Comments on: Rewind: Penn & Teller on Cryptozoology

By: YourPTR!

YourPTR! — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:43:12 +0000

Me either. I’m not a fan. I have never seen that show but I don’t need to watch to know that I wouldn’t be interested in its mocking content. The Sonoma footage was a pretty obvious hoax from the start, as these things usually turn out to be. The costume is one of the better ones though, but the arms are far too short, being of human dimensions. Nice try, but definitely no cigar!

By: kittenz

kittenz — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:47:37 +0000

I’ve never been a big fan of Penn & Teller.

By: ladd

ladd — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:08:37 +0000

The title says it all “Rewind: Penn & Teller On Cryptozoology.” They must be running out of magic tricks to perform. After this fiasco perhaps they’ll make themselves disappear for good.

By: DWA

DWA — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:51:41 +0000

The biggest idiots in cryptozoology are, in no particular order:

1. Those who will accept, and trumpet, anything as proof;

2. Those who treat others like idiots.

It’s nice that some folks precede themselves with the cue “you can pretty much toss anything I say.”

By: DavidFullam

DavidFullam — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:31:44 +0000

I have the Richard Ellis book “Monsters of the Sea.” I just love the way Ellis has shifted from one extreme to another in recent years. In the book he launches into a passionate defense of the St. Augustine carcass as Giant Octopus, basically calling A. E. Verrill an idiot for thinking it was a whale. Now that the South America carcass has everyone thinking that all the globs are whale remains, he has jumped the fence big time. He was on some show about aquatic enigmas and said something to the effect of “There are still mysteries in the ocean, that doesn’t mean we will find sea serpents or the giant octopus.” He said it with such venom that it came across as a personal attack on anyone who believes that the giant octopus may exist. I wonder how he now feels about the Gloucester Sea Serpent?

By: Drat

Drat — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:58:36 +0000

Those guys are good magicians, but their show is pretty much crap. I remember when they “debunked” hypnotism. It was a pretty stupid show. I’ve also read they resort to some pretty low tactics to get the narrative they want. Misrepresentations and fake footage, that kind of thing.

Basically it’s a show pretending to be a critical look at stuff but the audience clearly can’t take a critical look at the show or the whole thing comes down like a house of cards.

The big one, whichever he is, is basically a loudmouth fathead as my dear dad would put it. I like the little one, at least he knows when to keep his mouth shut

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:46:17 +0000

It’s funny to me that Ellis would expound cryptozoology as the way to money and fame. As far as I know, most cryptozoologists are not wallowing in either of those things and most that are truly doin it for the research are not even neccessarily desiring them. If you want money and fame, this is probably not the field for you. But then again, look at the ones associated with cryptozoology that DO have money and a bit of fame. Ellis and Biscardi. What’s wrong with this picture?

By: DWA

DWA — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:42:21 +0000

That’s a good suit.

And it’s so much worse than the P/G ’suit’ that it’s pathetic. Human-scale proportions are abundant, top to bottom, the exact opposite of the P/G critter, who defies them at every measurement.

A 1967 “suit,” mind you. Nineteen-hunnert-six-dee-sebben. And it makes a 21st-century suit look like a joke. (And the latter is better than any ape suit of the sixties. Although not much.)

There is nothing lamer than comedians trying to be nasty.

By: wildmanmarty

wildmanmarty — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:17:32 +0000

I am glad you posted this photo of the monkey suit. It drives home the obvious differences between such costumes and the Patterson figure. If you put the two photos side by side, the head of the man in the suit appears several inches higher above shoulder level than “Patty”. The arms seem almost stubby in comparison to “Patty”. The more I compare the two, the more convinced I am that the Patterson footage is genuine. Either that, or Roger found an extraordinarily tall and proportionately abnormal human to play the role. Hey, where is this guy hiding now? Nice hair on the monkey suit, though.

By: Grant

Grant — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:38:41 +0000

I’ve never seen their show, but there’s hardly any bigger cliche than magicians as debunkers. And doing it with comedy doesn’t make it that much less of a cliche.