YET, those same ‘hard-core/militant’ types, when confronted with someone who is more moderate, more reasonable; someone who is actually able to carry on a civilized conversation and see more than one point of view as well as offer up evidence or theories that don’t come from anecdotes or other unproven sources you don’t normally see the ‘fringe behavior’ that you are lamenting.

I suppose in many ways it is like exes meeting up. Both on their own can be completely reasonable but put them in a room together and suddenly no one is listening to the other. It’s all gnashing of teeth and nyah-nyah-nyah.

it’s the RAW-skeptic thread. So I’ll be brief here:

Fringe skeptics are like true believers only the other way around. And what makes them fringe is this: They only assault the true believers. They don’t, for example, debate Meldrum. They take “Finding Bigfoot” as a serious bastion to assault, which it isn’t.

Scientific skepticism is actually only much in evidence among the proponents (and not the fringe ones, obviously).

I don’t think that skeptics, who don’t believe there’s enough evidence yet to support claims that bigfoot exists, are on the “fringe.” They are the mainstream by definition. The fringe, if we must use that word, comprises people who believe bigfoot exists without much concrete evidence. “Fringe” though is a loaded term that sounds pretty negative. Any new idea is always going to have a small number of proponents at first. Then evidence is gathered and evaluated and, if their assertions are proven, they become part of the mainstream. Skeptics who don’t change their minds at this point become the fringe (like the flat earth society, I suppose). In other words, the fringe can flip flop. Darwin was on the fringe when he first proposed the theory of evolution, but very quickly his ideas were vetted by the scientific community and gained acceptance. Now intelligent design proponents are on the fringe. I suspect they will remain at the extreme fringe among trained biologists, what ever governors of great states, like Texas and Alaska, might say, but time will tell.

If you can’t do a proper critique of Meldrum, you can’t do a proper critique of the topic. Period. Although as I pointed out, when it’s fringe vs. fringe, That’s Entertainment, and no harm done.

(Except to the seriousness with which the field in general is viewed by the mainstream. Significant harm there, but oh well.)

You’re right, we all need to understand science better. When more of us do, we’ll understand two things:

1) that TV programs like this set the field back (with some possible compensation in attracting folks who might take a serious interest, and hopefully learn exactly what that is).

2) that institutional skepticism – never mind the proponent fringe – approaches it from the wrong angle. The folks Sharon lists as “scientific skeptics” have repeatedly shown themselves, right here, to be, well, not.

Is Ranae a true skeptic? Of course not—otherwise she would be blowing the horn on the off camera shenanigans and fabricated evidence items employed with each taping. True skeptics are scientists by definition and they can’t be so easily bought out. The production could not develop any sort of half-believable storyline should there be any sort of true skeptic onboard.

In my opinion the show: “Finding Bigfoot” is a serious detriment to any and all meaningful sasquatch investigations. It certainly helps to validate the academic status quo—smirkfully whispering behind the back of excellent scientists with a genuine interest in the subject.

I swore off watching any episodes last season after just a few airings. Last night though; I decided to check out the new seasons production efforts. Three times while the program went to commercial break I got up to visit the refrigerator. Arriving back in my media room; only a few minutes after the program had resumed. Each time they were hearing (definite) “Squatch vocalizations or wood-knocking or finding irrefutable footprints. All separate incidents within a relatively small area of upstate New York.

I needn’t go on and on about the Finding Bigfoot. I feel I’m preaching to the choir.

Hopefully sooner than later the program will get old (they all do) and no longer find a lucrative audience for its advertisers. Hopefully.

@DWA: The point of this thread is not to debate Jeff Meldrum’s contributions to physical anthropology and cryptozoology. It’s focused specifically on assessing Ranae’s role as a skeptic on the program.

Who would want to watch three “true believers” stumbling around in the woods trying to find something they are sure is there?

A lot of her skepticism probably does wind up on the cutting room floor, but enough remains to keep things interesting. If she was not in the show, I probably wouldn’t watch it.

She seems to be “coming around” to the idea of there being Bigfoot, but this may well be more do to editing.

Without her, the show would be just another of the “Ghost Hunter” variety. Dull and predictable.

I agree with Loren and DWA. I’ve seen all the episodes of Finding Bigfoot but I’m watching it for entertainment value as well as to see what equipment the team uses and what techniques. One can always pick up something new.

I enjoyed Sharon Hill’s assessment of the show and she does make some good points.

However, Team Squatch is having a ball especially Matt Moneymaker. When you can do something like this and get paid for life is really good.

My best to all and let’s make this the year that Bigfoot appears.

Finding Bigfoot is Bigfoot TV. It’s not interested in a scientific approach as much as in being good red-meat Bigfoot TV. It’s no fun to say that’s wind; that was a guy having fun with ya; or um, cow is another possibility for those sounds. What’s fun is: the Big Guy could be anywhere, and probably is.

I think, personally but I’ve seen considerable agreement here, that Finding Bigfoot is proponent fringe. It doesn’t take a scientific approach. And for the skeptics to gang up on this, and not address the scientific proponents is…well, it’s not doing one’s job.

Not one I’m convinced they could do, mind. I’m still waiting for a truly skeptical approach to Meldrum’s work. And I and others here have shredded Radford and the like, so don’t bring that around me.

This is fish in a barrel. Who couldn’t?

For all the fun Bigfoot TV may be to many, and I am quite OK with it getting the play it gets here because I understand why that is, there are places where it needs to be properly sized up. This thread looks to be one of those places.

But if you want to seriously discuss skepticism with me, let’s talk Meldrum. As Sharon herself says: Hmm, skeptics, what’s the evidence you have for that? So far, nada.

And criminal jurisprudence – to say nothing of those who have discovered new species – can tell you about the value of eyewitness testimony. So let’s not go beating that dead horse again.