Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
keninsc

New show series on "Destination America"

51 posts in this topic

......or it could just be "Finding Bigfoot" with gun toting hillbillies. At least they have a plan to take one as proof, which is more than I can say for the BFRO guys.

Here's a link to their page:

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/06/06/mountain-men-of-w-v-seek-mysterious-beasts-of-the-appalachian-wild-in-destination-americas-new-series-mountain-monsters/186174/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"Not again" as my born and bred WV kids would say...

From the AIMS website

"Any skepticism we might have had in our early years disappeared for each of us in different ways but we all soon became believers when we had our own personal encounters with these creatures."

Why am I not surprised? Wolfman, Lizard Demon, Mothman, Devil dog, Grassman. That is quite a portfolio of "personal encounters"! Apparently these expert trappers haven't trapped one though.

Oh well, I am a glutton for punishment so will watch the show. I wish someone would dig into the background of some of these "actors" and see actually who they are, what they do and where they are from.

Their website is banal/lacking, looks new and just links to other sites. Why not include their own personal experiences? And no background on these "Appalachian Mountain Men".

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there just in it for the paycheck personally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will we ever get a quality skeptical show on any of these channels?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I remember a time when Destination America was Planet Green... But now, Bigfoot is America's ringtone on this new channel.

Edited by Supersquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will we ever get a quality skeptical show on any of these channels?

Fact or Faked on SyFy is/was a rare skeptical show on cable. Most of the time they ended up with reasonable explanations. They obviously did some things to pad out segments which they had probably already solved before they arrived at the location. In some of the most obvious hoaxes, they still tried to appeal to the paranormal fans by leaving something open. For example their interpretations of "ghost" recordings (which all sounded like "mnnmmrphmm" to me) were too imaginative.

Their biggest mistake was the "ghost gargoyle" in England. At the beginning of the show, they discarded an unrelated video of a UFO because the object disappeared in one frame indicating it was CGI. Damn, these guys are good. Or so I thought. The "gargoyle" had every CGI mistake a hoax could have. When the camera panned to the "gargoyle", everything in the frames was a streak of motion blur except the gargoyle which remained perfectly sharp. The "gargoyle" didn't move fluidly but made complete motions in every frame which was obvious animation. When the "gargoyle" turned and jumped, it looked less realistic than Wile E. Coyote chasing the Roadrunner off a cliff. I looked around for the video on the Internet and couldn't find it. Kind of a strong indication that it had already been declared worthless.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact or Faked on SyFy is/was a rare skeptical show on cable. Most of the time they ended up with reasonable explanations. They obviously did some things to pad out segments which they had probably already solved before they arrived at the location. In some of the most obvious hoaxes, they still tried to appeal to the paranormal fans by leaving something open. For example their interpretations of "ghost" recordings (which all sounded like "mnnmmrphmm" to me) were too imaginative.

Their biggest mistake was the "ghost gargoyle" in England. At the beginning of the show, they discarded an unrelated video of a UFO because the object disappeared in one frame indicating it was CGI. Damn, these guys are good. Or so I thought. The "gargoyle" had every CGI mistake a hoax could have. When the camera panned to the "gargoyle", everything in the frames was a streak of motion blur except the gargoyle which remained perfectly sharp. The "gargoyle" didn't move fluidly but made complete motions in every frame which was obvious animation. When the "gargoyle" turned and jumped, it looked less realistic than Wile E. Coyote chasing the Roadrunner off a cliff. I looked around for the video on the Internet and couldn't find it. Kind of a strong indication that it had already been declared worthless.

That show was pretty good, although I agree that they pandered to para crowd a bit too much. Decoded is another show that at makes an attempt at skepticism, but doesn't quite go far enough in my opinion.

Frankly, I'd love to see a show with the likes of Brian Dunning and/or Ben Radford doing some real digging and really debunking a lot of this silliness once and for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've given up on TV and expect nothing anymore and am not disappointed. There are a few shows and a couple channels I'll watch if I want to actually learn something. Otherwise, it's just cheap fake useless entertainment.

