But then, after the 200th time of hearing unsubstantiated versions of it, one does get a little skeptical. Lib and Edlyn, it’s nothing personal. Is it so bad, in the face of all the rest of the clamor that has gone on for years, to ask for a little more than just personal testimony? That’s not being hyperskeptical–that’s being common-sensical. I really hope that your stories are vindicated–that would give pause to certain very self-righteous posters, and that would be a good thing.
On the other hand, if I were to bet money, I’d have to bet agin ya.
I’m sorry lib but you are wrong. I cannot prove that you did not see the show (although there is a mountain of evidence to prove otherwise) but i can prove your fiance did not. If she saw it on the gameshow network than a tape does exist. You’re telling me that with all the controversy surrounding this noone taped that replay and noone has asked the gameshow network for copy? Please. if a copy existed it would be all over the internet by now. Think about it.
With all due respect, I think some of you are mixing up what evidence is with what arguments are. The only evidence anybody has offered against the airing is that Bob Eubanks doesn’t remember it and has allegedly posted a reward (is it in a trust account?). And that evidence is suspect because you are asserting that he alone has no problem with his memory, when, in fact, as I pointed out in the OP, and as Firefly pointed out later, there are many reasons why Eubanks’ memory might not be right.
As for the rest, they are just arguments, not evidence, along the lines of “well, urban legends are like that,” or “you would think a tape would be floating on the internet.” That’s not evidence. That’s just your rationalization to counter my own.
You point out that people remember the episode in different ways. That’s not evidence. That’s an argument. And it can be counter-argued. Differing memories is not just a quality of urban legends, but of real events too. Did the shuttle really explode? Yes, but people will likely remember details of the event and its context in their lives differently from exactly how they really happened.
I don’t mind it if you don’t believe me. It’s nothing to me anyway, except frustrating a bit. But you are not disbelieving me on evidence. You are disbelieving me on bias.
Lib, would you count as evidence the fact that hundreds, with access to both tapes of the old series, and currrent access to the Game Show Network, can’t seem to find it?
Actually, Lib, there is evidence that has been discussed – you just don’t seem to want to recognize it as such.
Evidence: This is a well-known urban legend with many different versions. It is generally attributed to the Newlywed Game, though now you are saying it’s the New Newlywed Game.
Evidence: In all of the past times it’s been examined, no sign of the alleged statement has ever been found.
Evidence: No specific date (or even year – or decade!) for the airing of the show can be given.
Evidence: Bob Eubanks,the host of the show, says that it didn’t happen and is offering ten grand to anybody who can prove it did. This offer remains unclaimed.
Evidence: Network censors would not have allowed this on the air at the time.
Evidence: Other incidents have caused similar false-memory reactions like this.
Evidence: The story acts in the way an urban legend would be expected to act.
Etc.
These are all pieces of evidence. None of them are “proof.” But as the Snopes site says: “You want proof it didn’t happen, you say? Well, we all know you can’t prove a negative, so the best we can do is to show that this tale – just like all the other infamous broadcast legends – is suspiciously unsupported by any documentary evidence”
Earlier in this thread, you said you would accept “proof” that you are wrong. Since we are trying to prove a negative and fighting your perception that your memory is perfect (even though you appear willing to admit that the memories of others can be wrong), what could this “proof” possibly consist of? Please let me know.
I also have to add that I’m saddened to see you continue to refer to this supposed “bias” without ever bothering to address my message specifically asking you what “bias” there is. I expect better of you.
If even one person, let alone hundreds, has diligently and faithfully combed every second of the unedited tapes from both series and found that the event never took place, then yes, I would count that not only as evidence, but as proof.
Can you cite one or more of the hundreds who have done this?
With all due respect, you are still speaking from bias. (Yes, I am too.)
You call that evidence? It is an “urban legend” merely because you say it is. You are trying to prove the consequent with the assertion. Different versions are irrelevant. There are different versions of everything under the sun.
Dammit, David, I’m tired of correcting you on that. I said it is either the Newlywed Game OR the New Newlywed Game. I said that in the Opening Post. That sort of misdirection tactic, particularly when used more than once, is beneath you.
On the contrary, Edlyn found it just recently.
That is merely an argument. I explained in some detail why a person might not pin a date or time to the airing of the show.
I conceded that that was evidence. (Are you reading every other word or something?) But that is your only evidence, and the reasons why his memory might be faulty have already been partially enumeration.
That is not evidence; that is an argument. It would be evidence only if you contacted every network censor who had anything to do with either incarnation of the Newlywed Game and, assuming their recollections are sound (which I don’t know why you would), got an affidavit that they did not allow this episode to air. But then all you would do is prove that it was an outtake and actually did happen.
God help us if you call that evidence. Do you want a judge to allow “evidence” in court that you committed a crime because other people who share some attribute with you are known to be criminals?
So do stories about Challenger, the moon walk, Kennedy’s assassination, and on and on, but those things really happened.
And with all due respect back, you still have not explained what that bias is. Nor have you answered my question about what you would consider “proof” that you are wrong. Frankly, I think I should have stuck to my statement of a couple days ago and just said, “To hell with this – Lib isn’t listening anyway.” In other words, I should have listened to the Snopes folks. < sigh >
Not like this, there aren’t. But I guess everybody else’s memory is wrong, and you and Edlyn are right. How silly of me to think otherwise.
I said: “In all of the past times it’s been examined, no sign of the alleged statement has ever been found.” You replied:
Pardon me for not being more specific. Change it to "No sign of the alleged statement has ever been documented.
I said: “No specific date (or even year – or decade!) for the airing of the show can be given.” You replied:
No, it is evidence.
I said:“Network censors would not have allowed this on the air at the time.” You replied:
No, it is evidence. It is not “proof” and I said as much, but it is evidence that you couldn’t have seen it on TV because it wouldn’t have been allowed on TV.
I said: “Other incidents have caused similar false-memory reactions like this.” You replied:
If you don’t consider it evidence, then you need help. We know that such eyewitness testimony in the past has been false. You agree that false memories occur. Yet you are steadfastly unwilling to consider that you are just as subject to it as everybody else. Indeed, the ease with with false memories can occur have been used in criminal and civil trials as evidence.
I said: “The story acts in the way an urban legend would be expected to act.”
They do? How so? Does the date of the Challenger explosion change? Does the Kennedy assassination involve different victims? Do the first words of the first man on the moon change with each telling? No.
Ok, Lib, think of it this way. You accuse me of committing a murder. The police want to find evidence and charge me. Well, Mr. Officer, I don’t know when it happened. Nope, I can’t even give you the decade. And there’s no evidence it happened other than that I’m sure I remember it happening. Yes, it was videotaped and showed on TV many times, and my fiance saw it there, but even though there is a monetary reward for that tape, it hasn’t surfaced. And yes, the host of the TV show it was on says it never was on, but he’s probably just misremembering. But, officer, you should still arrest David B, or else you’re just a nasty hyperskeptic!
No clue. In fact, I’m not even sure I ever saw it, as opposed to seeing clips of it on other TV shows. But I bet I could get a copy of it. Wanna offer me $10,000 to find out?
No, but then I’m not Lucille Ball claiming it never happened.
The internet is utterly useless as a tool to nail this thing down. The many references to tapes your friend at Snopes found in her googol search are all dead ends. I checked them all, using the same search criteria you said she used.
The only controversy about the whole thing on the internet is at Snopes, Urban Legends, and a newsgroup. There is absolutely no mention of it at either The Newlywed Game’s site or The Gameshow Network’s site. The former, particularly, seems like a good place to deny the story if the game’s owners do indeed deny it.
What I have done is place an ad with a rare video site asking for a copy of the tape. But I promise you this, if and when I ever see it again, I am making a bee-line to this place to let everybody know what time and date it aired. Unlike before, this time I will be mindful that someone might not believe me when I tell them I saw a TV show.
There seems to be an outlet, particularly on the internet, for every conceivable kind of hobby, vice, fetish or interest these days (see hampsterdance.com if you don’t believe me). There has got to be a game show afficionado web site or organization or chat board out there somewhere where this has been discussed, debunked, or evidence provided. Wouldn’t that be a more logical place to search for evidence, for or against, than us sitting here intellectually mastrubating over who remembers what and whether they’re right or not?
