Finding Bigfoot - 01/30/2012

In my weekly write-up of Finding Bigfoot, I’ve listed my top five moments from last night’s show.  After coming up with this list I picked my overall favorite and provided an explanation of my pick.

1.    Bobo cooks bacon to attract Bigfoot.  He eats a single piece in order to show Bigfoot that he is not trying to poison him.

Although cooking bacon to attract Bigfoot is fairly funny, I did not select this option.  This is because it is possible that he was joking about the poisoning thing and just wanted to eat a piece of bacon before setting the rest out as bait.  The guys on this show say so many absurdly stupid things it is nearly impossible to distinguish between their jokes and their statements of “fact.”

2.    Matt Moneymaker thinks it would be good idea to bring a mother with a child along on an expedition.  Based on a crazy lady’s story, he comes to the conclusion that female squatches are attracted to children playing.

I’m pretty certain this was a serious suggestion.  However, this comment did not get my vote, because it was too off the cuff.  There would have to be a longer, more detailed planning of this approach to garner my vote.

3.    During a grid search, they come across a big pile of branches.  Even at first glance, it is obviously a deposit left by a flood.  Added to this is the fact that a stream is a few yards away.  There is no entrance, no roof, and no interior to the “structure.”  It is just a freaking pile of sticks.  Despite all of this, geologic flood expert Cliff says that he thinks the stream is too far away for the pile of debris to be a flood deposit.  The “skeptic” Renea buys his expert opinion and is stumped to find an explanation.

This one almost gets my vote because it is a complete microcosm of what this show is all about.  They find some sketchy evidence with an obvious non-sasquatch explanation.  They find some excuse to dismiss this obvious explanation and decide instead that the finding proves the existence of a mythical beast.  However, this one was just too predictable and not funny enough to get my vote.

4.    Bobo is walking through the woods with a group of children.  He falls on his ass.

If I was voting for solely the biggest laugh, my vote would go here.  However, this moment does not capture the stupidity of the Bigfoot Hunters near enough to earn my vote.  I do wonder about the parents of these children.  Speaking as a parent, Bobo is far, far down the list of people whom I would allow my child to go into the woods with.

Would you trust this man to be alone with your children?

With a digitally added mustache it becomes clear that he is actually Ron Jeremy.  Not a man I want around my children.

5.    After a Bigfoot call, they hear a loud thump from a meadow.  They start to look for the rock that Sasquatch threw.  They thought that if they found it, they could get DNA from it.

Ding, Ding, Ding!!! We have a winner.  This one has everything I love about the show.

·         Trying to attract a shy creature with a loud noise at night. Check.

·         Hearing a random noise in the forest at night and being 100% sure it was caused by Sasquatch. Check.

·         Coming up with a pseudo scientific crazy scheme to obtain concrete evidence of their imagined encounter with Bigfoot. Check.

·         Bumbling around like idiots, while searching for something in the forest at night. Check.

Bonus points for failing to find any rocks lying in a forest meadow!

Wikipedia Vandalism Done Right

I think everybody should, at least once, try their hand at Wikipedia vandalism.  It is juvenile, but can be fun.  I think as long as you don’t go absolutely nuts, you can get away with it quite awhile before your IP address is banned from editing.  First of all, be at least somewhat clever with it.  Don’t just fill a page with profanities or something like that.  It’s very bad form. 

The object of the game is to get your revisions to last as long as possible.  The best way to do this is to modify obscure entries or make small, almost hidden changes.  I’ve put together a guide below to give you some ideas.

·         The screen shot change.  This one is only good for seconds before someone in Wikipedia land fixes it.  It is usually targeted to send to a particular person.  It is also the most juvenile entry on this list and the likeliest to get you banned.  The idea is to change an entire page, quickly capture a screenshot, and email it to your target.  If you take longer than a minute, your change will be removed.  An example would be taking the Tennessee Volunteers article and replacing the entire contents with “ARE GAY” in big orange letters.  Grab the screen print and email to your annoying Vol fan friend with a snarky statement about always suspecting something like this.

·         The Mad Lib revision.  Remember Mad Libs?  Those books where you filled in missing words in the story to make it funny.  As a child, we generally just used words like stinky, pee, poop, fart, gross, and booger over and over again to hilarious effect.  As adults, we can add adjectives to Wikipedia entries.  Just take an existing article and fill it up with almost correct sounding adjectives.  So, an excerpt from the article on Ben Franklin goes from:

Franklin, always proud of his working class roots, became a successful newspaper editor and printer in Philadelphia, the leading city in the colonies. He was also partners with William Goddard and Joseph Galloway the three of whom published the Pennsylvania Chronical, a newspaper that was known for its revolutionary sentiments and criticisms of the British monarchy in the American colonies.

