Sci-Fi investigates: Bigfoot

Tonight at 10:00pm the Sci-Fi channel has a show on where various people from various fields go searching for Bigfoot. The preview looked prety cool, and there was some footage that will be aired on the show that looks promising.
Check it out!

Is it a new show? Sounds cool. I'll have to record it and check it out.

Thanks

Yea...its a team of experts...with Boston Rob thrown into the mix!...BOSTON ROB ??.....why did they choose that guy ?? because he was on Survivor?....I mean what does he bring to the plate?? NOTHING !

Hopefully we get to watch Bigfoot beat the snot out of him !! THEN it would be a good series.....every week watch Boston Rob get smacked around by Bigfoot, Ebe's, Mothman, Ghosts, Nessie, Imps, and Chupacabra's !!

Hey boston Rob Survive this.

Enters large pissed bipedal unknown primate which then proceds to tear robs appendages off and uses them to demonstrate his primitive musical precussion talent on Boston Robs torso. Bigfoot finishes, squats over rob to mark his new aquisition, walks over to tree line to find me and my money reward I promised bigfoot. Bigfoot winks takes the cash and returns to his forest shelter knowning that all is again now right with the world.

Just kidding, I don't even watch survivor to know who boston rob is. But it would add some spice to the show if bigfoot did kick Boston Robs Ass. I'd like to see bigfoot go on survivor, now tha twould be interesting. Why am I so antagonistic about Boston Rob. I guess his names sorta lame.

Seriously why put him on the show were they getting problems raising enough money to get it produced? And I hope the team of experts find something to further the case for bigfoot. Personaly I am a reluctant believer.

I suppose it's just a tie-in with being on these asinine programmes.
In the UK it's the same, Big Brother participants show up later with
a record deal or adverising British Gas insurance (even though the
guy was formerly a fireman).

I'll not see the show as I'm at work, but I guess it'll be a third of
camera work showing a group of people trekking through tree-laden
mountains, a quick show of the Patterson film and some music to set
the mood.
Another third will show this star-struck wannabee talking in ushered tones
about how the big ape has avoided humans for so long.
There'll be something to whet the appetite, a vague shape, some hair found
or broken branches and a footprint.

At the end, Boston Rob will leave the viewer with a comment that will say
that the creature may or may not exist.
It's a policy used since the 70's.

I guess I am a reluctant believer also. The fossil record shows that primates very similar to but not quite human lived back in the day. Nobody knows why they went extinct, so mabye a species or two survived but only a couple of each lived. They carry on with small families hidden in places of the forset that mankind has never step foot. Very very deep into the forest. Sometimes one will travel too far out of their area and this is when they have been spotted? I dont know but that makes sence to me.
I hope this show is going to find something new. Probably not though.

Well the show did not find anything new. I did see a Bigfoot video that I had never seen before of it running through a field and into the woods. I forget where the video was shot at. Next week they investigate Mothman, but its probably gonna be the same crap.

In the 80's (87 I think) I worked on a contract in Eureka, Ca.. The day we were packing the office to leave there was an article about a town Sheriff and I believe a Mayor confessing to fabricating the local Bigfoot story (Happy Camp area) and them being sentenced for fraud. Apparently they were in a small logging community and when the logging was shut down they came up with a phony video and footprints to try and save the town. The video is infamous and you have all probably seen it many times. It's the one of the Bigfoot crossing a clearing and stopping momentarily and looking towards the camera and then continuing off into the woods. They sold and made money off this for many years. Since then I have seen this video on many shows about Bigfoot and they never tell you the hoaxers have confessed and have been sentenced for the crime.

I first saw this as a teenager (67 or 68 I think). One of the hoaxers was taking this video from theatre to theatre doing special showings with live narration by the supposed photographer. Shortly after this, this guy participated in the making of a fiction movie about Bigfoot that I saw at the Drive-In. This video is the source of most of the Bigfoot stories. A lot of money was generated by this which is why it was so important these people were prosecuted.

Another example of this type of fraud in the media is the Easter Island Statue's. In a university course I took they showed a documentary where the locals demonstrated how the statues were moved. They showed the whole process including how they were stood up after relocation. Even though they know it is a lie they still show programs presenting it as a mystery. It was quite simple how it was done. They placed logs under it and as they moved it forward they would move the back log to the front over and over until they got it to were they stood it up. To stand it up they used a fulcrum and lever to raise the front slightly off the ground. They would then shove stones underneath and repeat the process building a mound under it until it was standing.

