The Secret Lives of Bigfoot Hunters

[William Parcher]

A well written article looking at Ranae Holland and Derek Randles with bits about Wally Hersom, Krantz, Meldrum and others and the cultural phenomenon of Bigfoot. The author does mislead when she talks about giant squid and jaguars.


The Secret Lives of Bigfoot Hunters

Lit only by moonlight in the Tennessee woods, Ranae Holland cups her hands around her mouth and emits a guttural, horrifying shriek, something halfway between the scream of a cougar and the scream of a person being disemboweled by a cougar.

Then she falls silent and reclines on a fallen cedar, the tentacles of exposed roots her backrest, her long legs bracing her into total stillness. She knows how not to scare an animal, a skill earned doing veterinary care on snow leopards and counting fish in bear country. She sits still and she waits for sasquatch to answer.

More than 2,000 miles away, a week later and in broad daylight, Derek Randles forces open a motion-activated game camera, a paperback-size camo box that hunters use to spot game. He retrieves an SD card encoded with half a year of recordings and descends through the waxy salal ground cover that blankets the Olympic Peninsula...

http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2016/3/28/the-secret-lives-of-bigfoot-hunters

 

[dropzone]

You scared me. For a moment I thought they had lives, but I guess not.

Whew!

 

[Drewbot]

The Secret Lives of Bigfoot Hunters

http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2016/3/28/the-secret-lives-of-bigfoot-hunters

a quest for one of the Northwest’s most elusive mysteries.

Lit only by moonlight in the Tennessee woods...

Wait... whut?

 

[Pacal]

A well written article looking at Ranae Holland and Derek Randles with bits about Wally Hersom, Krantz, Meldrum and others and the cultural phenomenon of Bigfoot. The author does mislead when she talks about giant squid and jaguars.

The Secret Lives of Bigfoot Hunters

http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2016/3/28/the-secret-lives-of-bigfoot-hunters

A caption to a photo in the above article says: "Ranae Holland has traveled as far as -Sumatra and Nepal to film episodes of Finding Bigfoot. “We’re never going to prove bigfoot is real, okay,” she says. “But with that said, you also can’t prove bigfoot is not real.”

Headdesk, Headdesk, Headdesk!!!

Good Lord I just hate it when people come up with these idiotic "But you can't prove X isn't real!" arguments. Proving a negative is bluntly very difficult and in many cases next to impossible. Can you prove, for example, that pink Unicorns didn't appear in my garage last Thursday night and then disappeared?

What this bit of fluff ignores is that the onus is on those making the positive claim to prove it. Bigfoot believers have the onus of proving that Bigfoot exists. So far they have failed utterly. Skeptics have no onus to prove that Bigfoot does not exist. And to assume some sort of equality between them is false.

If you can't prove Bigfoot is real there is n point in thinking that Bigfoot is real.

 

[William Parcher]

Note the two images from the PGF. Those are Cibachrome prints courtesy of Erik Dahinden.

 

[William Parcher]

A caption to a photo in the above article says: "Ranae Holland has traveled as far as -Sumatra and Nepal to film episodes of Finding Bigfoot. “We’re never going to prove bigfoot is real, okay,” she says. “But with that said, you also can’t prove bigfoot is not real.”

Headdesk, Headdesk, Headdesk!!!

Good Lord I just hate it when people come up with these idiotic "But you can't prove X isn't real!" arguments. Proving a negative is bluntly very difficult and in many cases next to impossible. Can you prove, for example, that pink Unicorns didn't appear in my garage last Thursday night and then disappeared?

What this bit of fluff ignores is that the onus is on those making the positive claim to prove it. Bigfoot believers have the onus of proving that Bigfoot exists. So far they have failed utterly. Skeptics have no onus to prove that Bigfoot does not exist. And to assume some sort of equality between them is false.

If you can't prove Bigfoot is real there is n point in thinking that Bigfoot is real.

We don't know the details of Ranae's contract with Animal Planet for Finding Bigfoot. It may specify her "personality" on the program and may specifically limit what she says. That could also extend to what she says in interviews such as this article we are reading.

She is a scientist because she has a scientific degree. But I think that she is not so intelligent and her performance as an effective skeptic is only mediocre. But then it's easy to understand why Animal Planet needs their token skeptic to be milk toast instead of hard hitting and brilliant. If you had that the program would be chaos and only last for a few episodes before it collapses or the skeptic is replaced or eliminated.

 

[John Nowak]

It may specify her "personality" on the program and may specifically limit what she says. That could also extend to what she says in interviews such as this article we are reading.

That's a plausible theory and I tend to agree.

Still, at the same time, what else do we have to go on? I think it's entirely rational to hold people responsible for the words that come out of their mouths, short of "We know you have relatives in the Reich" situations.

If she turns around some day and explains she only said that because of contractual obligation, I personally will accept that she is willing to tell lies for money and judge her future comments accordingly.

I reserve the right to have more respect for her if she's genuinely mistaken, though.

 

[Drewbot]

If you had that the program would be chaos and only last for a few episodes before it collapses or the skeptic is replaced or eliminated.

Or stalked and assaulted by angry Footers.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

We don't know the details of Ranae's contract with Animal Planet for Finding Bigfoot. It may specify her "personality" on the program and may specifically limit what she says. That could also extend to what she says in interviews such as this article we are reading.

She is a scientist because she has a scientific degree. But I think that she is not so intelligent and her performance as an effective skeptic is only mediocre. But then it's easy to understand why Animal Planet needs their token skeptic to be milk toast instead of hard hitting and brilliant. If you had that the program would be chaos and only last for a few episodes before it collapses or the skeptic is replaced or eliminated.

After hearing about her relationship with her late father, who by all accounts was a Bigfoot-believer, it's easy to see why she acts in the way that she does. Imo, she's no more a sceptic than Bobo is an "expert field-caller."

The show could've chosen someone who had no interest or history with the subject and brought them on board as an actual sceptic, but they went the route they did, and likely for good reason.

 

[William Parcher]

After hearing about her relationship with her late father, who by all accounts was a Bigfoot-believer, it's easy to see why she acts in the way that she does. Imo, she's no more a sceptic than Bobo is an "expert field-caller."

Ranae has said that Bigfoot does exist as a spirit being. Not an imagined being, but an actual spirit entity. She is essentially saying that ghosts are real things. She is the scientist skeptic on Finding Bigfoot.

The show could've chosen someone who had no interest or history with the subject and brought them on board as an actual sceptic, but they went the route they did, and likely for good reason.

That won't work very well. The worst kind of skeptic to argue against Bigfoot is one who has no knowledge of all the specific claims made by Bigfootery. For example, a Bigfooter might tell an ignorant skeptic that dermal ridges have been found in Bigfoot tracks and these even show up in the casts. The skeptic has never heard about this before. They don't know that these things are not actually dermal ridges and have been explained by demonstration to be natural artifacts left behind by the casting process (Crowley).

If Ranae were to be a proper and effective skeptic on the program she would have to regularly break the Fourth Wall. That is she would have to turn away from Matt, Cliff and Bobo and look directly into the camera and address the viewing audience, which she does not do. The program intends to be a "fly on the wall" looking at Bigfooters (and a skeptic) talking to each other and various Bigfoot witnesses from America and other places as well. Compare that to a nature documentary with Attenborough who looks straight into the camera and directly addresses the viewing audience to tell them about the natural world.

In Finding Bigfoot, the believer guys only have to address Ranae herself and if they can halt or confuse her then they have defeated "Bigfoot skepticism". The audience can be led to believe that if Ranae is defeated (she often says that she has no explanation or good response to a claim) then Bigfoot existence wins. The program only "works" as ongoing entertainment because Ranae is a poor skeptic.

We can maybe sit back and sympathize with Ranae who is a victim of her own impotence as a skeptic, but then we must remember that it is she who is cashing the fat paychecks from Animal Planet.

 

[dmaker]

Ranae is a sell out in my opinion. Either that, or she is a p*# poor scientist.

 

[William Parcher]

Ranae is a sell out in my opinion. Either that, or she is a p*# poor scientist.

She is a scientist because she earned a science degree. The university does not ask you if you believe in Bigfoot or ghosts before they hand you your diploma.

 

[dmaker]

Right, and I'm an historian because I have an undergraduate degree in History.

 

[Drewbot]

She is an actor following a script.

She plays a scientist on TV.

 

[John Nowak]

I haven't seen the show, but my impression is that she's more or less in the same position as a fundamentalist archaeologist who might do sterling work excavating a temple to Odin but starts insisting that every brick in Jerusalem "might have been" part of David's palace. She's not the first, won't be the last, but certainly not a "bigfoot skeptic."

 

[Axxman300]

I haven't seen the show, but my impression is that she's more or less in the same position as a fundamentalist archaeologist who might do sterling work excavating a temple to Odin but starts insisting that every brick in Jerusalem "might have been" part of David's palace. She's not the first, won't be the last, but certainly not a "bigfoot skeptic."

I watch the show. She tries. She presents honest counter evaluations...but she is largely ignored.

The show itself is awful. They have the worst methodology for conducting searches ever presented on TV. Lots of running around in the dark woods of North America, often in places where sightings have long been debunked long ago. A smart team would work a single geographic region for a few months.

On "River Monsters", Jeremy Wade's expeditions run for weeks. He does his homework, and catches big fish. The "Finding Bigfoot" guys are in a location for a few days at most.

Here's an example of how much of a waste of time this show is:

They did an episode in the Santa Cruz Mountains, in California. I live 15 miles from the area. There has NEVER been a credible Bigfoot sighting in the Santa Cruz Mountains. You'd think this would slow them down but no, off into the redwoods they go. Unlike the Pacific Northwest, the Santa Cruz Mountains are surrounded by civilization on all sides, and there are NO Native American legends nor folklore of giant hairy beasts in the area.

There was zero reason to investigate the Santa Cruz Mountains. Five minutes on Google could have saved them a trip.

And like someone said, many of the "Bigfoot Hotspots" they investigate are prime Marijuana growing regions. Santa Cruz has great stuff...I'm told...

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Here's an example of how much of a waste of time this show is:

They did an episode in the Santa Cruz Mountains, in California. I live 15 miles from the area. There has NEVER been a credible Bigfoot sighting in the Santa Cruz Mountains. You'd think this would slow them down but no, off into the redwoods they go. Unlike the Pacific Northwest, the Santa Cruz Mountains are surrounded by civilization on all sides, and there are NO Native American legends nor folklore of giant hairy beasts in the area.

There was zero reason to investigate the Santa Cruz Mountains. Five minutes on Google could have saved them a trip.

They filmed some shows in the UK...

I'll let that sink in for a moment.

The UK.

Bigfoot. Here? No.

 

[dropzone]

But you have plenty of room to hide them. Liverpool, for instance. Or Glasgow.

 

[Pterodactyl]

Doesn't actually matter where they look for Bigfoot on the show, since the odds of finding him are exactly the same in any location. But you have to change up the scenery, highlight the local angle in order make one episode somehow distinguishable from the last.

I disagree that the show is awful. Well, it might be, but I still somehow watch them all. I think they do a good job with drone/scenery shots. I enjoy laughing at the stupid things Bobo, Cliff and Matt say. As for Ranae, I don't find her very inspiring and her critiques are often sub adequate, but who knows how she is edited or scripted.

 

[fuelair]

I watch the show. She tries. She presents honest counter evaluations...but she is largely ignored.

The show itself is awful. They have the worst methodology for conducting searches ever presented on TV. Lots of running around in the dark woods of North America, often in places where sightings have long been debunked long ago. A smart team would work a single geographic region for a few months.(BORING!!!!!)

On "River Monsters", Jeremy Wade's expeditions run for weeks. He does his homework, and catches big fish. The "Finding Bigfoot" guys are in a location for a few days at most.

Here's an example of how much of a waste of time this show is:

They did an episode in the Santa Cruz Mountains, in California. I live 15 miles from the area. There has NEVER been a credible Bigfoot sighting in the Santa Cruz Mountains. You'd think this would slow them down but no, off into the redwoods they go. Unlike the Pacific Northwest, the Santa Cruz Mountains are surrounded by civilization on all sides, and there are NO Native American legends nor folklore of giant hairy beasts in the area.(TOO MUCH INFO- get to Yeti!!!)
There was zero reason to investigate the Santa Cruz Mountains. Five minutes on Google could have saved them a trip. (STILL BORING let's have somebody throw rocks at them and they chase that bigfoot !!!!!!)

And like someone said, many of the "Bigfoot Hotspots" they investigate are prime Marijuana growing regions. Santa Cruz has great stuff...I'm told..(NOT BORING!!! Don't Bogart that joint!!)!.

FTFY on colors parts