Finding Bigfoot

[Guest]

I wouldn't even pay much attention to most of them. We do know that some of them are real, because we have Nathan's experience with them on the show, but some could definitely be attention-seekers who just want to get on television. Hopefully they have a good screening process in place.

The only interest I have in the show is Cliff's breakdowns on his own website. Now, THOSE are interesting!

I think most of the eye witness stories may be real, but some...not so much.

Like what about the one they followed up on with the girl and her father. She was driving down an old dirt road and a bigfoot (or something) threw a log at her truck. She was soooo petrified that she stopped the truck and called her dad to come get her. Once he got there they looked over and saw bigfoot at the tree line.

Now, come on. If you are that scared...would you stop the truck, then wait there for Dad to come get you? Heck no. You would put the pedal down and peel out of there as fast as possible. And wasn't it nice of bigfoot to hang around and wait for Dad to show up before coming out in the open so they both could see him?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

And sometimes I don't understand their logic in how the pick which stories to follow up on. We will hear a very interesting town hall story...then they will skip it and follow up on one of the less believable ones.

I think they were just looking for an excuse to come to michigan because there are a lot of strong recordings coming out of the central part of the state. I think they started doing more debunking shows as the main case this year because they were getting so many unbelievable stories and they had to do something to show that they are actively analyzing the cases they get. The first season made them look like they thought eveything was a squatch.

[chelefoot]

I think you are right Goony. One of the first ones they did of the second season was the video of the kids in the car screaming and the parents were laughing because they knew the guy in the suit was out there....shaking his tail and acting silly. I could not believe they even showed that one. In fact, it was so obvious the dad would not even appear on the show. His wife said it was to protect his identitiy because of his work.... I think it was because he was ashamed of the fact that such an obvious hoax made it onto the show. But, they did declare it a guy in a suit (for the first time) but gee, who wouldn't have.

[LeafTalker]

I think some of the characters on the show are actually interested in their subject and are operating in good faith (and doing pretty well, considering everything). But then they get feedback that says, "Oh, you guys think everything is a squatch." Because they are operating in good faith, this feedback dismays them. They know that the implications of that casually dismissive remark are not true (those implications being, "The observer does not know enough to be able to judge what is or is not 'likely' to be evidence of the presence of a Sasquatch" -- when in fact, they actually know quite enough to know).

But even though they know this criticism is unjustified, it's out there in the world, and they feel they have to take it seriously. So they try to respond to people who say, "you think everything is a squatch" by trying to show they DON'T think everything is a squatch.

But because there's so much ambiguity in pretty much everything involved with BF, they can't reject evidence with any greater certainty than they can accept it.

To reject something that truly deserves rejection, they're forced into the situation that Chelefoot describes: Rejecting something that they actually know to be a hoax. (Isn't that what we want, though? Certainty? They give that to us, and we're still not happy.)

In my mind, therefore, there are two interesting things to learn here. The first is, they have more integrity, and are doing better, than I thought, because they're trying soooooo hard to satisfy people who cannot be satisfied, without making themselves into liars. That's hard to do! (They've actually slipped a lot since that example Chelefoot gives, because since then they've discarded evidence that it makes no sense to discard, like Stan Courtney's. But they really tried there for a minute!!!! Someone there was really fighting the good fight, and I really admire whoever that was.........)

And second, our words have so much more influence than we think they do. We think nobody listens to us, so we can say, with what we think is only (!) mild disdain, "You think everything is a squatch". But that isn't mild disdain. The person to whom that's directed hears, "You are not intelligent; you can't discriminate between truth and fiction; you have no credibility as an observer."

So those words are actually pretty mean. So they can inflict wounds (and evidently did), which get us into all kind of messes.

We are more powerful than we think. (Look what we did to that TV show!) So we need to be more thoughtful about the words we speak.

Edited April 9, 2013 by LeafTalker

[Guest beachn69]

This show has turned out to be a joke. Playing it up for TV has turned this legend and phenominon into a joke. Way to go BFRO. Instead of helping your cause you have done nothing but hurt it.

M. Moneymaker has imbarrassed himself in front of a nationaly televised audience.

Dont even get me started on the idiot BoBo. Oh hold on....I heard a rattle outside. No it cant be the garbage man outside, its a Squatch. Dont bother looking for evidence.

The problem with this show is that they dont take anything serious and use the audience for help. Instead of actually investigating incidents, they get girl scouts to scream, put donuts out on a log, burn bacon on a campfire, play musical instriments.. WHAT A FRIGGIN JOKE !!!

Youve just set the Sasquatch theory back about 20 years.

If you want a realistic view on the legend, and hear different types of valid evidence, without idiots muttering up the actual Sasquatch history listen to the Bigfoot Show on I-Tunes.

This is a good show that takes a different point of view on this legend.

[Guest]

its a good show, but two things about it i would change:

1. the format. every episode is basically the same, with a different location. bring in more RESEARCHERS like meldrum, etc. i loved the gimlin episode, but moneymaker isnt about to share the LIMELIGHT with anybody else.

2. LOOK the part of a serious researcher. moneymaker looks and dresses like a bum, and we all know about bobo. the feminine acting guy, forgot his name, and the female, at least LOOK like they are serious about what they are doing........

[Guest JudgeAReno]

I hate to admit it... but I love [Not]Finding Bigfoot. I guess I don't really care that it isn't research. I'd watch the show just to see the testimony/encounter investigations. I know lots are probably bogus, but I still like to watch them. I guess that's what keeps me coming back to the BFRO reports - not for the evidence factor - but for the entertainment. Oh, and by the way, the rumor is that Les S. actually believes in bigfoot.

[Guest]

One could honestly get the impression that the producers of the show really think the whole premise is crap

They probably think exactly that. They are paid to make a television show, not crusade for bigfoot.

[clubbedfoot]

glad i didn't pay fer it on utubes....

[Guest Patty3]

One could honestly get the impression that the producers of the show really think the whole premise is crap

They probably think exactly that. They are paid to make a television show, not crusade for bigfoot.

They travel to the best places in the world for bigfoot to make that show. I think they would have to believe by now if they didn't believe before.

[roguefooter]

^^Why would they believe? It's not like they actually found anything to believe in. Hearing people say "It's a squatch" a few thousand times isn't going to make a believer out of anyone either.

[LeafTalker]

The camera crew has apparently had some odd experiences:

"Moneymaker also said that, although they have not captured a bigfoot on camera on Finding Bigfoot, one came within about 50 feet of the crew and cast one night, even throwing rocks in its approach." (http://www.huliq.com/10473/finding-bigfoot-star-reveals-close-encounter-cbs-early-show-video)

The camera crew also took off with their gear to try to capture footage of something Moneymaker said he saw moving around the woods of North Carolina in season 1, according to Cliff Barackman. (That takes some conviction, wouldn't you say?) That same night, a camera person reported hearing a possible howl: http://cliffbarackman.com/finding-bigfoot/finding-bigfoot-episode-guide/finding-bigfoot-season-one/finding-bigfoot-season-one-caught-on-tape/

So the crew seems to be pretty into it. And if the camera crew is into it, the information has trickled back up to the producers.

Also, in this admittedly funny video from the Dec. 5 post for the blog "Bites @ Animal Planet", Finding Bigfoot executive producer Keith Hoffman calls himself a "bigfoot believer". The video is called "The Animal Planet Staff Weighs In" and has this caption: "Seems like most staffers think that Bigfoot could exist and that they hope the Finding Bigfoot team finds the elusive creature." And the PR guy at the end seems totally into it.

http://blogs.discovery.com/bites-animal-planet/finding-bigfoot/

So it seems very possible, to me, that the producers are at least open to the possibility that Bigfoot exists.

[Guest]

This show has turned out to be a joke. Playing it up for TV has turned this legend and phenominon [sec] into a joke. Way to go BFRO. Instead of helping your cause you have done nothing but hurt it.

M. Moneymaker has imbarrassed [sec] himself in front of a nationaly [sec] televised audience.

Dont [sec] even get me started on the idiot BoBo. Oh hold on....I heard a rattle outside. No it cant be the garbage man outside, its a Squatch. Dont [sec]bother looking for evidence.

The problem with this show is that they dont [sec] take anything serious and use the audience for help. Instead of actually investigating incidents, they get girl scouts to scream, put donuts out on a log, burn bacon on a campfire, play musical instriments [sec].. WHAT A FRIGGIN JOKE !!!

