The Proof Is Out There

I have only watched a couple of episodes of ''The Proof is Out There'' but already find it a compelling show to watch, the experts who comment on each presentation are credible and the host Tony Harris keeps it interesting and moving at a nice pace.

''The Proof is Out There'' is presented like a Court Jury studying the evidence available and then making a decision on their findings, I like this format as it is not the decision of a single person, and you hear the different views of the experts followed by a summing up by the host Tony Harris, leaving you to form your own opinion after considering all that has been said.

Good to hear that it is continuing to a second season, and I will be happy to spend some time catching up on more episodes, recommend for anyone with a curious and inquiring mind.

I'm a skeptic and think there are logical explanations for most things. One thing I love about this show, is they don't try and build some BS like other shows. They separate the BS from the true unexplained. Great show!

To be honest, I love looking at the unusual things around us and trying to figure it out with logic, science and common sense. This show leaves me divided. I know that many things we see on the show can be misidentified, optical illusions or very rare, and some are complete hoaxes, but I also know that not all things can be easily explained even with science.

The scientific method requires the same results repeatedly, so when they speak to 1 expert for their 'opinion' without actually showing the scientific method, I am still left with doubts of credibility.

I love that they start by analyzing the video for inconsistencies since AI and video compositing can produce realistic results. This should be the first test in all cases. If it's a fake, stop there.

However, there's a 'Marine Biologist'... thats the only title. No credentials, no PHD or title or accolades to build credibility, who gives her opinion in debunking animal related incidents and that is 'fact'? I'm not saying she's not correct, it's still her words, opinions and observations. A generic title doesn't make an 'expert' and an opinion from this 'expert' isn't proof. I wish there were a little more science in some of the episodes and less opinion to quickly dismiss things that still could be something else.

I enjoy watching this show, but I feel like if they're doing a story on something that may be difficult to "prove" or distinguish between fact or fake the do not do enough investigation. If the subject is easy to come up with an explanation for, they do a good job discussing what the phenomenon actually is. But, with things that don't have an actual explanation right away they just write off as "unexplained phenomenon" or stop investigating and just SAY it can be explained. I wish they would continue investigations on harder to prove things until they get an actual explanation, or at least narrow it down to a few choices.

So, I enjoy scientificly geared shows about strange events and phenomena... Ufo, Bigfoot etc. But this has a slight bias towards the truly wacky theories they barely need to present. Many "experts" are pretty good at explaining what's happening as normal, natural etc, but I'm not sure the show is really trying so hard to fully evaluate every video or photo. Maybe it's just me, but any history channel show that talks about ancient aliens before the reasonable archeological or anthropological explanations is filling up time or perpetuating Graham Hancock nonsense. Still a good way to find "urban legend" or famous alleged phenomena.