Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

New show series on "Destination America"


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#16    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 20 June 2013 - 07:16 PM

Gates of Destination Truth has my vote for funniest, but as far as I've seen, Ranae Holland on Finding Bigfoot has my vote for best skeptic. Other "skeptical" shows tread too lightly. And/or vote "No" on this one but "Yes" on that one, like Fact or Faked.

She's allowed to be a naysayer because it doesn't hurt the Bigfoot following as they still have 3 proponents on the show.
So, I feel she has been given the most allowance in being skeptical and no worry about it affecting her job.
Besides anyone who will disagree with MM on national TV gets a gold star!

I have seen decent hardcore skeptics on various Bigfoot series (Monster Quest etc) or documentary-type shows who flatly disagree with or offer alternative explanations for or intelligently question-- facts, information, evidence, and reports offered by footers.

So, imo, while the paranormal/cryptid get to be  the loudest/most visible with the most air time or number of shows, some have been "fair" with a skeptical POV . It's just "Who listens to the skeptic?" The ratings are in the reality and possibility of monsters and their kin.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 20 June 2013 - 07:22 PM.

Bigfoot is definitely in the eye of the beholder!

#17    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 20 June 2013 - 09:02 PM

That's really the way it is with skeptics and believers. Some skeptics will never even consider any sort of evidence that isn't a dead body or skeletal remains and will bash anyone who even wants to maybe discuss it with others. Then on the other side of the coin are the believers who will endorse anything you offer up as a certified, documented fact, suitable for use as evidence in court, when in point of fact all someone posted was, "Hey! I seen me a Bigfoot."

I've often said that one needs an open mind and that's true for both skeptics and believers, if a skeptic is so steeped in his own dogma of disbelief then he'll never see anything. If believers don't stop and look more closely at what's being presented then they'll endorse a monkey suit in a freezer.....oh wait.

"Balance, in all things Daniel-san." Mr. Miyagi


#18    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:33 PM

But isn't it true that in order to ascribe to "moderation" one must have something to moderate? I can't eat meat in moderation if there is none on my plate.

If I do not believe in bigfoot. It is a made-up fantasy tale, then "moderation" of my belief is not possible. Just as it  would be to "moderate" the extent of my disbelief toward an Easter Bunny hopping down our street every spring and leaving candy for all the kiddos.

Anyway, that is how I now look at it, fwiw.

Bigfoot is definitely in the eye of the beholder!

#19    born2run

born2run

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 90 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina

  • "I am afeared there are few die well that die in battle".
    King Henry V,Act IV. Scene i.

Posted 21 June 2013 - 12:14 AM

Seen more than my share of tv shows like this, nothing I saw motivated me to want to see it again, but we psychologists are a bunch that get bored very quickly. Check with some of the folks I see to get that validated. :tu:

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. :no:

#20    Stardrive

Stardrive

    Resident Bass Guitarist

  • Member
  • 3,251 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 22 June 2013 - 06:37 PM

View PostQuiteContrary, on 20 June 2013 - 11:33 PM, said:

But isn't it true that in order to ascribe to "moderation" one must have something to moderate? I can't eat meat in moderation if there is none on my plate.
I think what Ken meant was that skeptisism is as equally prone to extremism as belief is.

Quote

If I do not believe in bigfoot. It is a made-up fantasy tale, then "moderation" of my belief is not possible. Just as it  would be to "moderate" the extent of my disbelief toward an Easter Bunny hopping down our street every spring and leaving candy for all the kiddos.
Oh I wouldn't fret about it to much QC, you have a very balanced outlook imo. I always enjoy reading your post.

Posted Image

#21    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 23 June 2013 - 03:55 AM

The Wolfman outsmarted their trap?! It came from the wrong direction?! The much smarter goat was trying to warn them of that very  possibility while they were tying her up.
The credits say it was filmed in West Virginia even though they were supposedly in Kentucky for the show.

When I'm in the woods I like to stick my head in animal dens too. Especially when I think it could be home to a 500 pound 8-foot carnivorous Wolfman.
(ALLEGEDLY) Running through the hilly debri scattered woods at night with loaded guns and a film crew about seems responsible enough.  Aiming into the woods at night, finger on trigger...All sure signs of intelligence.

