Bigfooters covered by Vanity Fair Magazine

GT/CS said:
To whom are you referencing?
Click to expand...

My friend, Mr.Henner Fahrenbach. While i think some of his beliefs are woo, That is no reason to criticize him in a disrespectful way. If you dont believe him, that is fine, but dont start labeling him and attacking his credentials.
 
There is nothing wrong with satirizing people -- any people -- for their beliefs, their way of life, their mode of dress, anything. Humor is a great lens with which to examine ourselves. We all deserve to be made fun of on some level or another, and anyone who is touchy about it is probably upset because the satirist is hitting too close to home.

Example: I am a HUGE Star Wars nerd, or used to be. When Triumph the Insult Comic Dog did a bit on SW nerds on Conan O'Brien a few years ago, some of my friends and fellow fans were upset; a few of them were incensed. Me, I just laughed and laughed... because "Triumph" was spot-on.

I also grew up being laughed at and bullied, so I've developed a thick skin for such things. IMO, if your way of being does not stand up to someone else's ridicule, and/or your reaction is deep offense and accusations of "slander" and "damage", either you're WAY too sensitive, or you may want to re-examine your way of being.
 
makaya325 said:
My friend, Mr.Henner Fahrenbach. While i think some of his beliefs are woo, That is no reason to criticize him in a disrespectful way. If you dont believe him, that is fine, but dont start labeling him and attacking his credentials.
Click to expand...

I totally missed that. Where did he pick on Henner in his article?
 
Vortigern99 said:
There is nothing wrong with satirizing people -- any people -- for their beliefs, their way of life, their mode of dress, anything. Humor is a great lens with which to examine ourselves. We all deserve to be made fun of on some level or another, and anyone who is touchy about it is probably upset because the satirist is hitting too close to home.

Example: I am a HUGE Star Wars nerd, or used to be. When Triumph the Insult Comic Dog did a bit on SW nerds on Conan O'Brien a few years ago, some of my friends and fellow fans were upset; a few of them were incensed. Me, I just laughed and laughed... because "Triumph" was spot-on.

I also grew up being laughed at and bullied, so I've developed a thick skin for such things. IMO, if your way of being does not stand up to someone else's ridicule, and/or your reaction is deep offense and accusations of "slander" and "damage", either you're WAY too sensitive, or you may want to re-examine your way of being.
Click to expand...

I am a huge Star Wars geek as well and I loved that bit Triumph did:



"Which button calls your parents to pick you up.":D

Personally, I think the article made rather easy potshots. At the searchforbigfoot forum where I have been posting recently many of the members were attendees to the Ohio conference including one mod (John Cartwright) who was referred to in the Leigh Hart piece. I can see why they would be choked. I note that the article is an opinion piece. The SFB response to the article is here:

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.php?showtopic=1320&pid=13272&st=0&#entry13272

The Diane mentioned in the piece is Diane Stocking. There is a youtube video on the conference with information on speakers here:



Leigh's humour is hit and miss for me. I don't think JC with the traumatic encounter attributed his weight to the experience but even if he did, it's pretty nasty to mock him for it. I don't think your winning any fans with that type of humour. In this video of Hart I think the stupid Bigfoot call bit is weak but the Al Hodgson PGF interview is hilarious:



Al Hodgson: "Well, no one's been able to prove it's a fake by any means."

Leigh Hart: "The people that disclaim it are saying that it's a man in a suit walking past."

AH: "That's actually an impossibility. Hey, we can see muscle movement underneath that fur so how can it be a suit? You can't have a suit that tight."

LH: "Why not, Al? Why can't you have a suit that tight?"

AH: "Umm... *sighs*"

Very funny. That article - not so funny.

Here's part of JC's encounter story at the conference:



Sounds like it was pretty tough for him. John is also a member here.

Billy Willard discussing JC:

 
Vortigern99 said:
There is nothing wrong with satirizing people -- any people -- for their beliefs, their way of life, their mode of dress, anything. Humor is a great lens with which to examine ourselves. We all deserve to be made fun of on some level or another, and anyone who is touchy about it is probably upset because the satirist is hitting too close to home.