To this:

Rotund Franklin, always proud of his upper working class roots, became a dirty newspaper editor and printer in Philadelphia, the foulest city in the colonies. He was also sexual partners with William Goddard and Joseph Galloway the three of whom published the Pennsylvania F’in Chronical, a satirical newspaper that was known for its sadism and revolutionary sentiments and false criticisms of the swishy British monarchy in the whisky drinking American colonies.

·         Source revision.  This one is pretty limited in scope, but it is designed to last a long time.  I mean who ever checks the sources at the bottom of the page?  Although if someone did, they may be surprised to find that some of the information of the article came from such scholarly works as “Completely Made This Part Up”, “My Butt”, “Work of Pure Fiction” or “What the Hell Are You Doing Reading the Source List, Poindexter?”

·         Might be true revision.  The amount of time this one lasts before being removed is mainly dependent on the obscurity of the article.  If the article is a well known, often accessed subject, your change probably won’t live for a long time.  The strategy here is to add a sentence containing a fact that might be true.  You get bonus points if you footnote it to a source you made up (see last bullet point).  Here is an example from the entry on “New Coke.”  The bolded sentence was added.

The results of the taste tests were strong — the sweeter mixture overwhelmingly beat both regular Coke and Pepsi. Then tasters were asked if they would buy and drink it if it were Coca-Cola. Most said yes, they would, although it would take some getting used to. A small minority, about 10-12%, felt angry and alienated at the very thought, saying that they might stop drinking Coke altogether.  Further, 2% rejected the taste of the new formula, because they claimed that they could no longer taste the cocaine, the amount of which had been significantly reduced in the new mixture.

·         Notable Alumni.  This is one of my favorites.  Pretty much every college and a lot of high schools have a Notable Alumni section.  Just add your friends and coworkers to the listings for the schools they attended.  If it fits the existing template for the page, put their job title.   So between Nobel winners, Hollywood celebrities, and powerful CEOs, you come across “Ted McLaughlin, Director Regional Sales.”  These entries tend to last a really long time before a Wikipedia editor get annoyed enough to remove them.

·         Semi Famous people with the same name as someone you know.  For example, Mark Adler is a member of the Canadian House of Commons.  But it would be perfectly correct to add a section to his article to cover the fact that Mark Adler could also refer to another guy who attended the University of Georgia in 1995.  He used to enjoy getting drunk on the porch of his frat house and chasing after joggers that passed by on the sidewalk. 

A Treatise on Youth Basketball

I just got back from watching my 10 year old’s basketball game.  She just started her first season of youth basketball.  This is my third time through having a kid play basketball at this age.  The games are somehow painful and hilarious at the same time.  I’ve come to realize that all of the players at this age can be sorted into one of three categories.

1.     The Shooters (aka classic ball hogs) - These kids basically have one skill.  They can dribble.  So they are usually play point guard.  Despite their position, they have a very few assists.  They will consistently ignore four open teammates to showcase their ball handling skills.  They invariably end up trapped in the corner by all five defenders.  The logical thing to do here would be to work a pass to a teammate for an easy basket.  The Shooter always decides it is best to desperately fling the ball at the hoop with a one handed, off balance shot from an impossible distance.  In the rare event that they get a basket, it is a spectacular shot.  In their eyes, the cheers and glory they receive make it worth their shooting percentage of 1%.  In general, a team’s offense depends on their ability to rebound the Shooter’s air ball.  Although they are usually point guards, if you have more than one on the team, they make good centers or power forwards.  This is because if they get the ball, they are the only category of player that you can count on to shoot without hesitation.

2.    The Freezer – These kids have a knack for getting rebounds and intercepting errant passes.  Once they get the ball, they have no idea what the hell to do with it, so they just freeze in one place holding on to it.  Often someone from the other team tries to grab it from them creating a jump ball situation.  However, some Freezers are quite adept at protecting the ball.  There they are, frozen in spot, leaned over with elbows out, tightly clutching the ball in their gut.  Coaches, parents, and other players are desperately shouting varying instructions. “Dribble it! Shoot it! Pass it to me!”  Game action only resumes after a painfully long delay, when the Freezer responds to the loudest instruction he heard.  Their effectiveness as players depends largely on the loudest voice associated with the team.  These players are usually your leading scorers.  Coaches should generally play them at center or power forward and be ready to shout, “SHOOT IT!”

