks harmony. You have to ask questions and investigate. As far as Penn and Teller; I never have cared much for them, so me watching their show, even if it was about cryptozoology, was something that was not going to happen. I personally don’t value their opinions, comedy, and over all act, so I just don’t waste my time or money.I did find it interesting,( but not suprising) the response to Sonoma by a certain individual. All I can say is just: “Par for the course,” and “figures.”

12. Loren Coleman responds: April 25th, 2006 at 5:19 pm

    Allen Foster, a bigfoot hobbyist from northern California wrote the following and wanted me to share this with you. It is his “right after watching” Penn & Teller-remarks, a sort of first reaction and stream of consciousness view of the show:

    Just got done watching the show on Cryptozoology. It started out searching for the Loch Ness Monster with two “World Renowned Cryptozoologists.” I don’t remember who they were. I guess they’re not that world renowned.

    Then they cut to the Sonoma Bigfoot video and claimed they shot it. They wrote the back story and posted it on the Internet. A sample of the e-mails that people wrote were read by a “Bigfoot” with glasses on. They then proceeded to debunk Bigfoot with the standard Ray Wallace story and an ape expert.

    Back to Loch Ness with their two experts. Saying Nessie is a big giant eel. They dressed up like the two experts and said it was “bullsh*t”. Next they went to Lake Michigan to talk to an eel expert to see if an eel could grow that big. The expert used playdough (because this is a “family show”) to descibe how an eel or Nessie could not grow that big. They then described how Nessie couldn’t exist using “Bigfoot” holding cue cards with the reasons why.

    They next interviewed a professor from UCLA to tell how people see things that aren’t real.

    Back to the Sonoma video. They showed them filming it and the guy putting the suit on and walking around. They said it took them about twenty minutes to shoot it. They then descibed two Bigfoot experts as “A**hole 1″ and “A**hole A”. A**hole A sounded like Matt Moneymaker but they wouldn’t identify him other that he has a Bigfoot website and said that they could make about $5,000 for the footage and wanted to set up a meeting.

    In the end it was pretty much made to make every Bigfoot expert or Crytozoologist look stupid. The last scene was the guy in the Sonoma bigfoot costume talking on the cell phone telling his girlfriend/wife that he was going to be late because he was still out in the woods.

13. Kathy Strain responds: April 25th, 2006 at 7:05 pm

    I agree. Those that bought the Sonoma video hook, line, and sinker gave Penn and Teller what they needed to make all of us look unprofessional and out for the money. Great job A1 and AA! Oh, but of course, A1 and AA weren’t thinking of bigfoot or research or professionalism when they did that, they were only thinking of themselves…

14. vjmurphy responds: April 25th, 2006 at 8:08 pm

    I thought the show was pretty funny, myself. Penn and Teller are hit or miss for most people, and I’m normally amused by them. You had to laugh when they dressed up as the Loch Ness guys.

    And yes, people got made fun of. The correct reaction is to laugh, move on, and provide proof for your claim.

15. charlie23 responds: April 26th, 2006 at 2:50 am

    Many years ago in rural east Texas a large, bipedal hominid walked across the road in front of my truck. It wasn’t a guy in a monkey suit and I’m 99.9% sure Ray Wallace was nowhere in the vicinity. One of these days the elusive evidence we are all looking for will have to come to light, but until then I just have to agree with vjmurphy; “…laugh, move on and provide proof”.

16. Mausinn responds: April 26th, 2006 at 3:28 am

    You know, another thing came to mind. With all the resources that P&T have on hand, the best they could do was the Sonoma video? Kind of makes one think a bit does it not? Todays technology in the fields of video, animatronics, and special effects and all they could come up with was that poor excuse for a BF sighting? Am I the only one who is taking another look at the P/G film as to it’s authenticity? An almost 40 year old film by an amatuer and it is miles ahead of what can be done by professionals today. Makes me lean towards the PG film either being the real stuff or those Patterson/Gimlin boys are some real geniuses with a camera and a supply of fake fur.