Verdict: Worst I've seen so far :yes: :td:

Unless they slip in some Batman fighting words to liven it up a bit AIEEEE! URRRK!    ZLONK!   FLRBBBB! I think I'll pass.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 23 June 2013 - 04:07 AM.

Bigfoot is definitely in the eye of the beholder!

#22    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 23 June 2013 - 03:58 AM

View PostStardrive, on 22 June 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

I think what Ken meant was that skeptisism is as equally prone to extremism as belief is.


Oh I wouldn't fret about it to much QC, you have a very balanced outlook imo. I always enjoy reading your post.

Hey Stardrive, not worried, just a new way I'm looking at all this lately.

Bigfoot is definitely in the eye of the beholder!

#23    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 23 June 2013 - 11:27 AM

Yeah, that was really bad.

By the way, is there a law somewhere that if you go hunting for something you have to have crazy long beards?


#24    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:28 AM

View PostQuiteContrary, on 20 June 2013 - 11:33 PM, said:

But isn't it true that in order to ascribe to "moderation" one must have something to moderate? I can't eat meat in moderation if there is none on my plate.

If I do not believe in bigfoot. It is a made-up fantasy tale, then "moderation" of my belief is not possible. Just as it  would be to "moderate" the extent of my disbelief toward an Easter Bunny hopping down our street every spring and leaving candy for all the kiddos.

Anyway, that is how I now look at it, fwiw.

Actually, my comment has little to do with moderation at all. My point is that whatever side of the coin people are on, many of them are so steeped in that belief, or non-belief, they will not look at anything objectively any more because their own dogma jumps up and covers their eyes and closes their minds. It's sort of like the time I was talking with some friends about just having to have faith, not meaning it to be a religious conversation at all, however he locked onto my usage of the word "faith" and went off on a tear about how he was an atheist therefore above all the BS because he didn't believe in anything. So, just to mass with his narrow mind a little, I pointed out that he obviously did hold a belief and had faith in it, to which, at least for a moment I thought he was going to want to fight. Then I explained to him that a belief in nothing was still a belief, and while I had used the "F" word, I had not used it in a religious connotation at all. But sadly, his own dogma kicked in, disengaged his mind and sent him down a rather strange path, pretty much on a par with any dogma I'd ever witness in fundamentalist Christian.

You should have seen the look on his face when he realized finally what I was telling him was true. Dogma works in both directions just like a knife.


#25    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:34 AM

View PostQuiteContrary, on 20 June 2013 - 11:33 PM, said:

But isn't it true that in order to ascribe to "moderation" one must have something to moderate? I can't eat meat in moderation if there is none on my plate.

If I do not believe in bigfoot. It is a made-up fantasy tale, then "moderation" of my belief is not possible. Just as it  would be to "moderate" the extent of my disbelief toward an Easter Bunny hopping down our street every spring and leaving candy for all the kiddos.

Anyway, that is how I now look at it, fwiw.

Actually, my comment has little to do with moderation at all. My point is that whatever side of the coin people are on, many of them are so steeped in that belief, or non-belief, they will not look at anything objectively any more because their own dogma jumps up and covers their eyes and closes their minds. It's sort of like the time I was talking with some friends about just having to have faith, not meaning it to be a religious conversation at all, however he locked onto my usage of the word "faith" and went off on a tear about how he was an atheist therefore above all the BS because he didn't believe in anything. So, just to mass with his narrow mind a little, I pointed out that he obviously did hold a belief and had faith in it, to which, at least for a moment I thought he was going to want to fight. Then I explained to him that a belief in nothing was still a belief, and while I had used the "F" word, I had not used it in a religious connotation at all. But sadly, his own dogma kicked in, disengaged his mind and sent him down a rather strange path, pretty much on a par with any dogma I'd ever witness in fundamentalist Christian.

You should have seen the look on his face when he realized finally what I was telling him was true. Dogma works in both directions just like a knife.


#26    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:28 AM

View Postkeninsc, on 20 June 2013 - 09:02 PM, said:

"Balance, in all things Daniel-san." Mr. Miyagi
*snip*

I took your quote above as referring to "no extremes", but rather moderation in all things.