3.    The Panicker – These kids treat the ball as if it were on fire.  They refuse to touch it for more than a second.  Some of them are pretty good at getting the ball in their hands, but it is soon gone.  Basically, the split second they get the ball, they are throwing it somewhere.  They very rarely dribble.  At first perception, it seems to be completely random where they direct the ball.  It could be the hoop, a teammate, an empty area of the court, or out of bounds.  Despite the seemingly random nature of their decision, there seems to be preponderance of throws that go squarely to a player on the other team.  They usually lack the ball handling skills necessary to be good point guards, but any other spot suits them fine.  It will be completely happenstance as to whether they are effective players no matter what position you put them in.  I recommend they play at the shooting guard or small forward spots.  This is only because the other positions are already taken.  That said, if your team lacks a Shooter, there is a sub group of Panickers that handle the ball fine until they are pressured.  These kids can confidently bring a ball down the court as point guard, but as soon they are pressed in any way, they errantly fling the ball somewhere.

For new coaches, I’ve put together a few potential line ups assuming at least two of each category are available on the roster. 

Balanced:

Point Guard – Shooter

Shooting Guard – Panicker

Small Forward – Freezer

Power Forward – Freezer

Center - Shooter

This is designed for the Shooter to bring the ball down the court and errantly throw up an air ball.  The other Shooter and the Freezers are in the best position for rebounding the ball.  The coach should immediately begin to yell, “SHOOT IT!” at the top of his lungs in case one of the Freezers gets the ball.  If the Panicker gets the rebound, this alignment puts all four teammates between her and the basket.  Presumably this will put some pressure on her to throw the ball in the correct direction giving your team a 4 out of 9 probability of ending up with the ball.

Ball Protection:

Point Guard – Freezer

Shooting Guard – Freezer

Small Forward – Panicker

Power Forward – Shooter

Center – Shooter

This should only be utilized with a substantial lead.  It is designed to run out the clock.  The key is to take the ball out of the hands of the Shooters and Panickers who usually turn it over quickly.  Generally the point guard will bring the ball down the court.  When she is pressed at half court, she will hold the ball and freeze.  The coach should yell “PASS IT.”  If yelled loud enough, she will find the shooting guard as the easiest target.  The shooting guard will receive the pass and immediately freeze.  Again, the coach should yell, “PASS IT!”  The coach should repeat this process until a pass goes errant or a shot opens up (be sure to yell “SHOOT IT!”)  The Shooters are in the best position to get the rebound.  If the Panicker somehow ends up with the ball, it is a complete crap shoot what they will do with it.

Aggressive:

Point Guard – Panicker

Shooting Guard – Freezer

Small Forward – Freezer

Power Forward – Shooter

Center – Shooter

This is used when you’re playing from behind and need to take some risks to get the lead back.  The Panicker will bring the ball down and randomly fling it.  If by some chance your team ends up with it, you have your leading scorers with the ball.  The Shooters are in a position to keep rebounding and shooting.  If Freezers get the ball, they are in position to respond to either “SHOOT!” or “PASS!”

As an aside, one potential problem with multiple Shooters on the court is that they actually fight over the ball.  I saw this today with as a matter of fact.  Two Shooters on the same team both got the rebound.  They proceeded to struggle against each other for the ball while their coach was going crazy yelling for them to stop fighting.  The official was really confused about what to do.  I thought he was just going to step in and tell them to stop, but eventually he called a five second violation and awarded the ball to the other team.

Finding Bigfoot: The Play

A one Act, two Scene play by ADawg:

Scene 1:  It is night.  Sasquatch hunters Bobo and Renea are silently walking through the forest wearing strange looking camera set ups which point at their own faces.

Bobo:  Let me try a call.  (Cup hands around mouth) WWWWOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Cliff’s voice over Radio:  That was a good one.  Sounded just like a squatch.

(A rustling occurs off stage)

Bobo:  DID YOU HEAR THAT?!?!?!?

Renea: Yeah, I…

Bobo: SSSSHHHHHHHHH!!!!  It’s over there.  (Looks into woods with camera like device)  I’m getting a large heat signature at 2:00.  It’s right there.  I think it’s a squatch.

Renea: Or some other large mammal, maybe a deer, or a bear, or a….

Bobo: Deer and bear don’t break sticks like that when they hear humans.  I heard a stick break.  That is squatch behavior.  When they hear people talking, they step on sticks to try to show dominance.  I’m going after it.  (Takes off running in direction of noise, Renea follows)

(Grunting and the sounds of a large animal crashing through woods proceed them)

Bobo (panting heavily):  I….think….we’re….going….to….catch….

Large Bear:  RRRROOOAAAAR!!!!! (Bobo and Renea both turn and run in opposite direction with bear in pursuit).

Bobo: AAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!! (Bear knocks down Bobo and mauls him.  Renea continues to run.  Bobo is left lying motionless after bear leaves).