Example: I am a HUGE Star Wars nerd, or used to be. When Triumph the Insult Comic Dog did a bit on SW nerds on Conan O'Brien a few years ago, some of my friends and fellow fans were upset; a few of them were incensed. Me, I just laughed and laughed... because "Triumph" was spot-on.

I also grew up being laughed at and bullied, so I've developed a thick skin for such things. IMO, if your way of being does not stand up to someone else's ridicule, and/or your reaction is deep offense and accusations of "slander" and "damage", either you're WAY too sensitive, or you may want to re-examine your way of being.
Click to expand...


There is a big difference between harmless fun and attacking someone/ridiculing someone. When you label the person as delusional, incompetent, etc. then it gets dangerous.
 
No, it doesn't get "dangerous". I was called those things, and worse, on this very forum, by LONGTABBER, tsig and others, but I withstood it and came back with a renewed perspective and an adjusted attitude. Makaya, you've also been called "delusional", "incompetent" and even "stupid", and so has SweatyYeti, VisionfromFeeling, and others who have received even worse treatment. None of them has proved "dangerous" by any reasonable definition of the word. Like me, you've reexamined your position and declared your change of mind. I say this is all to the good, and we have ridicule, in part, to thank for that improvement.

There is nothing "dangerous" about using words to express one's opinion about another person's lack of intelligence/insight/technical skill/whatever. "Sticks and stones" and all that.

It also doesn't matter if anyone thinks it's funny or not. Kitakaze has stated that the Kiwi humorist does not tickle his funny bone... well, so what? The guy is ridiculing people who are arguably ridiculous, satirizing people who are ripe for satire. His approach may not make you, personally laugh, but that's okay. He should still have free reign to do what he's doing. It's also okay if other people do laugh, because that's all he's doing: making himself and others laugh at the silly, unsupported and unscientific beliefs, and the arguably absurd lifestyle, of a certain group of people.

We've all got it coming in some form or another. We're all ripe for ridicule. Let's not pretend that by poking fun at some people and making them look dumb, this humorist did anything morally or ethically or legally reprehensible. He's having a laugh, and I'm laughing with him.
 
Vortigern99 said:
No, it doesn't get "dangerous". I was called those things, and worse, on this very forum, by LONGTABBER, tsig and others, but I withstood it and came back with a renewed perspective and an adjusted attitude. Makaya, you've also been called "delusional", "incompetent" and even "stupid", and so has SweatyYeti, VisionfromFeeling, and others who have received even worse treatment. None of them has proved "dangerous" by any reasonable definition of the word. Like me, you've reexamined your position and declared your change of mind. I say this is all to the good, and we have ridicule, in part, to thank for that improvement.

There is nothing "dangerous" about using words to express one's opinion about another person's lack of intelligence/insight/technical skill/whatever. "Sticks and stones" and all that.

It also doesn't matter if anyone thinks it's funny or not. Kitakaze has stated that the Kiwi humorist does not tickle his funny bone... well, so what? The guy is ridiculing people who are arguably ridiculous, satirizing people who are ripe for satire. His approach may not make you, personally laugh, but that's okay. He should still have free reign to do what he's doing. It's also okay if other people do laugh, because that's all he's doing: making himself and others laugh at the silly, unsupported and unscientific beliefs, and the arguably absurd lifestyle, of a certain group of people.

We've all got it coming in some form or another. We're all ripe for ridicule. Let's not pretend that by poking fun at some people and making them look dumb, this humorist did anything morally or ethically or legally reprehensible. He's having a laugh, and I'm laughing with him.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying now. It is clearer to me now.
 
Vortigern99 said:
There is nothing "dangerous" about using words to express one's opinion about another person's lack of intelligence/insight/technical skill/whatever. "Sticks and stones" and all that.

It also doesn't matter if anyone thinks it's funny or not. Kitakaze has stated that the Kiwi humorist does not tickle his funny bone... well, so what? The guy is ridiculing people who are arguably ridiculous, satirizing people who are ripe for satire. His approach may not make you, personally laugh, but that's okay. He should still have free reign to do what he's doing. It's also okay if other people do laugh, because that's all he's doing: making himself and others laugh at the silly, unsupported and unscientific beliefs, and the arguably absurd lifestyle, of a certain group of people.

We've all got it coming in some form or another. We're all ripe for ridicule. Let's not pretend that by poking fun at some people and making them look dumb, this humorist did anything morally or ethically or legally reprehensible. He's having a laugh, and I'm laughing with him.
Click to expand...

To be perfectly clear, Leigh Hart tickles my funny bone. I just think that particular article was a bit on the mean side with the weight stuff. Parts of it were very funny (like everybody running around with poo in bags).

Here is Leigh Hart being horribly unfunny:



What's all that $#!% about?

I love Kiwi humour. C'mon, I mean, who doesn't love Flight of the Conchords? Hart does seem to do better with the physical comedy though:



I like when Hart explains how he approaches writing an article:



I love satire. I just don't love lazy satire which that opinion piece of his had. If you've been given gold by a group, don't settle for uncreative, mean, boring insults that tarnish it. A Bigfoot conference is going to provide great opportunities for observational humour. Getting regular folks to laugh at Bigfoot enthusiasts is like trying to get a terrier to hump a plush toy - they do it anyway with no help from you. The real challenge is to get Bigfoot enthusiasts to be able to laugh at themselves. Here's what I mean - see here where he's convinced the crowd he's a hominologist from New Zealand:

The keynote speaker for the evening was supposed to be the director of the documentary series Monster Quest, so you can imagine the disappointment when he decided not to show up.

I saw an opportunity, and volunteered to speak. I began by introducing myself as a director from New Zealand, then proceeded to educate the KFC-eating audience about the KFC-eating Waitakere Yeti. Borrowing from the American Indian “Sasquatch” legend I told them that our native Maori had encountered the beast more than 400 years ago and affectionately called him Ngawa Whakata Cafe, which loosely translates into “large, hairy, coffee-coloured man”. The fact that coffee had only been in the country for 150 years or so was a detail that didn’t seem to bother them.

I told them that our beast was less shy than theirs and had been known to rape campers or trampers, the most documented case been that of Travis Collins who was raped by the beast, not once but three times over a four-year period.

They also believed that back in New Zealand I currently ran the largest faeces analysis machine in the world, giving me a standing ovation when I finally left the podium.
Click to expand...

He calls his audience fat and brags about fooling them. He could have done that so much better. He could have included more bizarre elements of his address to the crowd, removed the potshots, had the talk recorded, and used it as great satire and commentary on critical thinking. Let your subject do the material for you. How easy is it to point and laugh and say "she was this fat"? All he did was piss people off then quickly retract. Look at this from his apology:

At no time did I have a particular person in mind when writing the column in fact most of them I had made up and written about before in countless other columns about Bigfoot (much to my editor’s dismay).This was an idea that was born from attending a type of event, nothing else, otherwise I would have used photos.
Click to expand...

Come now, Leigh, let's be honest now, shall we? He was very specific about particular people. He clearly referred to Diane Stocking, Billy Willard, and John Cartwright. That's pretty lame for an apology. The Vanity Fair piece was brilliant. That writer let his subject do the material for him. He let Henner Fahrenbach's words illustrate what he experienced and sat back and reported it. When footer's were choked and accused him of being biased he simply responded by showing them how much he held back and offered no apologies for accurately reporting what he experienced. I think the Vanity Fair piece was effective, especially among Bigfooters, whereas the Hart piece will just make Bigfooters hate him. Not effective satire in my books.
 
Last edited:
You make some good points, kit, and as always your investigation of Hart has been extremely thorough. I will stand by my earlier statement that whether the guy's videos/articles/commentary were funny and effective, or lame-brained and pointless, he has a right to make them, and should not be accused of "damaging" people as Coleman opined, nor of being "dangerous" as makaya suggested. He's making fun of people, which is an inalienable right in a free society. If he does it badly or in poor taste that's a strike against him as a humorist, not against the people he's (unsuccessfully) trying to satirize.
 
