"finding bigfoot"

[duallie]

oh my!
watching a show right now on animal planet. it's called "finding bigfoot".
it seems to be a series now, and lo and behold, it's four bfro "investigators".
it's obviously done for cityfolk who never step outside the concrete jungle.
it is so sensationalized. absolute rubbish.
they are dressed like they are going for a walk in the city park, not dressed for hiking in the rugged outdoors.
apparently, the bf's main food source is deer. so they went all the way up to alaska and set up at night on a muskeg area, to wait for the deer to come into the open to feed. apparently, the bf follow them out into the open and 'herd' them.
all i know, is that they are not in any remote wilds. you don't go and sit in the dark in the wilds with deer in alaska. it's not bf who is in there feeding on them. you'd be seriously risking getting attacked by a grizzly.
this show is absolute bs.
and then they made deer calls to bring in the deer. then they did their bf calls. these were "known" bf call sounds.
then, quickly and miraculously, their laser perimeter was broken by "something large".
they are in muskeg. how is it that they aren't seeing any tracks? especially if there is supposedly bf running around in there chasing deer.
if you are going to try and find bf, wouldn't you want to go to areas with the most sightings? of all the places they chose alaska??
and it's very strange, they are "professional bfro investigators".
yet, every eyewitness that they were interviewing and re-enacting their stories, there was never any mention of tracks.
they have these very close encounters. they are back at the exact spots where they happened. and nobody searches for tracks? when it actually occurred or during the re-enactment.
i don't know what is required to become a "bfro investigator".
but these people seem like simple city-slickers with absolutely no outdoor knowledge or experience.
and they repeatedly refer to them as sasquatches.
would it not be like moose? you don't see five mooses.

[kokanee]

Hey Duallie,

Finding bigfoot is definately made for the masses. But it is doing its job getting the awareness out there that these creatures are real.

Also, the one you are watching tonite is actually a year old. For some reason canada is runnig 1 year behind. You can watch all 6 episodes on you tube from last season.

The show was a huge success last year in the states,so much so that animal planet signed them on for 11 episodes this year. The first one aired on halloween night, a two hour special about Patterson footge, and new sightings and research in and around Bluff creek. (youtube has it.) Finding Bigfoot: Birth of a Legend.

One of the new episodes was already filmed in around Kootney and Banff National Park. Really looking forward to that one. Apparently they were with a Calgary man in those episodes. His website is ( www.sylvanic.com ).

Also, if you are an avid Bigfooter, I also recommend, bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/ this guy Shawn really keeps up to date with all the bigfoot news in the world. He does a great job. If you get a chance, check it out.

[Deleted]

Consider if they did film a Sasq Animal planet would own the rights not Matt & BFRO. So they put on a show for the TV audience. The show creates prime time awareness across the globe. Which is better than the last page of newspapers or the funny human interest story before a news broadcast signs off. I enjoyed the Bluff Creek show with Gimlin. He is in better shape than people half his age. Go Bob!

[rastaman]

Funny that just about every video on the Bigfootevidence blogspot has Bigfoot never as a clear and precise image of the creature. Sure makes one believe that there are many hoaxers out there just to get their 15 minutes of fame, or should I say obscurity.

[hotdog]

Nov 13, 2011 13:22:57 GMT -5 duallie said:

oh my!
watching a show right now on animal planet. it's called "finding bigfoot".
it seems to be a series now, and lo and behold, it's four bfro "investigators".
it's obviously done for cityfolk who never step outside the concrete jungle.
it is so sensationalized. absolute rubbish.
they are dressed like they are going for a walk in the city park, not dressed for hiking in the rugged outdoors.
apparently, the bf's main food source is deer. so they went all the way up to alaska and set up at night on a muskeg area, to wait for the deer to come into the open to feed. apparently, the bf follow them out into the open and 'herd' them.
all i know, is that they are not in any remote wilds. you don't go and sit in the dark in the wilds with deer in alaska. it's not bf who is in there feeding on them. you'd be seriously risking getting attacked by a grizzly.
this show is absolute bs.
and then they made deer calls to bring in the deer. then they did their bf calls. these were "known" bf call sounds.
then, quickly and miraculously, their laser perimeter was broken by "something large".
they are in muskeg. how is it that they aren't seeing any tracks? especially if there is supposedly bf running around in there chasing deer.
if you are going to try and find bf, wouldn't you want to go to areas with the most sightings? of all the places they chose alaska??
and it's very strange, they are "professional bfro investigators".
yet, every eyewitness that they were interviewing and re-enacting their stories, there was never any mention of tracks.
they have these very close encounters. they are back at the exact spots where they happened. and nobody searches for tracks? when it actually occurred or during the re-enactment.
i don't know what is required to become a "bfro investigator".
but these people seem like simple city-slickers with absolutely no outdoor knowledge or experience.
and they repeatedly refer to them as sasquatches.
would it not be like moose? you don't see five mooses.

If it's such a bad show why did you even bother wasting your time with it. Whether anyone likes it or not just watching helps their ratings and ensures more episodes will be filmed.

[Armand71]

I love that show, very entertaining.
I always wonder why do they search at night when most of the sightings are during the day?
Anyway, Bobo for president!

[Jason C.]

Apr 1, 2012 20:43:44 GMT -5 Armand71 said:

I always wonder why do they search at night when most of the sightings are during the day?

Aloha Bob,

As far as whether sasquatch is primarily nocturnal or diurnal we can only guess.

If what you are saying is true -- that most sightings are during the day -- then I think you need to remember this:

a) We are diurnal. Few humans go traipsing around the forest at night.

b) Our eyes have evolved for diurnal use.

Both A and B would therefore reduce the pool of sightings at night.

I do get what you are saying, I just think it is important that we not jump to conclusions. Only through scientific study and scientific method would we ever know.

Respectfully,

Jason

[Jason C.]

Nov 13, 2011 13:22:57 GMT -5 duallie said:

all i know, is that they are not in any remote wilds. you don't go and sit in the dark in the wilds with deer in alaska. it's not bf who is in there feeding on them. you'd be seriously risking getting attacked by a grizzly.

Grizzly are extremely rare on Prince of Wales island. I have heard that they are non-existent, but then again: so is sasquatch.

Google Results

Muskeg Excursions

[Richard]

Yes Jason, but TV ratings aren't :-)

[Jason C.]

Apr 2, 2012 10:10:22 GMT -5 Richard said:

Yes Jason, but TV ratings aren't :-)

True. Looking for sasquatch at night is far more conducive to higher TV ratings.

I call it: "The Blair Witch Factor"

Aloha,

Jason

[bigfoothunter]

'Finding Bigfoot' appears to be designed to entertain an audience that knows little about the subject. In nearly all the circles that I communicate with, the group is often being made fun of for simply saying things that they could not possibly know. They make such statements so often that I have recieved a message from someone I know back in the mid-west who doesn't really have an interest in the subject, but watches the show to hear what the next silly remark will be made while citing it as a fact by one of the three male participants.

So to those who think the show has done this field a great service by getting the subject out there to the masses, I guess the same could be said about the Georgia boys who claimed to have had a Sasquatch in their freezer. So keep in mind that not all publicity is good publicity.

[duallie]

Apr 9, 2012 9:41:44 GMT -5 bigfoothunter said:

'Finding Bigfoot' appears to be designed to entertain an audience that knows little about the subject. In nearly all the circles that I communicate with, the group is often being made fun of for simply saying things that they could not possibly know. They make such statements so often that I have recieved a message from someone I know back in the mid-west who doesn't really have an interest in the subject, but watches the show to hear what the next silly remark will be made while citing it as a fact by one of the three male participants.

So to those who think the show has done this field a great service by getting the subject out there to the masses, I guess the same could be said about the Georgia boys who claimed to have had a Sasquatch in their freezer. So keep in mind that not all publicity is good publicity.

one of the things i find the funniest, is that with every single one of these shows, you know right from the beginning that by the end they will have no evidence and be no closer to an answer.