Posted by: Craig Woolheater on June 28th, 2011
Quite a few Cryptomundians have voiced concerns that the cast of Animal Planet’s Finding Bigfoot jumping to conclusions regarding everything on the show being Sasquatch related.
Like I said, IF it really did get renewed I will give the new season three chances to change my opinion. Truthfully all the production team would have to do is plainly mark when something is recreated or enhanced and that would satisfy 75% of my issues with this show. The other 25% is simple annoyance that ‘everything is a squatch’.flame821
Everything is a bigfoot to Moneymaker. Even when the recreation is an exact match to Bobo…SeanS68
Wow, Amazing. It should been called All things that go bump in the night. Or Did you hear that? Or Everything is Bigfoot.docbashford
I suspect if MM lies down in a field and watches the sky, every passing cloud looks like a Bigfoot.painted8
I wanted to see them eliminate more factors before jumping on the Bigfoot bandwagon. This was one of those cases where I sit on the fence, but I wasn’t convinced to jump off of it into thinking it’s squatchy because they didn’t prove to me it wasn’t. They also seem to ignore poor Ranae’s comments too, and fail to follow them up in the show.
Which is the main problem with the series. They fail to prove it’s not a Squatch, rather they assume it is, and that the viewer already believes it is.Redrose999
If this was more of a scientific show, then we would be seeing actual evidence. We would be seeing them being critical of what is presented to them rather than going straight to saying “that’s a squatch”.Kahil Nettleton
And these are just the comments from yesterday regarding this.
Matt Moneymaker addressed this very issue two weeks ago. Here is what he had to say:
I’ve seen many of the reactions to this show, and so many of them say they cannot take it seriously any more because the cast seems to think that “everything is a sasquatch”.
If I were merely a viewer of the show I would get that impression also.
Here’s the reality of it: The vast majority of what we examined in the field we dismissed as non-evidence. They don’t show those parts though.
Most of the sounds we explained as known animals, and most of what we observed we can explain as known things. We thought that stuff was pretty interesting, and obviously relevant … but apparently not everyone agreed … because those parts were not included.
Again, the vast majority of what we see, hear or find in the field that might be relevant … we explained, on camera, as not relevant … and we explain why it is not sasquatch evidence. Did they include those sequences? NO. Why? Because they thought the audience would find that boring and they would change the channel (the biggest fear of TV producers).
When we DID find, see or hear things that we thought were connected with sasquatches, we went into great detail explaining how and why we determined that. We spelled out or reasoning, and supported our assertions as best we could without actually including footnotes at the bottom of the screen.
Did they include all that reasoning in the show??
Same reason: They probably thought the audience would find that boring (God forbid).
Is that a wise approach for the long run??
Have we been telling them that since the very beginning??
Do they seem to be getting the message now?
I hope so.Matt Moneymaker