Scene 2:  It is day.  Renea, Cliff, and a Forest Ranger are standing by the mauled body of Bobo.  The scene is surrounded by crime scene tape.

Forest Ranger:  So it was a bear and you saw the attack, right?

Renea: Yes.

Forest Ranger:  And you two actually thought it would be a good idea to chase it, causing it to attack you?

Renea:  Well, we chased something large.  We heard a noise and thought it was Bigfoot, so we chased it.

Forest Ranger:  You’re walking through the woods at night, heard a noise, thought it was Bigfoot, chased it, and got attacked by a bear?

Renea: Yes.

Forest Ranger:  What made you think it was Bigfoot?

Renea:  We made a Bigfoot call.

Forest Ranger:  You made a Bigfoot call?

Renea:  Yes, and before that we knocked some wood together?

Forest Ranger:  And that made you think it was Bigfoot?

Renea:  Well, Bobo thought it was Bigfoot, I was skeptical.

Forest Ranger:  You were skeptical?

Renea: Yes.

Cliff:  Well in my mind this proves Bobo was right.  You guys must have been chasing a Bigfoot.  Only a squatch would have been smart enough to lead you to a bear.

Forest Ranger:  (Stares incredulously at Cliff, waits for him to continue)

Cliff:  Squatches have been known to keep bears as pets and train them for personal protection.  This is definite proof of that kind of activity.

Forest Ranger:  (Begins to say something. Shakes head and decides to remain quiet)

Renea:  Well, I’m a skeptic, but based on what I saw and what you’re telling me, I’m beginning to be a believer.  That bear was definitely protecting something.  It was provoked into attacking Bobo.  I can’t think of any other reasonable explanation.

Forest Ranger:  (Shakes head again and talks into radio).  We have a body from a bear attack.  It needs removal.  (Indistinguishable response from radio)  Uh, no I don’t think the bear is a threat.  Based on the situation, I wouldn’t expect any further attacks.  It was apparently provoked…

Cliff:  By a sasquatch.

Forest Ranger:  Uhhh.  Yeah sure.

Close Curtain.

Finding Bigfoot Critique

So, I watched a couple episodes of Finding Bigfoot last night.  I think they were both reruns, but it’s been awhile since I’ve watched this awesome show.  My critique consists of a game called "What Are the Chances?"  I’m going to compare the Finding Bigfoot crew members' theories about their findings to the first alternative that pops into my head.  Then we ask are ourselves, what are the chances that their theory is correct opposed to my alternative.

1.     FACT: After listening to a tape of timber wolves howling that was recorded in the wild, they notice that one of the wolves sounds slightly different.  It is more guttural.

Their theory:  Squatches are smart.  In order to evade detection by humans, they disguise their calls to each other by closely imitating the sounds of other fauna in the environment.  Only the trained human ear can detect these variations and pick out the squatch call.

My proposed alternative:  Maybe all wolves don't sound exactly alike.

2.    FACT: The crew was walking through the woods late at night.  In order to attract a bigfoot, they are banging pieces of wood together (ironically while whispering to each other). In the distance, they hear a loud splash coming from a stream.

Their theory:  The shy, reclusive bigfoot thought that a good response to a couple of clowns banging sticks together would be to throw a big rock into the water.

My proposed alternative:  They scared a beaver.

3.    FACT:  They heard a whistle.

Their theory:  Obviously it was a sasquatch.

My proposed alternative:  It was a bird.

4.    FACT:  There are many reports of squatch sightings by campsites at which the campers are sitting around a campfire playing guitars.

Their theory:  Based on these reports, squatches are attracted to human made music.  Despite their fear of humans, this is a good way to attract sasquatches for observation.

My proposed alternative:  Generally speaking, the hippy campers making these reports are stoned out of their minds at the time and they are seeing trees.

5.    FACT:  It is dark.  After making some bigfoot calls, one of the crew see an “eye shine” looking at them from the tree line.  The eyes are at about human level.

Their theory:  It’s got to be sasquatch.

My proposed alternative:  It’s a bear.  But that’s pretty boring for the “what are the chances game.”  So instead, let’s say it is a local resident’s escaped pet chimpanzee, which is conditioned to human voices and came to investigate.

Based on this exercise, I’ve come to the conclusion that the stupidest person on the show is Renea, the skeptic.  She is constantly stumped to provide an alternative explanation for what the crew experiences.  She remains skeptical, but…… how to explain the weird noises and things they see?  She should start with the presumption that, “It could be ANYTHING other than a sasquatch.”

One last thought on the show.  How great would it be if one episode, they hear a noise, see a large heat signature on their infrared camera, and take off in pursuit.  After a few minutes of stalking the beast (actually crashing clumsily through the woods), the bear they're following turns around and attacks them?