Youve [sec] just set the Sasquatch theory back about 20 years.

If you want a realistic view on the legend, and hear different types of valid evidence, without idiots muttering up the actual Sasquatch history listen to the Bigfoot Show on I-Tunes.

This is a good show that takes a different point of view on this legend.

Just graduated from Skeptic University, uh?

[Guest]

The camera crew has apparently had some odd experiences:

"Moneymaker also said that, although they have not captured a bigfoot on camera on Finding Bigfoot, one came within about 50 feet of the crew and cast one night, even throwing rocks in its approach." (http://www.huliq.com...arly-show-video)

The camera crew also took off with their gear to try to capture footage of something Moneymaker said he saw moving around the woods of North Carolina in season 1, according to Cliff Barackman. (That takes some conviction, wouldn't you say?) That same night, a camera person reported hearing a possible howl: http://cliffbarackma...caught-on-tape/

So the crew seems to be pretty into it. And if the camera crew is into it, the information has trickled back up to the producers.

Also, in this admittedly funny video from the Dec. 5 post for the blog "Bites @ Animal Planet", Finding Bigfoot executive producer Keith Hoffman calls himself a "bigfoot believer". The video is called "The Animal Planet Staff Weighs In" and has this caption: "Seems like most staffers think that Bigfoot could exist and that they hope the Finding Bigfoot team finds the elusive creature." And the PR guy at the end seems totally into it.

http://blogs.discove...inding-bigfoot/

So it seems very possible, to me, that the producers are at least open to the possibility that Bigfoot exists.

Maybe we should replace the cast with the crew. They seem to be having more luck.

[kbhunter]

It has been said here a few times but, as ridiculous as I think this show is, I do think they HAVE brought attention to BF. The show's ratings are there because of that fact IMHO. I think the cast and crew definitely had to the fascination of it because of the cast of characters. Of the group, MM himself thinking EVERYTHING is BF and his running through the woods is exactly the opposite thing any serious researcher does, then professing himself as the experienced researcher that seems to know all about them. VS Renae, the incredulous researcher that is the complete opposite. Throw in BOBO for the fun loving, nice guy sort of goof that marches to his own beat then CLIFF, that to me is the most level headed and actually is a pretty good researcher on his own and it has created a fun to watch show.

If I were to film myself and maybe a few of researcher friends, it would probably get cancelled because it would be very boring because we do almost everything completely opposite. Yea, we get some good stuff and we are fascinated by some of what we do get, it would take much longer to put together an interesting "show" because the editing out of all of the boring stuff would take too much time.

Also to add, the best part of the show to me IS the eyewitness portions as it gives me better information to use in collecting data as to where the hotspots are. Add that to the fact I love to hear their testimonies, even though I know some may be made up to get on the show, a few are not. Just ask our fellow member and friend Nathanfooter.

KB

[dmaker]

^^ True, the show does draw attention to Bigfoot in general, but after doing so just proceeds to do so much damage to the premise that the attention only succeeds in turning the topic into a side show. Their domestic antics were bad enough, but now they are wandering the globe spreading their unfounded proclamations for anyone who will listen. It is hard enough to accept the idea that science missed one large, unknown primate here in North America, but to think that there is one for every corner of the globe is ridiculous and does harm to the claim. I think Grover Krantz put it better:

"Some people have gathered stories about bipedal, hairy monsters from almost all parts of the world, evidently under the mistaken impression that this strengthens the argument for their existence. Actually it does just the opposite--the more widespread a land animal is claimed to be, the less likely it is to be real. A truly worldwide distribution occurs only for man, his parasites, and his domesticates. This does not prove a worldwide Sasquatch does not exist, but it makes one wonder. Some reputable scientists would study a possible primate in North America and parts of Eurasia, but when you throw in South America, Africa, and Australia just for good measure they will back off. The possibility of multiple species of such animals might avoid this problem, but it only serves to raise another. For science to have missed one large species of unknown primate is difficult enough to swallow. To claim there are still more of them only strains to the breaking point whatever credibility there may have been."

Yet Moneymaker and crew have failed to find a single spot yet that has not been declared Squatchy. Be it North America, or Vietnam, or Australia. Where will they go next to destroy even further any credibility to the claim of Sasquatch?