As I pointed out in another thread, imo, scientists and skeptics interested in the sciences do not lack curiosity. They don't lack the desire to learn something new. I would suspect for the most part they are observant, engaged and have a love for learning and exploring.

It is hard for me to believe a lover of science to be so dogmatic as to lack the above mentioned traits. Remaining in neutral is a dead-end. I do not see skepticism in the skeptics (who love science/nature) I've encountered as ruining their judgement or blocking their capability of discovery. It has an important purpose in discovery, not a detrimental one.

Rather, it eventually becomes obvious the"information" circulating at present before us offers nothing for serious consideration. Let alone to declare we are "wide-open' or unconditionally receptive to the belief surrounding it.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 24 June 2013 - 09:34 AM.

Bigfoot is definitely in the eye of the beholder!

#27    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:09 PM

View PostQuiteContrary, on 24 June 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

*snip*

I took your quote above as referring to "no extremes", but rather moderation in all things.

As I pointed out in another thread, imo, scientists and skeptics interested in the sciences do not lack curiosity. They don't lack the desire to learn something new. I would suspect for the most part they are observant, engaged and have a love for learning and exploring.

It is hard for me to believe a lover of science to be so dogmatic as to lack the above mentioned traits. Remaining in neutral is a dead-end. I do not see skepticism in the skeptics (who love science/nature) I've encountered as ruining their judgement or blocking their capability of discovery. It has an important purpose in discovery, not a detrimental one.

Rather, it eventually becomes obvious the"information" circulating at present before us offers nothing for serious consideration. Let alone to declare we are "wide-open' or unconditionally receptive to the belief surrounding it.

Obviously, we've not observed the same things in people. It's sort of like now I avoid doing business with any company who openly displays the Christian "Fish" symbol, not because I have issues with the christian religion but rather because every time without exception I have been screwed over by companies bearing that symbol, both personally and professionally in some way. To the point that as soon as I see the symbol I look no further at their advertizing. I've even been accused of "Persecuting contractors for their religious beliefs" and then I simply would take out my file and show evidence of how the company was being screwed over by these good and devout Christian companies. Oddly, as a result of their complaining about me to the company I worked for and my production of what happened with hard numbers and purchase orders, they were removed from the contractor's list.  

Generally, when someone starts telling me how open and receptive they are it's time for me to sit down because their about to stick it to me.  Sort of like liberals who claim to love the Constitution yet want to ban, silence and destroy anyone who doesn't agree with them wholeheartedly. Not trying to bring politics into the discussion, just another example. What's that old song? ".....smilin' faces......smiling faces, tell lies...."


#28    Labobio

Labobio

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 47 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013

Posted 25 June 2013 - 12:39 AM

This is just another show to go along with a lot of others to continue the white trashing of America..


#29    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:19 AM

View PostLabobio, on 25 June 2013 - 12:39 AM, said:

This is just another show to go along with a lot of others to continue the white trashing of America..

Idk, "White Trash" to me seems smart enough to play dumb enough to get their own shows and make more than some of us.

"Shannon disputes the $4,000-per-episode figure, telling the Reporter that they're earning enough from the show to start trust funds for the four kids; in fact, they're saving all the show money and continuing to live off Thompson's wages from the local chalk mine." June Shannon from "Honey Boo Boo"

and they are at the lower-wage end, compared to some others, I'm sure.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 25 June 2013 - 01:19 AM.

Bigfoot is definitely in the eye of the beholder!

#30    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 25 June 2013 - 04:59 AM

I recall reading or hearing that these reality shows don't pay what they use to unless you get some big ratings numbers. The earlier shows that did ok made some serious money, I understand that "Dog the Bounty Hunter" did remarkably well as did Steve Irwin......in fact, Irwin made enough money that he was able to explain and do a lot of improvements to his Zoo in Australia. The down side was in order to keep the show fresh and hold the viewers he wound up doing things other than what he normally did. Hence, he got hit in the chest by that giant sting ray which killed him.

I have no idea what kind of money these people pull in from their shows........I suppose if I cared enough I could Google around and find out or at least get an idea what kind of money they make or can make.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users