Finding Bigfoot Premiers Second Season

Finding Bigfoot, possibly the worst show pretending to be scientific, has premiered its second season on Animal Planet. The show continues to generate ratings for its network and buzz in general pop culture. However, the reviews are not so good. Everyone seems to notice how inadvertently funny it is. You know… what happens when you assume the existence of a creature and then run around looking for it. Sadly, not much has changed in the second season.

Here is a roundup of interesting media coverage.

The show received decent ratings again for the premier of season 2, picking up 1.6 million viewers.

What the heck has happened to science on television is asked in Finding Big Foot, Finding Global Warming

An article that sums up the foundation of the show is ‘Finding Bigfoot’: Believing in Sasquatch may be more  vital than finding him

…the BFRO, and other believers, have put together an FBI-style profile of Bigfoot, detailing pretty much his whole life.

Ranae, the “skeptic” scientist on the Finding Bigfoot team was profiled in this article The Sasquatch Skeptic

“Finding Bigfoot” is trying to verify the existence, or nonexistence, of the hulking creature also referred to as a sasquatch.

“They came to me and asked if I would do this, and I said, ‘Absolutely not!’ ” Holland said. “I was very hesitant to be a scientist affiliated with Bigfoot, let alone being edited any way they wanted.”

The Bigfoot Lunch Club remarked about how they were not satisfied with Ranae’s skeptical role on the show and asked me to contribute a guest post about the role of the token skeptic on such a show. So I did in this piece: Is Ranae just a token skeptic? What it means to be truly skeptical about Finding Bigfoot

Ranae drops the ball by failing to ask probing questions and digging deep; she appears to have fallen into step with Team Squatch. Except for the occasional eye roll and comment, she goes along with the ridiculous, illogical antics on the show. Once again, this may not be her fault, I don’t know.

A true scientific skeptic on the show would make the others look utterly foolish. That’s obviously not what the producers want. The purpose of Finding Bigfoot (for entertainment) would be compromised were someone to scrutinize everything carefully and consider all possibilities. Besides, time schedules simply don’t permit it. That’s one reason why science is incredibly challenging to portray on TV.

Got some thoughts about this show? Feel free to share.

  10 comments for “Finding Bigfoot Premiers Second Season

  1. Greg Aten
    January 6, 2012 at 1:25 PM

    The not Finding Bigfoot show is a waste. Matt knows that driving around in cars on forest service roads is a big waste of time.I have been on 6 expeditions with him. We never had any luck with that tactic. But walking alone or with some one can bring results. But not walking around with lights blazing or a camera crew. You have to do something so interesting that squatches will come to you.
    That has worked for me many times.
    Matt just wants his 15 minutes of fame.

  2. snoma
    January 6, 2012 at 5:28 PM

    Just what exactly do you mean by “That has worked for me many times.”?

    • January 6, 2012 at 8:00 PM

      It means “wishful thinking” is alive and well.

  3. M
    January 6, 2012 at 5:53 PM

    It might be sound advice in a nightclub, but “that” has never worked for me with any wild animal, either on land or underwater. It makes next to no sense in connection with an animal the same set of “theories” maintain is adept at AVOIDING human contact over thousands of years. I’ve even read suggestions that they avoid camera traps with infrared vision! At least be consistent, if you can’t manage skeptical. I’ve still got my fingers crossed on Bigfoot, but the BFRO is beyond hope.

    • Massachusetts
      January 6, 2012 at 10:03 PM

      Good point. On the one hand the Sasquatch avoids humans like the plague, on the other hand they come in all the time for closer looks at revelers and flute players. If that was the case you’d think we’d have better pictures.

      To play devil’s advocate, if they do exist they’d would likely be very intelligent. That would be consistent with them coming in close to observe. But that would also suggest we would have had some verifiable contact with them by now, which we don’t. I’m emphasizing the word verifiable here. The Erickson project claims we do, I believe. That’s great, now I’d just like to see their evidence. I would be very happy if they provided it in volumes, but sadly, I don’t think it will be forthcoming.

  4. twh
    January 6, 2012 at 10:07 PM

    I’m looking forward to this new season. It’s the funniest show on TV!

    • Massachusetts
      January 6, 2012 at 10:30 PM

      I do enjoy watching the show. It’s at the very least funny and whacky. When it’s not annoying.

  5. Massachusetts
    January 6, 2012 at 10:08 PM

    Ranae has been skeptical of some of the evidence on the show. But she does appear to be buying the premise that Bigfoot exists more and more as the show continues. This may be creative editing on the part of the show’s post production team. You can really present what ever you want if you edit without respect for the facts. Then again, she could value her paycheck and is therefore playing ball to stay on the show. But that seems unlikely, since the whole point of having a character (yes, character, since reality TV is still story telling, especially in this context) like Ranae is to generate tension and contrast with the other characters.

  6. Massachusetts
    January 6, 2012 at 10:20 PM

    @Greg Aten: please tell us more about your results. People on this site are skeptical precisely because they don’t see results out there among people who make claims. If you are getting results, it would be interesting and important to know what they are.

    Also, if you are seeing Sasquai using such methods (I hear that Sasquai is the plural), then have you been able to photograph them? If not, why not? This is something skeptics have a lot of trouble understanding. Thank you very much.

    • January 7, 2012 at 12:21 AM

      Actually, this skeptic generally understands it quite well. But “understanding” is often dismissed in lieu of a more cynical interpretation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *