# Debunking the debunkers
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-debunkers/43535
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
**Created:** [December 1, 2000, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-debunkers/43535 "2000-12-01T05:51:40Z")
**Posts on this page:** 10
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Catrandom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Catrandom)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2000, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-debunkers/43535/21 "2000-12-02T02:11:13Z")
I’ve no doubt that David Blaine did exactly what he appeared to have done (this time, anyway). I have a moderate interest in magic and magicians, so I followed this to a degree. Though Blaine is incidentally a fine sleight-of-hand magician, this wasn’t so much magic as a simple endurance stunt (Houdini would at least have _escaped_ from the ice.)
The team freely admitted that 55-degree air was being pumped in from outside throughout the stunt, and, as no part of Blaine’s body was touching the ice, he simply stood up and stayed awake for three days and was, in fact, intereacting with onlookers throughout the stunt. It was not stage magic in any classic sense, and it was a dangerous, pointless and deeply stupid thing to do, but there’s nothing particularly implausible about it.
---
### Author:  [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2000, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-debunkers/43535/22 "2000-12-02T02:40:33Z")
Um, it was Bob UBANKS who hosted the Newly Wed game and the 10,000 dollar reward was because he was truly stumped. If he really didn’t believe it, or knew it happened, he’d have offer a million or more.
---
### Author:  [@obfusciatrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obfusciatrist)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2000, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-debunkers/43535/23 "2000-12-02T03:03:43Z")
[QUOTE]
\*Originally posted by Diceman \*
\*\*…word the celeb was trying to guess was “deer.” The contestant tried saying “doe,” and Nipsy (or whoever) reponded “knob.” …
[QUOTE]
I’m not saying you didn’t see that but I have personally seen this story told in the following variations:
1. Nipsy Russel does it on $25,000 Pyramid
2. Black contestant does it on $25,000 Pyramid
3. Nipsy Russel does it on Password/Super Password
4. Black contestant does it on Password/Super Password
5. FOAF did it while playing the home version Password
Again, I am not saying it didn’t happen, but if it did it has certainly grown and mutated.
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Diceman \*
> \*\*Also, remember that just because you can conceive of an alternate explanation, that doesn’t mean that the original explanation is incorrect. Alot of knee-jerk skeptics fall into this trap, including some here on the SDMB. Sure, it’s possible that the creature in the P-G film is a man in a monkey suit, but it’s also possible that it’s a hominid currently unknown to science. If you want to convince people that it’s a man in a suit, you must try to prove it, either logically or through evidence; just suggesting the possibility doesn’t prove anything. \*\*
The fallacy here is the idea that just because two explanations can be developed they are worthy of equal consideration.
Disregarding what I think I see in the P-G film, it does not exist in a vacuum. People who want to believe in Sasquatch don’t like to admit it, but there have been several serious attempts at discovering bigfoot. Those studies that seem most credible have failed to produce any positive evidence of Sasquatch. Combine this with the fact that Western Washington is well populated, there is no fossil record indicating a large non-human biped, and no archaeological evidence of primitive non-human habitation (we can find evidence that 40 vikings visited Newfoundland 1,000 years ago but not that a large monkey lived in a cave last week?).
Put all this evidence together.
Now show me the P-G film and say there are two explanations, a) an unknown large primate or b) what is filmed is not what it looks like. Taking the entirely of the evidence and experience I am going to select with 90% certainty option B. That is not unscientific and it is not unreasonable.
This does not mean the film is not worthy of consideration, just that the mere existence of the hypothesis is presents does not mean it is equal to all other hypotheses.
Consider: The accepted scientific evidence combined with the vast practical experiences of people in the Northwest (I lived in western Washington for most of my life and probably do not know anybody who knows anybody that has seen evidence of Sasquatch) and it would seem that Sasquatch is only slightly more likely than flying pigs.
Now, how seriously would you treat a film that purported to show you flying pigs? Even if it looked very authentic.
---
### Author:  [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2000, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-debunkers/43535/24 "2000-12-02T03:35:12Z")
**Diceman & Avumede**. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe that there has been a Newlywed show aired yet where a contestant uses any phrase about “up the butt” _THAT CAN BE HEARD BY A VIEWER OF THE SHOW_. Further, there is no evidence to indicate that the recently discovered episode was ever broadcast as an “original” show, but perhaps was shown in a “bloopers” show.
So it was never unreasonable for most “debunkers” to refuse to believe that it existed. Every “believer” who swore they saw the show and **heard** those words was wrong! They still are.
(Unless they are using the words in the latest release)
---
### Author:  [@don\_Jaime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_Jaime)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2000, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-debunkers/43535/25 "2000-12-02T06:04:58Z")
RD, I was basicly ruling out all the other available apes. Gorillas and chimps don’t walk like that at all (it’s a much more noticable shuffle) and the dead bipeds are on the wrong continents. The only remaining ape that is bipedal and lives in the Pac NW is us. And like I said, the only native animal that could be mistaken for a standing or walking sasquatch is the bear. I saw nothing in the tape to suggest it isn’t a human acting like an ape, with a suit, maybe some lifts, and a short time on camera to walk funny and then split. I haven’t eliminated the human, so I accept that as the answer.
I did have to make a few assumptions. I accepted that this could have been an escaped ape, but not some other non-native mammal. There aren’t any non-North American mammals that spring to mind, either. Moving into the concept of the species _Macropus_, I find the lack of corporal remains, like fossils or roadkill or carrion, to be telling enough to assume that it’s not some unknown beast.
The chimp in Texas isn’t terribly important. He’s highly unusual for his species. That he comes out of freak shows doesn’t help - the first thing that popped into my mind was the World’s Only Living Unicorn, really a surgically altered goat. I don’t know this guy’s history so I’ll just drop him.
And I did cheat. Out of the trees, which isn’t often, orangutans can make passable bipeds, though nowhere near as good as us. Patty clearly isn’t an orang.
I’ve not kept up with fossil finds, but _Gigantopithecus’_ only fossil up until three years ago was a single massive tooth from southern Asia. We don’t even know if this is a real species or a highly unusual individual _Ramapithecus_ or _Sivapithecus_ (neither were habitual bipeds), let alone if it walked upright. All are later and more developed than the last North American primates. I don’t think they’ve even been found in north China or Siberia, but these are the new gold mines for fossils and something might turn up. Until then, Krantz has to get more fossils of _Gigantopithecus_ well outside of its expected range. He’d be better off to leave the more in-depth studies of Sassy to the folklorists.
---
### Author:  [@zuma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zuma)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2000, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-debunkers/43535/26 "2000-12-02T11:19:40Z")
Check out this thread:
[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=49025](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=49025)
It’s about a story reported yesterday, about a woman who bought chicken wings at a fast food restaurant, and found a deep-fried chicken head in the mix. It was widely reported, and the head was shown on television. No less than FOUR posters so far have voiced the opinion that the story is not true. One even called it a probable UL.
Why would a chicken head mixed in with other chicken parts be so hard to believe? I am a member of the skeptic’s society, mind you. But lately some people have become rather cultish and irrational about their disbelief of just about any odd story that pops up.
---
### Author:  [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2000, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-debunkers/43535/27 "2000-12-02T19:14:15Z")
**obfusciatrist:** I reallize that this story has been said about a zillion different shows, but I really do remember seeing it happen. I don’t remember _who_ made the faux pau on the show --Nipsy Russel sounds about right, but we’re talking about an event that occurred about a dozen years ago, and the very fact that the guy was appearing on a gameshow indicates that his acting career was already dead & buried. So I hope you’ll understand if I goofed up a few of the details. I’m pretty sure it was the $25,000 Pyramid that this happened on, since I don’t remember ever watching the $10,000 Pyramid or any other incarnation of the show.
Oh, and about the lack of Bigfoot carcasses: how often do people ever find the remains of dead bears, wolves, cougers, deer, etc? Very rarely, unless it’s a hunter that just killed the animal a few moments before. Anything dead in the forest gets scavenged pretty quickly.
For a laugh, have a look at “Murphy’s Gazetteer of the Wierd & Supernatural”: [www.sff.net/people/Kevin.A.Murphy/horror.html](http://www.sff.net/people/Kevin.A.Murphy/horror.html). It’s a humorous rating of various places, according to their likelyhood of hosting supernatural events. For example: about shopping malls, they say
> [@](#):
>
> Too upscale for the curio shoppes and bookstores, these modern contrivances require zombies and psycho-killers for any amount of interest. Abysmally dull, though as a saving grace, such places have adjoining parking structures, which late at night are reasonable haunts for vampires, sword-swinging immortals, and other nocturnal denizens who want a deserted spot that still has easy access by car.
I got a good kick out of it.
---
### Author:  [@Fiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiver)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2000, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-debunkers/43535/28 "2000-12-03T02:52:47Z")
**Diceman** , when all you can offer us is an admittedly hazy memory from over a decade ago, can you really say we’re being unreasonable if we ask for more evidence before believing the “Doe…Knob” story really happened? While I’m sure _you_ believe it happened, you haven’t given us enough to convince us.
This thread has strayed pretty far from the OP, which was general (are skeptics overeager?), to the specific (is there a sasquatch?). I’d love to see it veer back on-topic, but I have to ask this first:
Why are believers in sasquatch so sure it’s a primate? If it’s a previously-unknown large mammal, it could just as easily have evolved from raccoons or bears or badgers, notwithstanding its bipedality.
---
### Author:  [@obfusciatrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obfusciatrist)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2000, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-debunkers/43535/29 "2000-12-03T03:26:44Z")
And my wife’s ex-husband is equally adamant that he saw it on Super Password. But regardless, I am not saying that it didn’t happen. It is certainly within the realm of possibly. I have certainly personally experienced a similar class of verbal confusion. All I was saying was that the growth and spread of the story does match the pattern followed by most urban legends.
> [@](#):
>
> Oh, and about the lack of Bigfoot carcasses: how often do people ever find the remains of dead bears, wolves, cougers, deer, etc? Very rarely, unless it’s a hunter that just killed the animal a few moments before. Anything dead in the forest gets scavenged pretty quickly.
Me personally? I have seen the remains of at least a dozen deer. One cougar, a score cows (on open grazing ranges), untold small mammals and lizard. Once saw a dead bald eagle with no obvious signs of traums. But you are right, finding carcasses is relatively rare and difficult.
Now, let’s get into the skeletal issue, I have found bones and skeletons for just about every animal you are likely to find in the Pacific Northwest. At one point I owned a cougar skull and could likely have built a good model of an elk from the bones I had found.
Again, I am perfectly willing to exist that there may be large mammals or primates in the world that we have not yet found, but it is increasingly unlikely that any such exist in the Pacific Northwest. (And in my opinion the level of possibility has long since fallen to the point of not giving it serious consideration.)
Now, taking it back out to the general point as to whether depunkers are overzealous. Debunkers are just as capable of placing the bar of proof too high as the non-skeptics are of placing the bar too low. The main difference is that the society of skeptics has a mechanism in place for constantly reevaluation the placement of that bar (the scientific method) while the society of non-skeptics have no correcting mechanism at all.
However, keep in mind that being wrongly skeptical does not mean that skepticism was wrong.
---
### Author:  [@JimOfAllTrades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimOfAllTrades)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2000, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-debunkers/43535/30 "2000-12-03T03:58:10Z")
> [@](#):
>
> I won’t ramble on, but [http://www.ratsnest.net/bigfoot/library/patterson.htm](http://www.ratsnest.net/bigfoot/library/patterson.htm) is a vast repository of info on the film, and I strongly urge anyone who’d written off “Patty” to stop on by. The truth? After all of these decades, it still defies explanation.
Maybe, but in a quick look I don’t see much there that’s very convincing (some of the links seem to have been taken over by porn sites). I’ll take some time in the next couple of days to look it over more carefully.
This link:
[http://users.erols.com/strange1/chambers17.html](http://users.erols.com/strange1/chambers17.html)
has some fairly good stuff to contrary, including plenty of special effects people who say that far from being impossible to fake, the Patterson film looks like a fake to them, and that they are not impressed by level of the fake.
Also, although Chambers himself denies making the suit, many of the people who worked with him or around him seem to be convinced that he did, and that Chambers is denying it for reasons of his own. Sounds odd to me, but not as odd as a tribe of stealthy 8-foot tall man apes running around for hundreds of years unseen except for the occasional footprint and 8mm film.
Ugly
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-debunkers/43535.md?page=1)