FINDING BIGFOOT, NOT!

I did something last night that I have only done one other time, I watched Finding Bigfoot. I only watched because I was encouraged to by a fellow Bigfooter since it was a repeat of an episode shot in our area (Morgan / Monroe state forest, Indiana) a few miles from where I live (episode Hoosier Bigfoot originally aired on March 4, 2012). I frequent that area all year long and was curious as to what these “experts” would come up with. There have been sightings and some limited evidence found in this area over the past 30-40 years, so yes it’s possible, but it certainly isn’t an ideal hot spot.

Myself and others actively look for signs year after year, trip after trip, but no one has ever made the claims that Finding Bigfoot did. The outlandish claims at the everyday forest signs and sounds were astounding. The fact that they were only in this area for 2-4 days and came to the conclusions they did just reinforced my low opinion of the show as a research project.

Personally I equate their woodland skills and typical behavior to that of the Key Stone Cop’s meets the Three Stooges. They did provide me with several laughs and face palms, so at least there was some entertainment value.

The one thing that they did do that was so irresponsible I couldn’t believe that they aired it was shooting off fireworks in the forest! No real expert would have ever been part of this, and I guarantee you no animal or Bigfoot came running to see what it was, they were beating feet in the opposite direction. They were lucky that a Conservation Officer didn’t see it and impound their equipment and vehicles and take them to jail to get it sorted out! This was the final straw for me, how do you claim to be experts looking for wildlife in the forest and do something so blatantly dangerous and ignorant!

Again, for entertainment I guess I can understand why people watch the show. But for me, it’s back to ignoring the ignorant money hungry “experts’ and back to the good old fashion trek in the forest and information exchange from those with common sense and virtue.

I live in an area that has had several devastating forest fires in the past several years. I just can not believe they set off fire works in a wooded area. I no longer watch this silly show. If i want to be entertained, I watch the cartoon network.

The show is on for 5 minutes then a 3 minute commercial then 5 more minutes then another 3 minute commercial. there is never a flow going with this show.
Somebody please slap Matt. Not everything is a Squatch. Tonite he swore that a Bigfoot killed a deer because the deer carcass had a clean broken leg and Matt was like "Bigfoots kill the deer like that with a clean break to prevent them from running." and Ranae was like, "No Matt. The deer fell down the deep embankment and that is why it had a clean break." I cant stand it when he thinks he knows everything and he doesnt. Every carcass out there is done by a Bigfoot so they can eat it. Really? You mean none die on their own from illness, predators other than a BF, old age, elements in wilderness like cold, etc.? Nothing is factual with these animals yet because they have not been identified by science so stop talking like their habitat traits are known.
Any evidence or video of an alleged Bigfoot can never be inconclusive with him. Either it is a hoax, misidentified, or a person or a Bigfoot. If you cant say what it is, dont say its probably a Bigfoot. Use the word inconclusive when no determination can be made.

I watch to see if they really do find one. I do agree that not everything that sounds strange in the woods is a Bigfoot.

I think the show is fun to watch, it makes me laugh.

oldtimer wrote:I live in an area that has had several devastating forest fires in the past several years. I just can not believe they set off fire works in a wooded area. I no longer watch this silly show. If i want to be entertained, I watch the cartoon network.

If that isn't the truth. It's getting worse and worse!


[quote="Danny Squatchanini]The show is on for 5 minutes then a 3 minute commercial then 5 more minutes then another 3 minute commercial. there is never a flow going with this show.
Somebody please slap Matt. Not everything is a Squatch. Tonite he swore that a Bigfoot killed a deer because the deer carcass had a clean broken leg and Matt was like "Bigfoots kill the deer like that with a clean break to prevent them from running." and Ranae was like, "No Matt. The deer fell down the deep embankment and that is why it had a clean break." I cant stand it when he thinks he knows everything and he doesnt. Every carcass out there is done by a Bigfoot so they can eat it. Really? You mean none die on their own from illness, predators other than a BF, old age, elements in wilderness like cold, etc.? Nothing is factual with these animals yet because they have not been identified by science so stop talking like their habitat traits are known.
Any evidence or video of an alleged Bigfoot can never be inconclusive with him. Either it is a hoax, misidentified, or a person or a Bigfoot. If you cant say what it is, dont say its probably a Bigfoot. Use the word inconclusive when no determination can be made.[/quote]

Great post Danny. I hope people watching the program don't think we all are like that! "Inconclusive" is a great word.I haven't watched any of it this year and doubt I will.

As for the fireworks in the forest bit, I have to believe they had permission to do it. No way would Animal Planet let them do that with a risk of fire. They are not that stupid.

"It's definitely a Squatch!" Tonight's determination by Matt. Dont even have to watch the new season. Every episode will be this answer.

Well it was before the first commercial, that he was "convinced". Otherwise pretty good season opener.

Wish I had the time and the money to spend a month up there in Idaho.

I have to say that I found the show a lot of fun.

I will watch it.
I enjoy the show even if they aren't really finding anything.
I like to hear the other stories from the other people.

The problem is and I watch it and I am supposed to be ON the show next spring, is that there is not much substance to the program.
Here is the formula:
SOme video is the basis of the show.
A.Go to area of the video for show (in this case it was Southeastern Idaho)
B.Interview people who made video -Maybe to to area OF video
C. Do night surveillance of Same area
D. have someone do night camping and surveillance
E. Do Town hall
F. Go to 2 placed called out at Town Hall
G. Do Night surveillance call it a show

And thats it. IF we get lucky they do something out of the ordinary but that does happen often

So which is it.. Do Sasquatch chase deer into cars or break their legs? lol

BUT... He, according to his own BFRO reports might not be completely wrong. Sasquatch supposedly do break deer legs, but the general thought is not to immobilize them, but to harvest the marrow... (How they know any of this, I haven't a clue.)

But what really urks me, "Today on Finding Bigfoot... Our team of experts investigate bla bla bla" Experts???? Really???? Cliff, Yes, Bobo, Yes, Matt and Reney??? HELL NO!!!!!

Matt is a know it all idiot who ever changes his theories and for a Biologist, Reney does not seem to know her ass from a hole in the ground. Being skeptic is all fine and dandy, but her reasoning is asinine. "Apes don't do this, apes don't do that.. WHO SAYS THEY ARE DEFINITIVE APES???? Oh yeah... Matt says so.

sorry.. that show just really pisses me off

P.S.

If Bobo and Cliff broke off and made a show of their own, you would probably have visual evidence in one week...

Cliff and Bobo are good.
Of couse Bobo gets cooky at times.

They are all playing a role:

Matt: The Dedidcated Big foot expert ~rolls my eys~
Cliff: The young Bigggfoot Expert withsome science back ground.
Bobo: The Wacky out their Bigfooter. ie. lets do a light show in the woods
Reney: The Real science expert and skeptic. But the problem is she can not say she believes the foot prints she has seen are real because it would mess the role up.

Do I expect them to find bigfoot NO
but its entertainment.

The problem with Renea is she over plays the skeptic. Its OK to play a real scientist on TV, but its supposed to be reality not a soap opera,
and she gets carried away sometimes with her skepticism

Her rationale is good when she kinda debunks some of the videos. Like the Baby Bigfoot in upstate NY. That is not a baby BF. Its a gibbon being put on the tree by owner. The owl in the tree and Matt says its definitely a Bigfoot-really? Why? Other animals eyes dont glow in dark and stay on branches to look tall?
Some of these videos are just too hokey to be debated. there are better videos to discuss. But, like I said, there's a way to do this show and then there's Matt's way and its getting stale. Same shit week in and week out. Change it up please. Do what I said to do and it will be a better show.

Its TV its about entertainment, yes i think the NY baby video is a monkey of some sort, and this weeks VT episode i still think the trail cam photo is an Owl in mid flight about to pounce on a mouse that was eating the apples that were left on the ground. Last weeks video in Idaho could be real no doubt... We all know not everything is a BF..

Told you it was a Squatch on tonight's Ep. Nevermind it could be an owl like someone explained it logically. Matt wants to see a Squatch in everything and that makes for bad TV because you'll never get an impartial view. I'm really sick of his views of it always being a Squatch.

So during the show, I sat and looked at pictures of owls native to Vermont. None matched the coloring and markings shown in the trail am picture.

Most of the owls had striped markings, not spots. And if you look at the picture the spots are not symmetrical. I'm still not sure this is Bigfoot, but its the closest I have seen in awhile.

You really think that is a Bigfoot bending rather than the back of an Owl? Why cant an owl have different spots up in Vermont? Maybe it came from NY? It really is more logical to be an owl that a Bigfoot. The owl is right up to the camera too so the apples will have a different scale to it. And the Bigfoot not look at the camera to say cheese as well?

Danny Squatchanini wrote:You really think that is a Bigfoot bending rather than the back of an Owl? Why cant an owl have different spots up in Vermont? Maybe it came from NY? It really is more logical to be an owl that a Bigfoot. The owl is right up to the camera too so the apples will have a different scale to it. And the Bigfoot not look at the camera to say cheese as well?

If you look at birds flying down to catch something on the ground, their wings don't fold over like the picture shows. And yes it "could" have been a different species of owl, but most that I have seen don't have the large non symmetrical spots on them.

While I can possibly say it is not an owl, I can't for sure say that yes that is a Bigfoot. I believe it is worth checking out further.

The "fur" as they say, to me are feathers, that is why you see the white in it. Another thing to point out is if you look where the camera was set, look where you think the BF came from. I dont think there was much behind the camera as in walking around or trails or wood that you could come through. I know there were woods behind it, but not to the point anyone can walk through it. I think too if this was a BF, you would see the face of it. It is not looking away at the apples.

I realize now that these guys reach far too much to see a Bigfoot. Why cant they admit that its not? I just dont understand it.

Vermont Barn Owl

Look at its feathers. 2-toned and it looks the same as the deathers on the pic.

Right On... unless it was a ghost of a BF LOL..

The vitiligo they claim to make this Bigfoot has is nothing but white feathers of the owl. Owls are not one color but many colors. Blow that picture up and you might be able to make out the texture of the white spots to be feathers and that will end all discussions of it being a owl. Unbelieveable, a mommy Bigfoot with baby picking up apples! Thats reaching too much!

I just did some research on Vitiligo and all I can say is they are really, really, really reaching when they say that this Bigfoot has the disease. If that is Vitiligo, then hair can grow over the skin disease. It is a remote, and I do mean remote, possiblity that hair might turn white, but rarely. Plus, that is not a common area for the skin disease.

Let me see, this picture is of a Bigfoot with Vitiligo and carrying a baby while picking apples or maybe just an owl in fron tof the camera? What's more logical?