Alan
“Not meaning any disrespect, mind you…”
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
If you think it’s so easy, I invite you to have a go at it. It’s mostly dead ends and broken links. And that’s after you’ve filtered through the endless porn links that words like “butt”, “newlywed”, and even “game” pull up. It is contoversial only at a couple of sites frequented by hopelessly biased skeptics who, it would seem, think their own birth is an urban legend.
How do they know the $10,000 reward is not an urban legend? Does it exist in a trust fund? Is there a fiduciary agency handling it? I only learned about it recently (when I started this thread), but to hear those hyperskeptics tell it, there have been daily reminders on every cable channel of the reward, permanent banner ads for it at the top of Yahoo!, and people running through the streets with megaphones shouting “Reward from Bob Eubanks!”.
I saw a very funny episode of a pretty lousy game show many years ago. I told several people about then, and then pretty much forgot about it until I ran into Snopes, like I said in the OP. Then, two other people whom I know and respect, recalled that they had seen it too.
There are arguments for and against this thing, but precious little evidence either way. Someone suggested that my roommate might have planted the idea in my head while I was watching something else actually happening. If so, I would have expected him, when I asked him about it, to say, “No, you forgot. I just told you about that. We didn’t actually see it.” But no, he recalls it too, and thinks we were in South Carolina at the time, but isn’t sure.
These demands that we pin down when we saw this are unreasonable. As I’ve explained several times now, there was nothing especially remarkable about the episode at the time, other than its humor. If I’d known that people would doubt me years later, I might have documented it.
Well, a few minutes of searching found me this: http://www.talkcity.com/tcp/trans/5-6-98.htmpl
In it, Mr. Eubanks never mentions the “up the butt” thing at all. Of course this proves nothing. He does mention that the shows taped between 66 and 74 are gone, but since the claim has been made that the show was seen on Game Show Network, that shouldn’t apply.
He also says:
I am not interested enough to call the number or order the tapes (this interview is from 98, who knows if the number is valid?) And even if someone orders the tapes and the up the butt answer isn’t there, that won’t PROVE it never happened.
“You can be smart or pleasant. For years I was smart.
I recommend pleasant.”
Elwood P. Dowd
In a recent discussion http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000832.html, I talked about a demonstration I used to run for an introductory psychology class I taught, in which I took about five minutes to induce false memories about a classroom intruder in about 50 or so students. I made the students misremember that the intruder was wearing a hat, or was blond, or had glasses, or freckles (the details differed from class to class). To continue describing the results of that demonstration, usually I would have the ‘real’ intruder come back in after we had had the class discussion about false memories. So, for instance, the class is remembering that the intruder had blond hair, glasses, a beard, and a blue sweatshirt. And then he would come back in: brown hair, no glasses, no beard, and white turtleneck. And invariably there would be at least a few students who would stubbornly maintain that their memory was correct, and that I was bringing in the wrong person- that this was NOT the intruder they had seen only half an hour before. I had the evidence- I mean, I had set up the demonstration, I had the perpetrator there to say ‘yes, it was me’, - and they had their memories.
They were wrong. I was right. Yet they refused to believe me. And that was an event that had happened less than an hour previously, as opposed to some months or years previously.
This is the same case. Lib is stubbornly maintaining that his memory is correct, despite a complete lack of other evidence to support that belief and some evidence to the contrary. Nothing David or I or anybody else says is going to convince him that he’s wrong.
Lemme see, if they constantly deny it happened, it’s a conspiracy. If they don’t keep mentioning it 20 years after the (non)fact, it could have happened?
Don’t you think the fact that it doesn’t come up in the nonskeptic sites at all, yet so many people know about it and argue about it is suggestive in itself?
Felice, I did a study like that as part of my senior honors class in psychology oh-so-many years ago. It’s useful to illustrate, as I said much earlier on this thread, that four eyewitnesses will each testify differently as to the “small details” involved in an event. However, as to the “large details” the testimony is generally consistent. Thus, in your experiment, I am sure that every student testified that there was indeed an “intruder” into your classroom. That would be the “large detail;” i.e., the event happened. The small details are the ones that get confused, because each person concentrates on something different in the event.