17. Chymo responds: April 26th, 2006 at 11:11 am

    “Todays technology in the fields of video, animatronics, and special effects and all they could come up with was that poor excuse for a BF sighting?”

    A clear shot would have been ‘too good to be true’. They were mimicking the shaky, blurry quality of on-site footage. In order for the scam to go over, there has to be an element of credibility. A clear shot of the creature would have given the game away, as it would be both too good to come from the field, & the creature costume would have been recognised.

    The Patterson/Gimlin footage certainly *could* be recreated by industry professionals like Stan Winston, but it would cost millions. Not necessarily for the suit and/or prosthetics, but to mimic certain elements of the Patterson/Gimlin creature, such as its arm length & the muscle movement in the legs & buttock region. Probably digital filters would be used to create a distorted, shaky-cam effect rather than produce it on-site, as you could control the degree & timing.

    The point of the Patterson/Gimlin footage isn’t that it couldn’t be recreated, it is that it seemingly couldn’t be created by a couple of low-earning outdoorsmen in 1967.

    The creature in the P/G footage is still ambiguous. We will never get to a consensus on it.

18. kokodhem responds: April 26th, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    I have to say, I often find Bullsh!t to be an entertaining show. Sometimes, they do great research (like when they took on Mother Theresa and Gandhi) and always nail their target to the wall.

    Then at least once a season, they have a show like the crypto episode where they’ve done nothing, find supposed experts few have heard of, and edit comments to make the guest look like morons. My gf could tell that the crypto show was bugging me, and we had to pause a dozen times while I vented about P&T not understanding that cryptozoology IS a science and people have degrees, that it’s about finding animals, not just hunting urban legends, that new cryptids are found daily, etc.

    The one good thing, though, is that in the past some of their shows have caused people to take up the task of proving them wrong. In season 1 they had an episode about how 2nd hand smoke doesn’t hurt anybody and that there have been no reliable studies to prove it. In the two years since, dozens of scientists have conducted more studies proving the links with 2nd hand smoke and numerous ailments like asthma in children and cancer. Of course, P&T have not and likely will never retract their own bullsh!t statement from that episode, but with any luck a sasquatch or skunk ape or lake monster will be caught in the next few months and they’ll have to eat a bigfoot sized plate of crow.

19. Ken Gerhard responds: April 26th, 2006 at 2:18 pm

    Add Penn & Teller to the list of people who are going to have their faces pressed into a Bigfoot corpse by yours truly. I am good friends with Jon Downes and Richard Freeman, who both possess a genious intellect in my opinion. If Cryptozoology is nonsense, how is it that so many so brilliant people have gotten involved?

20. SkumChiken responds: April 26th, 2006 at 3:45 pm

    Here’s a link the the show’s video.

21. Toirtis responds: April 26th, 2006 at 7:03 pm

    I can only assume that Penn & Teller have quit their second-rate magic act for hosting television programmes on subjects that they are painfully mismatched to. They are not “..shills for the skeptic movement.”…I say this, because I am myself a skeptic, but a scientific one…skepticism is never outright ridicule of a theory, which is what Penn and Teller are doing.

22. Mausinn responds: April 26th, 2006 at 7:13 pm

    Skepticism is a good thing. Never take anything at face value, but this show was just…..uhhhhh….bullsh!t. LOL

23. jayman responds: April 27th, 2006 at 8:03 am

    P&T are debunkers, not skeptics, and ridicule is the main tool in the debunker’s kit.

24. greatanarch responds: April 27th, 2006 at 2:32 pm

    I don’t think Jon and Richard would claim to achieve genius (in my view, doing P & T casts doubt even on ordinary good sense), but they have a number of the essential scientific qualities: most importantly, a willingness to go out and look for the evidence in remote and uncomfortable places.

25. BugsBunny responds: April 29th, 2006 at 5:43 pm

    I just stumbled on your site — and I also saw the Penn & Teller show on Cryptozoology. And I must say — they made a pretty convincing case that mysterious creatures don’t exist. And best I can tell — your objection with the program is that it used coarse language, made jokes and pretty much dismissed your “life’s work.” However — in all of your ranting over the mistreatment given to your chosen field — what you have NOT done, is refuted one single piece of evidence and science put forth by the experts. If you could why don’t you answer some of the following quesitons: Why haven’t remains of deceased Bigfoots ever been discovered? Are their several “Loch Ness Monsters” or is the single “monster” in the lake, several hundred/thousand years old? How come no Loch Ness Monster remains have ever been discovered (assuming there have been many)? Why isnt’ there a single piece of real scientific evidence ever found to suggest the existance of Bigfoot? A hair? A bone? Some DNA? Why isn’t there the sort of gigantism you associate with either Bigfoot or Loch Ness Monster exhibited among any other life form? Once you have real, concrete answers to some of the above questions… then maybe people will begin to take your studies more seriously. However — I doubt you can or will provide them.

26. Loren Coleman responds: April 29th, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    BugsBunny writes: “Why haven’t remains of deceased Bigfoot ever been discovered? Are their several Loch Ness Monsters or is the single “monster” in the lake, several hundred/thousand years old? How come no Loch Ness Monster remains have ever been discovered (assuming there have been many)? Why isnt‚ there a single piece of real scientific evidence ever found to suggest the existance of Bigfoot? A hair? A bone? Some DNA? Why isn’t there the sort of gigantism you associate with either Bigfoot or Loch Ness Monster exhibited among any other life form?”

    Of course, these questions appear to demonstrate a level of defensiveness for Penn & Teller without looking at the basic demeaning techniques of personal attacks used by P & T that was the foundation of the critical view above.

    Nevertheless, I’m not afraid to answer questions…even if they may be more revealing of the questioner than anything else…

    Why deceased Bigfoot are not found in the woods have much to do with the same reasons seasoned woodspeople do not find dead bears or cougars in the woods, and a discussion of all of those reasons are contained in my 2003 Bigfoot! book. Hardwood forests, porcupines, other animals eating the remains, and the probable intelligence of the bipedal primates are contributing factors.

    Asking the question about a thousands-of-years-old single Nessie is laughable, and something that is answered in elementary discussions on the Loch Ness Monsters - as there are several, they are a breeding population, and so forth. There is not “one” land-locked “monster.” Such a notion has more to do with skeptical wishful thinking than reality.

    As to DNA, hair, and other physical evidence for the “existance” (sic) of Bigfoot, yes, of course, there are several forms of physical evidence pointing to the existence of these animals. However, as most books on Sasquatch and other cryptids readily note, without the type specimen, most hair samples, for example, found do not match known animals, and are usually labeled “near human” or “unknown primate.” Until Bigfoot is verified and confirmed, these samples will not have anything to match.

    Gigantism? What is Bugs Bunny talking about? I don’t know any serious cryptozoologists that regularly trot out “gigantism” to “explain” Nessie and Bigfoot? Wow. Are other “life forms,” animals large like Bigfoot? Of course, they are. Certainly Pleistocene megafaunal survivors are well-known, and anyone is welcome to come visit my state to view an example out in the woods here…the moose.

27. BugsBunny responds: April 30th, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    First –let me say, thanks for responding. However, your idea that there is a breeding population of Loch ness Monsters is what’s laughable. The scientist used by P&T thoroughly debunked that idea. There isn’t enough food in the lake to feed a breeding population of “monsters.” And you’re notion that the Bigfoot remains have all been eaten by animals, is also laughable. The remains of bears and cougars have been found. They’ve been studied by science. You can see their remains at nearly any Museum that features animal bones. What you won’t find in those museums is a single skeleton or bone from one of your so called unknown creatures.

28. Loren Coleman responds: April 30th, 2006 at 1:07 pm

    The play-dough scientist’s findings of no food in Loch Ness is what is humorous. Tell that to the people who have fished the lake for most of their lives. But he did look like he was having fun with the modeling clay, and it made for one of those memorable moments in the “skeptics-on-television” hall of shame.
    

29. BugsBunny responds: April 30th, 2006 at 9:52 pm

    Loren — The boat captain from the P&T show says that he’s been leading tours on the lake for 18 years — and in all that time, he’s never seen anything he couldn’t explain. I’d be interested in hearing your side of this — the scientist makes a convincing case that there isn’t enough food in the lake to feed a breeding stock of “monsters.” What do you say to refute this?

30. Loren Coleman responds: May 1st, 2006 at 3:57 am

    Bugs Bunny…I answered above, quickly and perhaps with too much humor. What, a Penn & Teller fan that doesn’t like funny answers? What is the world coming to?

    But, okay, to be clear, (I can’t believe I am going to say this…), for “Bugs Bunny,” as Bugs seem to be basing his total thoughts on the food supply with the common misconception that “there are no fish in the lake,” as expressed by the one person who was quoted for P & T and the one boat driver who hasn’t seen Nessie. You are always going to find people who “haven’t” seen cryptids. Or use that old myth about no fish in the Loch. But, be logical, why is there a small fishing industry there? It is because fish pass through Loch Ness.

    As to the food supply, the Loch is filled with eels and it has large populations of fish traveling through it. Also, if the Ness animals can transport to and from the ocean, as I think the evidence demonstrates, their food sources would never have to just be in the loch.

    But, once again, why do the skeptics think there is a fishing industry and lifestyle there? Loch Ness is very rich in fish life. Brown trout, pike and arctic char live there amongst the thousands of eels. Of the greatest interest to local anglers are the salmon and sea trout which run from the North Sea, up the river Ness, jump the weir and run through the Loch to spawn in the rivers and burns, which feed it. The salmon fishing season historically started on January 15th and ended on October 15th, at Loch Ness. They aren’t fishing for nothing, of course. Supplying salmon has been a source of good income for Loch Ness folks for centuries. The local eating establishments often would charge very high prices for the first salmon caught every season.

    The most efficient method for catching salmon is trolling. Think about what that tells us about the fish that live there, the obvious food source for any large cryptids. Salmon are seldom taken out in the deep water of the Loch. The largest salmon caught are generally in the 40 pound range, from near the surface. Quite large sea-trout are often taken while trolling for salmon, as well. Both for salmon and trout fishing in Loch Ness the water needs to be rough.

    Good fish are seldom caught in calm waters. Good Monster hunting may be best in the same kind of waters, but good Loch Ness Monsters sightings have traditionally been limited to times of calmer waters. And therein lies the paradox, dear Watson. Humans are on the Loch when the waters are calm, but the Monsters may be there more often when the waters are otherwise.

31. BugsBunny responds: May 1st, 2006 at 1:55 pm

    My argument isn’t that there are NO fish in the lake. My argument is that there would not be ENOUGH fish in the lake to sustain a breeding population of “monsters.” An animal the size Nessie is alleged to be — would nead an enormous amount of food to survive — and that’s just one. It is your suposition that there are a number of “monsters.”

    That being said — you still haven’t provided an answer for why there are not skeletal remains of Bigfoot. You suggested that they are eaten. I would contend that it’s possible for some animal bones to be eaten by wildlife — but that some would remain — as is the case with so many other animals we have relics of. Again, a visit to any museum that specilizes in this type of exhibit, will verify this. Is it your contention that it’s just been a series of bad luck and awful coincidences that have resulted in ALL the Bigfoot remains from across the globe having been eaten by wildlife?

32. Loren Coleman responds: May 1st, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    Yes, just like it was bad luck to not have a verified mountain gorilla or live giant panda available for 60-70 years.

    Please read some good books on these topics, as all your cryptozoological questions will be answered.

    End of the discussion because this has gotten way off the Penn & Teller topic, and into trying to make a skeptic happy.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|