I've recently watched a lot of MonsterQuest programs on Youtube.
I began with the attitude that nothing would be found, because the mainstream media would have announced it long before the programs were
However some things were intriguing and found, and I'd love some input from people who know these programs, or who could have some updates.
I find the Wikipedia entry on MonsterQuest highly misleading and inadequate.
- First there was the Bigfoot attack in a hunting cabin that apparently yielded hair and blood samples. I'm not sure there was ever an update.
Although the samples yielded old and possibly contaminated DNA, I recall it was of an ape-like creature.
- There was a search for a giant squid that came out with camera footage of the creature (although that specific creature wasn't really "unknown").
- A large black cat indeed freely stalked Britain (unsure of the program however, could be the program on "Alien Big Cats" from the Animal X
- On the "Isle of the lost Tiger" episode a Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine) footprint was clearly found and identified.
- The Star Child skull was found to be unusual, and it's reconstructing yielded rather shocking results of a very non-human being, although it was
disappointingly forced into a program on Lizard Monsters in West Virginia.
- "Whale song" from an advanced creature, but certainly not a whale, in Lake Champlain.
Isn't it annoying that when evidence is found, it's always a case of "We need more evidence", or "The search must continue, but the scientists aren't
Please discuss such incidences, or other programs where you feel convinced by "proof", or what counts as "proof" to yourself.
On the other hand, do you feel that sometimes adventurous researchers actually chase away creatures like Bigfoot, by plodding through the forest and
deliberately spreading scents and the evidence of humans?
Have they wasted some really good opportunities?
What would you investigate further with some funds?
The problem with the program seems to be that it was badly formulated and spent large amounts of time on unlikely proofs and creatures, instead of
more time on the few that are quite likely.
In it's scientific framework it also became hyper-cautious, and at times undervalued its own findings.
edit on 5-6-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)