Patterson-Gimlin Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I find it entertaining and watch every episode. I have encouraged others to watch it. It has no impact on their opinions of the subject matter or mine. Non believers and believers are not likely to be disswayed by flimsy evidence and campy methods of not finding bigfoot. It is television and lets face it. No one knows the real truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I watch it faithfully, but have to admit that it gets a bit boring. The same stuff, different locations, little evidence. As others have stated, on the plus side, the show has certainly raised public interest in the subject. But on the not so great side, I believe they are going about things the wrong way. They make too much noise and are more likely driving away anything that might be close by, rather than attracting them. If they were a lot quieter and stopped with the screams, howls and other loud noises (except the wood knocks) they might have better luck. Just my thoughts on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 I always think the same thing when I see any bigfoot show that is actually trying to find evidence: If they would have found anything there is a good chance I would have heard about such a find before seeing it on TV. Unless it was the news or whatever. I suppose that a network could choose not to release something they've found, and can keep a lid on it as well, but I still do not expect anything great from a show like FB. It is a hard decision for me to determine whether the show has harmed or helped the community in general. I am divided almost equally. For one thing people will be more apt to report their sightings. But the flipside is that more people will perpetrate hoaxes, mainly because of the increased interest. But where I think the most damage has been done is where credibility is concerned. Every single time they go out there with the attitude that bigfoot is there, and yet they find nothing, there are people snickering and placing even less faith in the idea. If that were even possible. It is distancing the idea even further from the mainstream, even though it is on mainstream television. The idea may get more well known, but the credibility suffers. I view the show as strictly for entertainment purposes, but not everyone does. Capturing bigfoot on video, even if it were only two feet away, will do nothing to provide proof of its existence. If they wanted to do something good for the bigfoot field, they could just collect and analyze all the DNA they could find. People do some weird things in the woods, so there will likely be DNA everywhere. There are a few animals in the woods as well. I know what you're thinking. Either "gross," or "that would be way too much material to analyze." Both statements make a good point. As to the latter, it may cost a whole lot more and provide virtually no entertainment value, but I thought the BFRO was about furthering the field in general...? So are they about entertaining or finding something that actually could equate with proof. DNA may not be proof, considering we wouldn't be able to correlate the DNA with bigfoot, or know what the animal who provided the DNA actually looks like exactly, but it would be better than video "evidence." I wasn't intending on being critical of the BFRO, but when I posted the above I was thinking that I have a point. What was their motivation for doing this show to begin with? What did they hope to accomplish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 the show has rekindled my interest in BF after many years of not thinking about the subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 The show stinks. I just noticed that season 5 is underway so I decided to tune in and check out episode 1 featuring a toothless Turtleman. It was so nauseatingly boring and banal that I skipped ahead to see if there were any good bits. I happen to stop on the ballpark organ bit. I could feel the grey matter oozing from my brain. I had to turn it off for self preservation. About the only good it has done is to promote the subject matter. I honestly don't know how the cast involved can sleep at night. They should take the money they've earned and do their own thing. Les Stroud's episodes are the gold standard now. Those two episodes Standing and all absolutely obliterated anything that the corny FB has come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Schmiml Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I kind of feel on the fence about this. I think it has given some more thought to the subject, but this is merely my thoughts: 1. Not everything is "Squatchy" I hate to say it, but they (the four BF investigators) throw this around very loosely and often. My mother who has a mild interest, and watches, says that she feels she could take MM, blindfold him, turn him around a few times in the southern portion of our acre, knock on the cedar tree and break a branch and he'd say it was "Squatchy" 2. Not everything can be chalked up to Squatch. A dead animal carcass is an dead animal carcass. It could have died naturally, it could have been attacked by a member of the same species. A large kill, again, does not equate Sasquatch. 3. Three nights is not long enough to establish anything. If Sasquatch is as intelligent as the FB crew are indicating, then blending in to 'their' environment may be key to gaining the evidence needed. Like one of them said--if you do too much, they (Squatch) are going to be thinking "stupid humans" and not respond. However, if they were out there and just stayed for a month or more...they may actually be able to find something. 