Knowing these things, I'm always very sceptical when they present shows about things like the Bigfoot. I often wonder how many millions or billions of dollars people have made by selling these fraudulent video's and books. I toyed with the idea of making one myself (I'm in the entertainment industry) but then realized I am to honest to do that. Be sceptical of these shows. Don't take them at face value.

I think it was P.T. Barnum who said "No one ever lost a dime underestimating the intelegence of the American public".

[edit on 10/19/2006 by Blaine91555]

Originally posted by Blaine91555
In the 80's (87 I think) I worked on a contract in Eureka, Ca.. The day we were packing the office to leave there was an article about a town Sheriff and I believe a Mayor confessing to fabricating the local Bigfoot story (Happy Camp area) and them being sentenced for fraud. Apparently they were in a small logging community and when the logging was shut down they came up with a phony video and footprints to try and save the town. The video is infamous and you have all probably seen it many times. It's the one of the Bigfoot crossing a clearing and stopping momentarily and looking towards the camera and then continuing off into the woods. They sold and made money off this for many years. Since then I have seen this video on many shows about Bigfoot and they never tell you the hoaxers have confessed and have been sentenced for the crime.
[edit on 10/19/2006 by Blaine91555]

Are you referring to the Patterson footage? Your description sounds just like it. I'm sorry, but if somebody was CONVICTED of fraud in the patterson film controvery, there would be absolutely NO debate about it's authenticity today. It would be a matter of public record that the film was fabricated. I'm not arguing for it's authenticity, but I call BS on this one. Maybe you are referring to another film?

The thrust of most any program created to be broadcast is that people watch it. And commercial sponsors buy air time based on the prejected share of market viewership it will probably receive.

The true "stumper" is a scenario where a couple or small group of people drive off in the morning and don't know where they are going to hunt, birdwatch, search for Indian arrowheads, look for bigfoot or just hike. They decide on a place while driving and proceed there. It is a location some 30 miles from the nearest habitation. Our people leave their vehicle and head into the wildneress on foot. They are in some 5 miles when they come across a trail of dozens of large footprints.

Subsequent examination by investigators shows that the toes in the prints move as live ones do as they have re-acquired traction as each foot is placed on slightly different ground with varying elevations, undulations and firmness. This precludes the wooden fake feet hoaxter. The toe prints exhibit dermal ridges, something near impossible to fake. The prints also are not simply exagerated human ones. They show that the foot which made them was of substantually different physical construction than a human one, one mechanically able to bear great weight. Soil compression samples conclude that a weight of 8-900 pounds was responsible for the prints.

This scenario has repeated many times with slight variations throughout the world and over the centuries. Since no one including the participants knew where they were going to end up that day it completely eliminated the possibility of a hoax. Who would travel deep into a winderness area stomp around on fake wooden feet then hope someone would find them? Anyone rolling in laughter comtemplating the prospect of that is mentally deranged.

The reality is that there are and have been many incidents such as the above every year ongoing that never are dramatized on TV. The problem with hoaxes is that some people simply classify ALL events of this type as hoaxes when some are found to be such. There are no grounds for concluding that one hoax automatically de-legitimatizes other cases.

I'm thinking it must be a different film or perhaps the clip has been confused with another.

Patterson video was deep in the bush ( Bluff Creek ) and no sheriff envolved to my knowledge.

i though 'bigfoot' was an urban legend to scare people in the rain forest to give up the 'fight' of saving the trees, thats what i heard from my friend at school a couple of years back.

that was so cheezy i liked the first show on voodoo but that was stupid

I watch it but didn't like it at all. It was more of a reality show than a serious show.

you should give it another chance though because the first one was really good, i dont know what the next one will be though

I don't know if this is relevant to the topic; however, it is interesting and food for thought.

Did you know a real expedition found a place called Skull Island in 1937, and on it was descendants of the dinosaurs, along with photographs the expedition took of the tribe that lived there

They recorded seeing Gigantipithicous on the island. I saw it on my cable movie channel. It is simply titled,'SKULL ISLAND'. A must see documentary.

