Bigfooters covered by Vanity Fair Magazine

I wonder what the situation with Fahrenbach would be if Vanity Fair had not been there to report on the event. Were Bigfooters publicly trashing his presentation before VF was hot off the presses?
Click to expand...

As I know the situation, the VF article was first posted here, then brought to the BFF and then the footers realized how embarrassing this Fahrenbach has been (the whole BF-orgy thing).
But then again, I might be wrong. :wink:
 
This tactical map from the conference indicates an alarming concentration of troops. They appear to be preparing for an eastern offensive.

Bigfoot_map.jpg
 
Did Bigfootry jump the shark with the TBRC article?

Drew said:
The key here is the transcript. If the writer was 'unfair', then I think the transcript would support these claims. If the writer was simply putting forth what he heard, then the transcript would support this claim.
During the GA hoax, the hoaxers were made out to be the Kooks. In this case, a reknowned Bigfooter, with a PhD, got up in front of bona-fide bigfoot people, and started talking about, frankly, some very kooky things. It got covered by a national publication, and frankly it looks like the writer wasn't embellishing. If there is a Jump-the-shark moment for Bigfootry, it is this. The GA hoax will go down as just another BF hoax.

Does anyone remember the Shatner-Sketch on SNL, when he started yelling at the trekkies? Being in the Comic Book business at the time, I can tell you that the Trekkies I knew were acting similarly, claiming Shatner ambushed them and things like that.
Click to expand...
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=24070&view=findpost&p=503407
 
Maldon said:
As I know the situation, the VF article was first posted here, then brought to the BFF and then the footers realized how embarrassing this Fahrenbach has been (the whole BF-orgy thing).
But then again, I might be wrong. :wink:
Click to expand...

I posted it here after I saw it on Cryptomundo. AFAIK, Coleman was the first to post the VF article. Bigfooters who attended the conference had almost 2 weeks to mention Henner's woo before VF did - but they didn't. Bigfooters who read the reviews of the conference would have no idea that he was talking crap. IMO, it's the reality of a cultish social dynamic in which nobody wants to be the first to drive a stake into a PhD Bigfoot believer. It took the VF article to give the green light to dogpile on Fahrenbach. Now it's considered bad form to defend him.

I asked what would happen if VF had not been at the event. I think the answer is that Fahrenbach would get a free pass and be treated as if he never said what he did. PhD supporters are too rare and precious to toss under the bus.

I now ask what would happen if VF was there and Fahrenbach wasn't. You can look at the article again and extract everything about him to get a sense of what that imaginary article would look like. It still isn't pretty for the credibility of Bigfootery.


Drewbot said:
If there is a Jump-the-shark moment for Bigfootry, it is this.
Click to expand...

Because MK Davis' "Massacre at Bluff Creek" was not a shark-jumping moment?
 
William Parcher said:
Because MK Davis' "Massacre at Bluff Creek" was not a shark-jumping moment?
Click to expand...

It had shark-jumping content, but didn't get the mainstream coverage that this did. Plus if I'm correct, Bigfootry roundly jumped on that and threw MK Davis far under the bus. They have not done that with Henner, yet.

PS- I believe that the "Massacre at Bluff Creek" should be referred to as: 'Patterson-Gimlin's Bigfoot Massacree (In four-part harmony)' from now on.
 
Last edited:
Bigfooters who attended the conference had almost 2 weeks to mention Henner's woo before VF did - but they didn't.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is very important. Did they cover it up and not talk about it out of embarrassment, or did they agree with it as a normal talk on sasquatch behavior?

Because MK Davis' "Massacre at Bluff Creek" was not a shark-jumping moment?
Click to expand...

Davis had already jumped... :D
 
Hey Henner, it's 45 feet per leap on all fours...

The attack leaps: distance was about thirty yards. Fifteen yards per leap. This was on all fours.
Click to expand...

And no prints from the landings, either...

BFRO #8547 Class A pig report. The big girl covered 30 yards in 2 leaps and killed a pig... all in just 4 seconds. Somebody call the NFL...

This continued for several minutes until they were about 30 yards apart and almost directly in front of me at about 40 yards. The animal dropped to all fours, bunched up its rear legs and leaped. It took two leaps to reach the hogs and it screamed during the second leap causing the hogs to panic for a split second. The second leap ended with it slapping one hog in its side, knocking it through the air into side of a tree. As the squealing hog bounced off the tree, it pounced on it, beating it with its fist like a person pounding on a desk. I could hear bones crunching with each hit. All this happened very fast. About 4 seconds from first leap to dead hog. The quickness of attack was very unnerving. The three live hogs were in full flight. The animal picked up the dead hog, tucked it under its arm and started walking off and let out a noise like (Grrrrrrrrrrr, whoop, whoop, whooooooop, whoop).
Click to expand...
 
Why wouldn't a biped put a hog over it's shoulder to carry it? Or one up on each shoulder?

Or on it's back with the feet around it's neck?

Why tuck it under an arm? That's an awkward way to do it.
 
Wow.

