Finding Bigfoot

Listen everyone, these creatures are real! I am 67 and saw my first Bigfoot standing by bridge in NJ. Never have they been aggressive, however I am being harassed every night as one of them keeps trying to get into my windows! It's very scary for me and I am now moving to a retirement home. I first saw them at the new house the day after I moved there! There is a family and they all travel together. Even during the day they lay behind the bushes and watch me??! The third day in the new house I was faced down by one of them, Lady dog and I went out back, I looked up and there he was standing by the big tree!?? I was in shock and could not move! There we were staring at each other not moving an inch!! Mean was what I was getting ... this is not a friendly visit! Lady and I want right back inside. Day and night they are out there ...I had a beautiful Dog that they made sick and I had to put her to sleep. She would just lay in the closet all day and night by herself? These are creatures - not just animals- I see lights around them sometimes, Red Eyes that light up ... not just shine from other light source! These creatures work as a Military Unit to keep watch vigils ect! I can't stay there anymore, been in a Hotel for two weeks now and moving next week I hope to my new safe place.

This is hands down one of the worst shows I've seen on animal planet (and that's saying a lot). However this proves to be so entertaining that the "quality" of the show has no real importance.

The 4 squatch hunters seem to be borderline retarded and are willing to accept their hilariously lackluster findings (broken branches, vague knocking sounds etc) as "proof" of the existence of "Bigfoot's". Yet despite this infuriating lack of scientific method, they happen to provide some of the most entertaining T.V around. There are few things more fun than laughing at there ineptitude, especially if some kind of drinking game is involved.

Overall it is both an abomination of a T.V show and one of the greatest comedies of the 21st century.

They go into an area. They interview witnesses. In many cases they have a little town meeting. Now they triangulate their favorite interviews and try to pick a spot in the middle. So far they have heard tree knocks, howls, walking, whistling and talking. The last two things were very recently mentioned, and instead of being evidence of people in the woods, were presented as evidence of Bigfoots too! There is no anti evidence! Everything is proof! There's a dissenter, they give her 15 seconds to say she doesn't agree, and then show at length the other three dismissing her viewpoint. You just know if the show continues another season, they'll insert Matt saying "Not her again, look.." right after she questions something.

They have personal cameras on their faces. They have hand held heat signature cameras. They have at least two camera people filming them. This stuff is par for the course in TV ghost hunting. But there's a big difference between hunting animals and ghosts. In ghosts, there's a specific area usually no bigger than a warehouse where there's lots of activity. In looking for animals, the animal might wander miles, upon miles and try to avoid humans. This is why most shows pick an area and lay Camera traps. But this show isn't really about finding anything. It's about making four people the Beatles of Bigfoot hunting.

They sort of act like forests everywhere are teeming with Bigfoots. Unlike shows like Ghost hunters where they occasionally tell people they didn't find anything, you get the feeling these guys could go into Central Park NYC and come away convinced they found some.

Also, that town meeting they have would alert fakers from miles around it's time to start some faking! They're not exactly stealthily blowing into town, are they?

Another comparison to Ghost Hunters is you'll have the two lead investigators almost always temper any beliefs with "it's believed that", or "it's theorized" On this show it's "We know" or It's been proved" and very often even "I discovered" or "I was the first...".

What they have proved is that Ego maniacs do indeed wander the forests of North America!

It is great TV! A modern day Ahab shows up with his crew and looks for the great White Bigfoot. Yelling and screaming, and declaring himself master of all.

This is another attempt at a show that has the potential to be good, but fails due to bending evidence to match preconceived ideas. Why do I say this? Here is an example: In the first show, one of the researchers does a "sasquatch call". They say, it sounds just like a squatch! In the next show, the "sasquatch call" sounds completely different. Not a little bit, but entirely 180 degrees different. The first call was deep sounding. The second sounded like a man with his privates in a bear trap! The comment after the second call, "Wow, that sounded exactly like a squatch!".

My biggest problem with this is, how can they say this is how a completely unproven creature sounds? Next, in every show they manage to find a "squatch" with the thermal cams. Now if this is true, why in the world would they not set out camera traps to try to get a conclusive photo??? Thermal cams are VERY expensive! You could buy a boat load of motion sensor game cams for the same price. I believe the reason they do not employ them is it would cause crew members to be photographed too often posing as a bigfoot.

This is another show going down the same road as UFO Hunters - Don't confuse me with the facts, I already know everything.

Waste of time.

I have seen some bad so-called reality shows - I especially remember that woman in Egypt trying to pretend she had found Neftiti's remains when the remains she found were actually those of a man - but these guys have no evidence whatsoever and they try to make something out of nothing. How can you make a Sasquatch call when no-one knows what they sound like??? "My tent was hit with a rock in the night" becomes a Sasquatch attack? This isn't even good enough to be called pseudo science, because there is no science involved. One thing in their favour, at least as far as the broadcaster is concerned, is that it must have been very cheap to make. They certainly didn't have to pay for any expert opinions.