Like everybody else, I thought the story of King Kong was fictional. Little did I realise that the story was based on an actual expedition to Skull Island.

You really need to see the documentary to understand where my head is at on this topic.

My point is: If creatures that are purported to be extinct can survive in the 20th century, then why not the Gigantpithicous? Whose to say, whether they are real, or not.

Fact is they once existed on Earth; some of them may have survived and produced descendants.

It is a known fact that science has turned up recently creatures that were meant to be cosigned to history, or legends.

For example: the giant squid, and the coelacanth, just to name two. There are probably many more I am not aware of at this point in time.

Basically what I am saying is I intend to keep an open mind given the evidence of creatures purported not to have exist and in fact do.

Did you know a real expedition found a place called Skull Island in 1937,

I thought the story of King Kong was fictional. Little did I realise that the story was based on an actual expedition to Skull Island.

King Kong was made in 1933, 4 years before your claim of the discovery of said Skull Island.

The thing I have realized about peoples' perceptions about ANY cryptozoological species is that the planet is vast. If they don't see bigoot, a UFO or Nessie on the way to the mall in their freakin SUV they can't imagine them or anything being unknown or un-found. They simply cannot grasp how large the uninhabited areas of the world are.

The truth is that every place has wilderness areas. Some are simply huge. Look at a map and see the little dots for habitated areas compared to the other areas. Lots more "other" area. Some places have never been explored only briefly touch by surveys in the distant past.

In relative terms we don't have to travel very far from most inhabited areas to be in complete wilderness. This goes for "modern" countries so nations that are geographically isolated possess large tracts of terrain that no one has set foot on.

We imagine ourselves as such smartazzes and we haven't a clue of what 3/4s of the globe contains- in the ocean depths. We know giant squid exist from carcasses washed ashore. Of course before science finally acknowldged them they were said to be fantasy. And we have never seen one in its natural deep water surroundings. How big can they get? What other surprizes do the seas hold? We simply don't know.

Lowland gorillas were mythical creatures until the 1600s when it was grudgingly accepted that they and chimpanzees were not hairy humans or monsters. Even so there was no substantial knowledge of the biology, habitat or habits until the 20th century. Th emountain gorilla was not found until 1902.

The mystical beast known as now as the Panda was proven to exist only after one was shot and the carcass brought out to civilazation in 1938!

"They" don't know it all. "They" don't know what lives in every darkened corner of the planet. New species are discovered on a regular basis. The urban conjecturer can't appreciate the size of wilderness areas. While 100 square miles sounds quite big that's only 10 X 10 miles.

Because an anthropologist or a biologist makes occassional contact with a remote tribe somewhere doesn't mean a wilderness area is subdued, completely known, explored or understood. New Guinea is an island with very defined geographic perimeters and mystery still abounds there even though it was semi-visited and a war fought there in 1942-44.

It's just the height of urban smugness when people say places like the Congo are "known." There's known like Chicago and there's known like New Guinea.

honestly i don't put much stock into any tv shows' jaunts into the "wild" to find any cryptozoological animal. one hour is not enough time to discuss any subject at the length it deserves. and the "expeditions" themselves are far too short. if researchers want to get serious about the subject they need to spend a lot more time out looking and gathering whatever evidence may present itself. and armchair skeptics like micheal shermer need to get out there too and for protracted periods of time as well. anyone can sit in an office and tell you that something doesn't exist. a true skeptic goes out with the believer and does the research as well. even if they dismiss whatever the believer finds, at least they know what they're talking about instead of spouting " it's impossible. no one's ever shot one or found a body" those are the proofs of an inferior mind.

i personally believe bigfoot exists. i don't know if it's a gigantipithecus or some other creature, but something is leaving traces and frightening people in the deep woods all over the world.


optimus

Optimus- hey you live in a state with plenty of wilderness area. If you've every gone deer hunting or camping in Wisconsin i bet you could attest to how dense vegitation gets. Here in California everybody just think L.A. and San Francisco yet there are huge amounts of uninhabited winderness especially up north where sighting have occurred.

Good point about the shallowness of TV shows but I wonder what would happen if The National Geographic made a concerted effort to delve into the subject. How would people respond if THEY brought back hair samples that were tested and found to match no known animal in the DNA database.