1) Covers 15 yards in leap-1
2) Covers another 15 yards in leap-2
3) Slaps hog
4) Hog is propelled through air
5) Hog strikes tree and falls to the ground
6) Bigfoot covers yet more ground to reach flung hog
7) Wails on hog, apparently, multiple times ("beating it with its fist like a person pounding on a desk"), breaking bones in the process
7) Hog dies

"About 4 seconds from first leap to dead hog."
Click to expand...
 
Have you scoftics ever stopped to consider that maybe Fahrenbach is the victim here?

Maybe he couldn't help but talk about Bigfoot's voracious and kinky sexual appetites.

Maybe there is an unknown causal relationship between Bigfoot conferences and sexual arousal...
 
tube said:
Have you scoftics ever stopped to consider that maybe Fahrenbach is the victim here?

Maybe he couldn't help but talk about Bigfoot's voracious and kinky sexual appetites.

Maybe there is an unknown causal relationship between Bigfoot conferences and sexual arousal...
Click to expand...

I thought that was at a bigfoot finding expedition.....in a tent.
 
This continued for several minutes until they were about 30 yards apart and almost directly in front of me at about 40 yards. The animal dropped to all fours, bunched up its rear legs and leaped. It took two leaps to reach the hogs and it screamed during the second leap causing the hogs to panic for a split second. The second leap ended with it slapping one hog in its side, knocking it through the air into side of a tree. As the squealing hog bounced off the tree, it pounced on it, beating it with its fist like a person pounding on a desk. I could hear bones crunching with each hit. All this happened very fast. About 4 seconds from first leap to dead hog. The quickness of attack was very unnerving. The three live hogs were in full flight. The animal picked up the dead hog, tucked it under its arm and started walking off and let out a noise like (Grrrrrrrrrrr, whoop, whoop, whooooooop, whoop).
Click to expand...

Ahhh, there's our girl. She hasn't been out for a while. She needs to come out for a trot every now and then, you know.

Truly one of the greatest reports ever.
 
I listened to the live interview with Fahrenbach tonight. You can hear the recorded show here.

He did say the things mentioned in the VF article. However, he isn't happy with the way it was portrayed. Basically, Henner believes the stories told about these encounters which to many sound fantastic and hard to believe. He has no proof that they are factual other than that he spoke to the witnesses and found them to be credible in his opinion. That is enough for him.

He doesn't sound like a crackpot. He sounds gullible. Sincere, intelligent, cordial and gullible.
 
There are many parallels between Fahrenbach and Krantz (dead, but I'll speak of him in present tense). Both are scientists with a PhD. Both strongly believe in the existence of Bigfoot, to the extent that it appears to be a conviction. Neither have ever seen a Bigfoot. Both regard eyewitness accounts as foundational with secondary physical evidence as supportive. Both have a "secret" formula for determining real stuff from fake. For Krantz, it is his hidden criteria to determine the authenticity of track casts. For Fahrenbach, it is his hidden criteria to determine if an eyewitness report is reliable (not a hoax).

Fahrenbach gave some basic guidelines for determining the reliability of eyewitnesses, but declared that he was not going to reveal all to prevent hoaxers from getting an advantage. He assured the listeners that "you know when it's a hoax", presumably speaking for himself, but probably implying that others could do the same. He gives the thumbs-up to Janice Coy's Bigfoot habituation, but suggests that she is not being honest about her ability to decipher the language of her Bigfoot visitors. According to him, she gave him "Bigfoot hairs" that essentially match "Bigfoot hairs" given to him by various unrelated others. He explained how these are not human hairs and do not match any other known animal (only showing some similarity to unusual breeds of cattle).

Much more could be said about the interview, callers, and the handling by the hosts.
 
I need to dl the whole thing as i didnt get it all but he basically showed in great detail what kind of scientist he is in regard to BF. It spoke for itself.
 
He has a PhD in Zoology. He uses his knowledge of great apes to rationalize all of those superlatives found in the eyewitness reports cited in Vanity Fair. Bigfooters who thought he had tongue-in-cheek at the Texas conference were wrong. He skillfully explains that super running speed with enormous steps, double pig toting and even the sexual aspects are all within the realm of a really big ape thing. This disarms the skeptic (even those who are convinced Bigfoot exists) and they are left to question the authenticity of the encounter itself. He goes on to assure you that he has already vetted the witnesses and scenarios.

The hosts were nearly powerless to take control. They are not experienced in dealing out strong skeptical argument during a live radio show. It isn't easy to tell a very friendly and intelligent man that he is full of crap. Or, at least to tell him that he is ultra gullible to believe the witnesses. He could easily turn that right back into your face by saying that these witnesses are no less credible than those who give what you would consider to be 'reasonable' encounter stories. If that were to happen, the whole of Bigfootery collapses right in front of everyone.
 
after reading "hopeful's excellent transcription of the program- it gets even worse still

>>>H: Hairs, hairs are rather characteristic in their appearance, and the only thing that this can possibly get confused is very odd cattle hair, which tend to generally be thicker and have certain peculiar pigment clumps in them that don’t occur in sasquatch hair, and human hair possible, although I’ve yet to find a human hair that would be confusing with respect to looking like sasquatch hair. But by now, that I’ve looked at hundreds of samples, I get, when I look at the real thing, I get an immediate happy feeling in the pit of my stomach.

Yeah, I'm getting a feeling in mine too now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom