June 6, 2011

Finding Bigfoot: "Swamp Ape"

Well, right out of the gate, let me say at least this week we weren't treated to another full hour of "expert Matt Moneymaker and his list of firsts".

Overall, I would say this episode was better. The Bridges come across as credible while discussing the alleged activity on their property, but I do have issues with the attempt (by the homeowners) to collect this hand print on their door. But, when faced with an area with credible witnesses, good habitat and (according to the footage shown) a successful night op, I watched as they all climbed into vehicles and drove off to the other end of the state... Such is television folks.

I just hope Bobo is okay after taking that fall. That looked painful, and I do hope he wasn't hurt to badly.

I won't even discuss the "horse" or "deer" footage. I already know, boring doesn't make for good television. Of course that won't make the final editing - but it will make the unaware public more curious about the next episode.

Methane? Bigfoot climbs into Alligator dens? Really?

Okay, Who's bright idea was that? Folks methane is a colorless, odorless gas. Methane can't be the answer for why Bigfoot smells so bad. No, I am not an "expert", I am simply stating the obvious.

Matt Moneymaker responded on Cryptomundo stating the "methane fact" was Animal Planets doing, and had nothing to do with the team. I am going to believe that, because I can't imagine those words coming from Cliff or Bobo.

I had an interesting conversation the other night, and have been thinking about it since. Why do we (the Bigfoot community) get so worked up when these shows air and mistakes are made? Why? We all know it happens.. I have come up with a couple conclusions:

1. Bigfoot Researchers are always, "on".
2. Bigfoot Researchers know, everything done and said on television programs reflect the work being performed by everyone of us.

When I say, Bigfoot Researchers are always "on", what I mean is, we spend so much time online (and off) evaluating video, audio and reports, that anytime we see or hear something we are critical, first. I think that says a lot about the thinking skills of the average "Bigfooter". We are on guard so often we can't even watch a Bigfoot movie on SyFy without recognizing embellishments or misinformation.

What's obvious to the bigfooter, most likely is not obvious to the person who is not a "Bigfooter".

That does not soften the blow however. Why? Well, that leads me to point number two (from above). Bigfooters take the work they do, in the field, seriously. As discussed in the last blog article, "Bigfooters" spend large amounts of our personal cash, spend time away from our families and jobs. Also, a very important fact, which is largely forgotten, many "Bigfooters" are witnesses themselves. Witness or not, the "Bigfooter" knows how important it is to gather any and all information as carefully as possible. The large majority of us seek out professionals in specific fields to help us analyze evidence we ourselves can not.

So, when your average "Bigfooter" hears things like, methane, as being the reason for why Bigfoot smells so bad, we collectively yell, "What??" Call it a silly reaction to a television show if you want - I personally won't apologize for that reaction.

Question to the readers: How many of you cringed after that Fact, and are now just waiting for the first joke from friends, family or co-workers?

Then we have this, on cryptomundo, from Matt Moneymaker;

I gotta say this here: I read some VO lines (transitional explanations) which used the words “overwhelming evidence” at some point … I was reading those out loud the first time I saw the copy, to hear how all the lines sounded to my own ears, before even reading it through quietly the first time. After hearing myself say the “overwhelming evidence” line I stopped and said we can’t use that line because it’s simply not “overwhelming evidence”. I told them to re-record the line with me saying “a collection of evidence”. They recorded it my way and I told them to use that version instead, and not the version of me saying “overwhelming evidence”. But what did they do???

Transitional explanations? Is the show scripted, as in, they are told what to say? Or, was this a suggestion? I would have thought Matt would have learned his lesson after "Mysterious Encounters".

In the end,

I understand why self described "Bigfoot researchers" are upset and angry. I understand all sides of this issue. I do think we have the right to expect more. Why? These shows like "Finding Bigfoot" are an attempt to show the world what it is we do. Argue about that all you want, but that is how these shows are described and that is what the team of "Finding Bigfoot" are doing. This group of researchers were not out looking for bears on thermal.

Television is about making money, and "Bigfooters" are not the targeted "masses". Bigfooters don't have to like that and we should do whatever we can to try and correct the misinformation that is told in the interest of "making money". But we can't stop it. We can only do what we can to make good choices about whether or not as individuals we get involved in the next Bigfoot television show. You know there will be more.....

Make good choices. It could be you next.


Post a Comment