The meanest review of Finding Bigfoot ever!

Skeptics can be great big meanies sometimes. We've read a lot of reviews of Finding Bigfoot by non-Bigfoot believers, and this one takes the cake as one of the harshest reviews of the show ever.

The Mad Skeptic not only attacked the show, he attacked each member of the cast too.

Based upon these first two episodes, I'd have to say Finding Bigfoot may be one of the worst shows on the subject I've ever seen. It is little more than a promotional instrument for Matt Moneymaker and the BFRO and there isn't even the most basic attempt at even portraying an analytical examination of what little evidence they have.

About the cast, he had something bad to say about each person, except Bobo:

So far, the only character I like is Bobo -- who is the 6'6" guy who often stands in as a Bigfoot surrogate. Perhaps, I identify with him because I'm 6'7" and one of my nicknames in college was "Sasquatch". My least favorite characters are Cliff and Ranae. Cliff, despite his Animal Planet profile, is the most ignorant of the rules of evidence. Ranae does a shitty job of being the "token skeptic" and, honestly, I question whether she really is a Field Biologist based upon her portrayal on television. Her profile indicates she works with salmon -- which may explain why she doesn't understand mammalian and terrestrial wildlife.
...
If you want to watch are really good example of how not to find any sort of wildlife, watch the scene where they drive 5 or 6 cars caravan-sytle through the woods! It's so bad it isn't even laughable. At the end of this episode the group's leader, Matt Moneymaker (yes, that's his real name if you've never encountered it before), "determines" that bigfoot is in the area based upon eyewitness reports and a terrible police dashcam video -- not evidence by any substantial measure. Remember the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence.

Although he was harsh about the show, The Mad Skeptic does have some good points. Read below.

I started this blog three years ago with a review of History Channel's show Monsterquest. Ever since watching In Search Of as a kid, I've had a soft spot for these kinds of shows that purport to "critically" examine the "unexplained". With that in mind, I decided to sit down and watch Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot.

I realize I'm a little behind the game because I've only seen the first two episodes of the first season but, hey, I'm a single dad and I have more important things to do than watch television. Regardless, I've utilized modern time-shifting technology to enable me to watch back episodes and, I must say, I'm very disappointed.

I don't know why television producers feel they have to make, and I mean this honestly and literally, stupid television. The first two episodes have some of the most credulous and useless "investigation" I've ever seen. I routinely work with evidence and the standards of evidence BFRO is shown using to make conclusions is not only laughable, it is damaging to the understanding of the Scientific Method. I've previously addressed this topic when I appeared on Skeptically Speaking a couple of years ago and I suspect many may have disregarded my opinion at the time. I ask those individuals to watch Finding Bigfoot and tell me where any Science is being portrayed being done! I would then ask these people how do they think critical thinking or the public's understanding of Science is being benefited.

I really do hope the series matures and improves. I'll be watching more episodes tonight and I really want it to be entertaining but, right now, the ignorance and credulity being portrayed is so distracting I can't enjoy the show. So far, the only character I like is Bobo -- who is the 6'6" guy who often stands in as a Bigfoot surrogate. Perhaps, I identify with him because I'm 6'7" and one of my nicknames in college was "Sasquatch". My least favorite characters are Cliff and Ranae. Cliff, despite his Animal Planet profile, is the most ignorant of the rules of evidence. Ranae does a shitty job of being the "token skeptic" and, honestly, I question whether she really is a Field Biologist based upon her portrayal on television. Her profile indicates she works with salmon -- which may explain why she doesn't understand mammalian and terrestrial wildlife.

As for the first two episodes, the first involves nothing more than witness anecdotes and a supposed set of footprints. Much is made of the footprints when they are found but I noticed that they didn't track the set further and only two prints were found. Anyone who spends any amount of time in the woods tracking wildlife knows you can still track animals in and through the woods. Their prints can still be left behind underneath the leaf litter -- you just have to peel back the leaves. Sure, those prints may not be distinct but they will still be there. Whether they bothered to do this is unknown as the show only has Cliff and Ranae making casts of the prints they "coincidentally" find. Frankly, the circumstances under which the tracks were found are suspicious. A witness takes them to a site he claims to have seen a bigfoot and, low and behold, two perfect prints are right there! I smell something suspicious. If you want to watch are really good example of how not to find any sort of wildlife, watch the scene where they drive 5 or 6 cars caravan-sytle through the woods! It's so bad it isn't even laughable. At the end of this episode the group's leader, Matt Moneymaker (yes, that's his real name if you've never encountered it before), "determines" that bigfoot is in the area based upon eyewitness reports and a terrible police dashcam video -- not evidence by any substantial measure. Remember the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence.

In the second episode, the BFRO team examines reports of the skunk ape in Florida. Again, the episode is nothing more than anecdots and Ghost Hunters-styled moments of "did you hear that?!" I'm surprised these experienced bigfoot "researchers" aren't aware that the woods are not quiet at night. Regardless, they use infrared cameras to get blobs to look at on television and they get spooked by deer grunts at least once. They examine what appears to be a curious bear's interactions with a family home and walk around in the Everglades at sites witnesses claim to have seen bigfoot. I also noticed at least one time when they attempt to call a bigfoot with what they consider one of its "vocalizations". I immediately recognized it as a poor imitation of a fox call (some examples here). If you haven't heard one before, they are creepy. Finally, the high point of the episode was when Animal Planet put up a factoid quiz that asked why the skunk ape supposedly smells as bad as it does. The answer? Apparently, they live underneath alligator dens and methane collects in the sasquatch's hair! The stupid, it burns! In case you were wondering, alligators, when they have dens, have them at or just above water level. I guess the skunk ape is also aquatic. Oh wait, nevermind. That's just bullshit special pleading being made up by people who really don't know anything about this creature -- should it exist.

Based upon these first two episodes, I'd have to say Finding Bigfoot may be one of the worst shows on the subject I've ever seen. It is little more than a promotional instrument for Matt Moneymaker and the BFRO and there isn't even the most basic attempt at even portraying an analytical examination of what little evidence they have. Instead, we are presented with a version of a ghost hunter show and unconvincing anecdotes. If you really want to be educated on this subject I would recommend you read David Daegling's book on the hunt for bigfoot. While I'm going to continue to watch the first season and my opinion may change, I am not confident the show will improve. Currently, I think that if you want to be entertained, hell, watch reruns of the Smurfs. It's as accurate to reality as Finding Bigfoot.

[via www.themadskeptic.com]