4. While Squatch may be curious, using Girl Scouts and a HS Drumline as live bait doesn't sit too well with me. And last... I may be going out on a limb here, but I don't really buy some of the claims made by the group. How can you proclaim to be an expert when we can't even prove for sure they exist. No offence to the FB crew, but if they know that much about it, habits, etc., wouldn't they already have some verifiable proof of their existence? Anyway, that is what I think. I don't feel it has necessarily hurt the quest to prove these creatures exist, but it isn't exactly helping it, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAfooter Posted July 20, 2014 Admin Share Posted July 20, 2014 Anybody else notice that in a number of recent reports (last three years or so), the witnesses decide to wood knock or give a call before any BF activity is noted? I think we have a bunch of folks out in the woods these days trying to call in a BF. I directly attribute that to the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 ^^ which might also attribute to a lot of the "class B" reports of knocks , calls etc....... not all , mind you..... but I suspect a lot of those (especially in reported "hot spots" that draw BFers in ) could be the results of FB show copycats possibly calling to each other at times, yet not realizing it... idk, just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airdale Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 FB got me interested in the subject again after 40 plus years of semi-dormancy. I watch it regularly, though now as much for humorous content as anything else. As long as I keep my limited knowledge of how television productions are conducted submerged it is at least entertaining. I've never looked into what kind of audience numbers they have, obviously enough to renew the contract for several years. Hopefully it has removed some of the stigma, real or imagined, associated with reporting possible encounters. If the number of historically reported encounters is really only the tip of the iceberg and enough people begin to add to the database, it might make it more difficult for the scientific community at large to continue to ignore the subject. Hope springs eternal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted July 21, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted July 21, 2014 The show has directly gotten people to report encounters both recently and from many years back. Either through friends or relatives or directly. Before the show and it's link to BFRO no one really knew who to tell or if telling anyone would subject them to ridicule. So that part is good if BFRO actually puts reports in their data base. I question that because of my own experience. In my case I watch the show for the witness reports trying to glean some knowledge of behavior out of their reports. I have met Cliff several times and he is very personable and genuine. . He did say don't expect "Finding Bigfoot" to find bigfoot without further explanation once in my presence. I would think production schedules, producer input, and the camera crew following the principals in the show around to reduce the likelihood that they actually have encounters. Cliff and the others are probably very aware of that. My own experience is that the more humans around, the more cautious the BF are, and the less likelihood there will be an encounter. Next weeks episode is the last for the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ewashguy56 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 (edited) I would definitely agree with you re: the more humans around the more cautious the bigfoot. I am still waiting to see the Alabama episode from the last weekend before last nights show. I have to wait for Animal Planet to rerun it, and as of yet they have not. Hard to believe next weeks episode is the very last episode. While far from perfect, I have enjoyed "Finding Bigfoot", even though Ranae irritates me from time to time. Edited July 21, 2014 by ewashguy56 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Um...all of the above. Here's the positive I cite that outweighs all the negatives: since the show got popular, every new spate of reports on the BFRO site includes encounters from the current or immediately previous calendar year, something that never happened before the show. Reading the reports shows them to be running in the long-term stream of encounters, and not copycat or hoax reports. It's just that people know (1) that others had the experience and they aren't crazy and (2) where to report now. Simple as that. What the show is doing that is really really bad is failing to enlighten on the proper practice of science. Ranae tends to think scoftically more than skeptically, and Barackman's strong analytical bent just isn't being properly emphasized or used. It's what happens when the TV is valued over the science and education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ewashguy56 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 "Scofitcally"? I love it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 (edited) The show has directly gotten people to report encounters both recently and from many years back. Either through friends or relatives or directly. Before the show and it's link to BFRO no one really knew who to tell or if telling anyone would subject them to ridicule. So that part is good if BFRO actually puts reports in their data base. I question that because of my own experience. I think it's sufficient that I'm seeing current and prior-year encounters in every new iteration of additions to the BFRO database. If the "FB" folks can't do any better than this show then they can't be faking those reports. I just don't see that as likely; the reads tell me that these are genuine reports of people's experiences, and the upsurge just means that folks are more encouraged to report this now. The more smoke, the more likely the mainstream will be to look for the fire. In my case I watch the show for the witness reports trying to glean some knowledge of behavior out of their reports. I have met Cliff several times and he is very personable and genuine. . He did say don't expect "Finding Bigfoot" to find bigfoot without further explanation once in my presence. I would think production schedules, producer input, and the camera crew following the principals in the show around to reduce the likelihood that they actually have encounters. Cliff and the others are probably very aware of that. My own experience is that the more humans around, the more cautious the BF are, and the less likelihood there will be an encounter. Next weeks episode is the last for the season. It's TV, and entertainment, first and foremost, and you just aren't gonna get there through TV. My hunch is that Cliff has decided the net bennie will be worth putting up with the aspects he finds less palatable. I don't think his statement requires any explanation; I think he's more than smart enough to know that Finding Bigfoot won't. At best it will spur things to happen (e.g. reports) that will speed confirmation. That might not be a bad bet. Edited July 21, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts