The Proof Is Out There

I am a believer in the paranormal/supernatural. I love to watch programs which deal in 'is this fast or fiction'. An annoying aspect of many programs is the way the scenes are edited with anxiety-causing sounds as part of the transition. This show does not play any of those tricks with sound and/or using strobing. The best part of the show is watching them present the photo/video//sounds then they have respected specialists look at them using their tools to do their analysis. Great job! I hope this show continues to a second season.

I generally like this show, but have a comment about the zoologist who thought the film was a hoax because the creature didn't run away. Has this zoologist never been around animals???? I live in Hope, BC, Canada and have been 8-10 feet away from deer and Black bears, and neither of them interact with humans. So long as you don't move, or move slowly, most animals are content to leave you be. Watch a nature show about lions, woman! Antelope will let lions be close at the watering hole so long as they aren't being threatening.

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.

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'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!