I see where your coming from Kitz. That is a good kind of humor, in which everyone on either sides can enjoy it.
 
Vortigern99 said:
You make some good points, kit, and as always your investigation of Hart has been extremely thorough. I will stand by my earlier statement that whether the guy's videos/articles/commentary were funny and effective, or lame-brained and pointless, he has a right to make them, and should not be accused of "damaging" people as Coleman opined, nor of being "dangerous" as makaya suggested. He's making fun of people, which is an inalienable right in a free society. If he does it badly or in poor taste that's a strike against him as a humorist, not against the people he's (unsuccessfully) trying to satirize.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Also, Cryptofool Coleman is a whiney drama queen. He likes to wave his hands in the air when he thinks cryptozoology is being laughed at, marginalized, or censored. Yes, Loren, it gets laughed at for doing nothing other than providing insight into human sociology. The hilarious thing is that while he's moaning about fairness and censorship he's deleting away at posts that he doesn't like.
 
kitakaze said:
Al Hodgson: "Well, no one's been able to prove it's a fake by any means."

Leigh Hart: "The people that disclaim it are saying that it's a man in a suit walking past."

AH: "That's actually an impossibility. Hey, we can see muscle movement underneath that fur so how can it be a suit? You can't have a suit that tight."

LH: "Why not, Al? Why can't you have a suit that tight?"

AH: "Umm... *sighs*"
Click to expand...

I could reply by listing the various methods of faking muscle movement or discuss various tight costumes. But instead, I'll just say this:

SPANDEX!
 
I didn't want to start another Bigfoot thread, so I'll put this here. There are two new books on Bigfoot. Both are from a skeptical viewpoint.

The Seattle Times reviews...

Big Foot: Books discuss life and afterlife of a Northwest icon


Amazon listings...

Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend

To the white working-class men who are his biggest fans, Buhs contends, Bigfoot is an icon of untamed masculinity, a populist rebel against scientific elites, the last champion of authentic reality against a plastic, image-driven, effeminate consumer society.

Buhs is at his amused best when following the exploits of bigfoot's human handlers—the colorful band of true believers, hoaxers and pseudo-documentarists who constructed this greatest of all shaggy-hominid stories.
Click to expand...



Anatomy of a Beast: Obsession and Myth on the Trail of Bigfoot

Part history, part road trip, and part biography, this is the true story of a remarkable group of men whose obsession with Bigfoot turned the giant hominid into an American icon. Award-winning journalist Michael McLeod tells of Bigfoot's rise to tabloid stardom in a fast-paced account that begins with his own journey to investigate a famous 1967 film clip of a Bigfoot in a California forest. McLeod proceeds to uncover a trail of clues reaching from the late nineteenth century, when a few ambitious, imaginative naturalists and explorers synthesized historical and indigenous folklore with Darwinian ideas and speculated that a proto-hominid "missing link" might still be alive in remote areas. That speculation would eventually inspire a colorful cast of loggers, hunters, con artists, and businessmen in the twentieth century to create the modern myth of Bigfoot, all of them angling for a piece of a monster that the media and the public still can't get enough of. Told through vividly narrated interviews and anecdotes, Anatomy of a Beast offers a unique perspective on the deep roots of counterfactual thinking--and how obsession and myth are created out of it.
Click to expand...
 
an 8-foot tall, 700-pound man roaming the Pacific Northwest forests is "beyond silly."
Click to expand...

An 8 foot tall 700 pound beast roaming New York is silly. An 8ft 700 pound beast roaming the pnw is not.
 
makaya325 said:
Beast? Man? It does not matter. Both explanations are ridicolous, but neither one can be ruled out.
Click to expand...

Wow. Contradicted yourself is just two posts. That might be a record for you.

a) There IS a difference; and b) if you are going to argue the point of a particular quote, exchanging one word for another, with close but not identical definitions, jerks your argument out of context.
 
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