Anything "paranormal" is worthless, imo. Even as a believer, I think I'd find it all formulaic, unsatisfactory and profit oriented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact or faked was good will it be back on tv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've given up on TV and expect nothing anymore and am not disappointed. There are a few shows and a couple channels I'll watch if I want to actually learn something. Otherwise, it's just cheap fake useless entertainment.

Anything "paranormal" is worthless, imo. Even as a believer, I think I'd find it all formulaic, unsatisfactory and profit oriented.

I have to agree with you QC. There's no back ground on these guys, other than a very generic "These guys all grew up in the relative areas and are "Appalachian Mountain Men". What does that mean? What qualifies them to be called that? For all we know the whole show could be a fake reality based show like "Lizzard Lick Towing" where all those guys are actors and all the scenes are staged for TV. Why people watch that crap is competely over my head, but watch it they do.....and apparently love it. I think that show is in it's, what? Forth or fifth season now?

Granted, there aren't too many qualifications you have to have in order to call yourself an "Appalachian Mountain Man". I mean a heavy, long, untrimmed beard, bib overalls, a funky, worn out hat and a deeply over drawn southern accent......oh and a rifle. Which makes me raise another point, on the previews for tomorrow nights show one of those old boys was running around in the woods at night in search of whatever critter it is their after with a scpoed rifle. Scoped rifles suck and swallow at night in a wooded area. Seems a real Mountain man would have figured that one out......but I digress. The point I was going for is there is only slightly more to qualify you to be one of these guys than it is to call yourself a "Cryptozoologist". CZ's can pass on the beards and big overalls.

However, I am off tomorrow night and will be watching the show with a great deal of interest. Oh, and just so you'll know, if I see anything that doesn't seem correct to me I will post and call BS on it. I hope the rest of you will do the same. If nothing else it might make for some good conversations.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have to agree with you QC. There's no back ground on these guys, other than a very generic "These guys all grew up in the relative areas and are "Appalachian Mountain Men". What does that mean? What qualifies them to be called that? For all we know the whole show could be a fake reality based show like "Lizzard Lick Towing" where all those guys are actors and all the scenes are staged for TV. Why people watch that crap is competely over my head, but watch it they do.....and apparently love it. I think that show is in it's, what? Forth or fifth season now?

Granted, there aren't too many qualifications you have to have in order to call yourself an "Appalachian Mountain Man". I mean a heavy, long, untrimmed beard, bib overalls, a funky, worn out hat and a deeply over drawn southern accent......oh and a rifle. Which makes me raise another point, on the previews for tomorrow nights show one of those old boys was running around in the woods at night in search of whatever critter it is their after with a scpoed rifle. Scoped rifles suck and swallow at night in a wooded area. Seems a real Mountain man would have figured that one out......but I digress. The point I was going for is there is only slightly more to qualify you to be one of these guys than it is to call yourself a "Cryptozoologist". CZ's can pass on the beards and big overalls.

However, I am off tomorrow night and will be watching the show with a great deal of interest. Oh, and just so you'll know, if I see anything that doesn't seem correct to me I will post and call BS on it. I hope the rest of you will do the same. If nothing else it might make for some good conversations.

I agree, did you see the tail-end of that creature they are after in the commercial for the show? What do you think it is? It's shown so fast.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, did you see the tail-end of that creature they are after in the commercial for the show? What do you think it is? It's shown so fast.

Honestly, it happened so fast it could have been anything, just a few milliseconds of a glance and they cut to something else, just enough to make the mind start trying to fill in the blanks for you without you realizing it's happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact or faked was good will it be back on tv

Syfy hasn't been strongly committed to the show, only buying a handful of episodes at random times. The show also does nothing to promote their other programming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's understandable, shows cast a lot of money to produce, edit and get into a form where they're interesting. Then you have to wonder what is going to get the ratings. Great example is "Pawn Stars". Who'd have guessed before hand how big that show would have popped in the ratings for the History Channel? Now it's had four shows spun off it and two of them are doing well so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will we ever get a quality skeptical show on any of these channels?

I agree with cool guy, Fact or Faked was pretty good. So was Destination Truth. But, you are right. Not that many shows are actually skeptical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.