Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Loose swinging branch litter? :lol: I guess that sort of thing is common in haunted houses and graveyards (that's what she does), but my leaf litter don't swing none, 'cept to the ground..
Branco Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Call MM whatever you want, but based on the past success of his BFRO expeditions where fees were charged, the guy doesn't just work for zagnut bars. Yeah, and researchers can learn so much from the shows if they would just watch and listen to him. AP carried one of his old shows just before the first new show of the season came on. Had not seen that old show. I learned that MM himself was the first person to discover BF uses tree knocks to communicate with each other. Wow; that was news to me and a LOT of other folks! And he discounted the testimony of a witness who gave a pretty good, close-up description of a very large BF that had thrown (or pushed over) a big tree behind him. MM's reason for discounting the report? The witness said it didn't have a black nose. MM KNOWS all BF have black noses. Holy cow; I didn't know that either! His true worth as the director of activities for that show is pretty well displayed when a BF answers one of their calls, and he sends two or three team members plus a cameraman running through the woods toward the location of the response to catch the BF by surprise and photograph it. If they every catch up to one like that, that will surely surprise a lot of folks too. As made pretty clear in the new show, maybe all they have to do after getting a response is to sit down, turn off the lights, shut their mouths, and they might get some real interesting sounds on their recorders. I suspect most of the close-up BF sounds would be overridden by human language that would have to be bleeped out anyway. And I suppose the wait would be too boring for him and the viewer to do it that way. Folks have gotten kind of hooked on those excited, "DID YOU HEAR THAT???" teasers. But MM gets paid well; that's the main thing. And it is an entertaining show, to say the least. 1
Guest wudewasa Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Wude, I heard the "wooooo" howls on the program audio, although it was rather faint. I even watched the episode again at midnight (and turned up the tele sound system volume) to confirm it . I have a question in to Cliff, about the audio being recorded live at the scene, and not simulated in the production. I have read (and only repeating it here), that vocal simulations was one of the things, that the cast was unhappy with in the production, in the first season.. and would be ironed out with the producers for season 2. imonacan, I had roomates sleeping so I didn't have the luxury to crank up the volume! lol The criticism about the recordings is not directed at the cast, but the producers/editors who could do a lot more to work with the sounds, For example, Stan Courtney analyzes sounds using sonograms and compares them with one another. He has several unknown howls that he recorded. More info here- http://www.stancourtney.com/wordpress/the-voice-of-bigfoot-the-illinois-howl%E2%80%99/ Why the production company can't hire consultants in bioacoustics to analyze sounds that the group collected makes no sense. It's almost as if the company is ignoring the use of science in favor of focusing on entertainment. "Boon Boon" is more engaging than a sonogram, I guess. Gotta dumb it down for the folks who want to stay ignorant huh?
Rod Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Well I usually detest being dissuaded by a skeptic, but autumnforest on one of the comments of the youtube video or websites offering the vid. said it looked like loose, swinging branch litter in the trees and the resolution was such that how would you prove it is even something animated? Play it again, "Banana Sam"! Look for the next "BF baby" sighting to come out of San Francisco: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/31/us/california-missing-monkey/?hpt=hp_t2
Guest Biggie Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) EDIT: btw good to see you back posting Rod. It's been awhile. I'll give my 3 main reasons for not believing this video depicts a sasquatch baby swinging around in a tree: First, a mother BF walks behind a group people partying in a clearing in the woods, and instead of leaving or hiding with her infant, she decided to let him play in the trees. This is rather difficult to swallow when the species is supposed to be super stealthy and secretive. Above all, it is certainly against the instincts of any creature on earth, including humans, to place its baby in a potentially dangerous situation. Second....... Third, of course, since this is an alleged BF video, the film is very grainy, and becomes worse when it is blown up for further scrutinization. Your 1st and 3rd reasons are why I doubted it being a bf baby. The similar circumstances reminded me of the recent tracker video thread which I also felt the same way about. The criticism about the recordings is not directed at the cast, but the producers/editors who could do a lot more to work with the sounds, Why the production company can't hire consultants in bioacoustics to analyze sounds that the group collected makes no sense. It's almost as if the company is ignoring the use of science in favor of focusing on entertainment. There were many similar audio complaints made the first season and Matt himself said he was not happy with it and that he told the production company it needed to be improved if I remember correctly so the production company is certainly aware of the issue by now which makes it appear that they do not care to make any improvements to the audio. Edited January 3, 2012 by Biggie
Guest Bigfoothunter Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) The only person on 'Finding Bigfoot' that shows any true forethought in my view is the female skeptic. Most everything else is typical BFRO. Has anyone been counting the number of alleged upright thermal hits they seem to always get? And just once I would like to hear them after unwittingly debunking something that one of them had just previously said ... just come out and say they were wrong. Example: 'If it were a human on the thermal, then it would not be so white because of the clothing they would be wearing' or 'its too big to be human' only to find that the clothes wearing Bobo on the thermal was even whiter than the alleged Sasquatch and most always bigger as well. Some of us here in BC just shake our heads at the gullibilty of such thinking. We have strived to make people at least respect our research practices by implementing a more cautious unbiased scentific approach while others seem to continue to infer that every bump in the night is Sasquatch related. Edited January 3, 2012 by Bigfoothunter
Rod Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Thank you, Biggie. In my opinion, the 2012 season premier was rather weak. Same stuff, different season.
Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) It's almost as if the company is ignoring the use of science in favor of focusing on entertainment. Agreed, and that is what it is all about to the company...ratings. The show is not tailored to the BF researcher or enthusiast, but more to the general public as a whole. I'll be just happy to know, that the audio I heard was recorded live and is authentic. I watched the show for a third time, last night.. and noted two of the "wooooo" vocalizations. The other three heard ( Cliff mentioned they heard five howls)... were more than likely, cut out in the final production edit. Would like to hear all of them, myself. I'll be working on it edited for typos Edited January 3, 2012 by imonacan
Guest wudewasa Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 I really appreciate all the sides weighing in on the production of the show and discussing what didn't make it onto the editing table. Yes, the cast is out there looking for bigfoot and there are some hardcore people in the field with the best intentions possible. Last season, I saw the show as nothing but a guy and his flunkies with a token skeptic stumbling around the woods at night, but after corresponding with several folks in the know, I do have more respect for the group. Granted, the wood knocking claims, black noses and broken deer bones don't convince me that bigfoot exists, but I'm trying to remain open minded. I just don't see such a discovery occuring on this show. Still, photos get posted and I have to make my own captions...
Guest Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Say what you will about MM and the research techniques he espouses, but he has devoted a large part of his life to a subject I dearly love and have been fascinated with for 40+ years. I don't personally agree with some of the techniques I see on the show. I get frustrated when each sound is seemingly attributed to BF. But, the *Finding Bigfoot* show is an enjoyable watch and is probably geared more towards the general public than the serious researcher as imonocan said. In my mind it serves a valuable purpose to the community in generating new or re-newed interest in the subject. Quite an interesting cast of characters on the show and their diversity provides an appealing characteristic as well IMO. I'll watch each episode and cringe at times and applaud at times.
Guest Biggie Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 In my opinion, the 2012 season premier was rather weak. Same stuff scat, different season. I fixed it for you. A lot of people didn't make it to 2012 so I'm glad to be one of those who did at least. None of us are promised today let alone tomorrow. Oh well we're all going to die this Christmas anyway according to the Mayans. lol I agree HR. I always look forward to watching it for the witness accounts if nothing else.
Guest wudewasa Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 I agree HR. I always look forward to watching it for the witness accounts if nothing else. Good point. The stories are interesting.
Guest Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 I'm sorry but the last show about the NY baby was terrible IMO. First of all why go to a 15 year old location? For what? Also it seems like every episode they do the "What's that?" and we break for a commercial. C'mon it's the same thing every week. IMO Monsterquest was better at least they occasionally admitted they didn't really find anything. These guys act like they were THIS close to seeing Bigfoot every **** week.
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 I'm sorry but the last show about the NY baby was terrible IMO. First of all why go to a 15 year old location? For what? Also it seems like every episode they do the "What's that?" and we break for a commercial. C'mon it's the same thing every week. IMO Monsterquest was better at least they occasionally admitted they didn't really find anything. These guys act like they were THIS close to seeing Bigfoot every **** week. Did you not hear Moneymaker say bigfoots are KNOWN to go back to the same areas, thats why they KNEW bigfoots would be in the area:)
Rod Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 Did you not hear Moneymaker say bigfoots are KNOWN to go back to the same areas, thats why they KNEW bigfoots would be in the area:) Bigfoots are also known to order pizza from Dominos, but I don't make a habit of tailing the delivery drivers in hopes of catching a glimpse.
Recommended Posts