• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Skeptic-based Bigfoot documentary?

Vermonter

Graduate Poster
V
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,017
I've been passively involved with Bigfootery for a few years now as a skeptic. Quite frankly the whole sub-culture is fascinating and there's a lot of mythos surrounding the non-existent creature.

I'm a budding filmmaker based in Vermont (if the name didn't clue you in), and I've been giving some thought to developing a small documentary on Bigfoot in New England. My brother, an artist in New York, has been involved in the New York Bigfoot scene for a while. He essentially draws sketches of what people describe, and it seems that there's a strong "presence" in the Whitehall region of New York.

One thing I find fascinating is the ability of "researchers" to ascribe personality details and lifestyle habits of said fictional creature. We've never found a body or even a live one, but that doesn't stop the die-hards. Sure, we can attribute personalities and histories to fictional characters like Batman and even dragons, but the difference is that (mostly) everyone agrees that neither actually exist.

My idea is fairly simple: Interview Bigfoot researchers and witnesses and compile a documentary based around that, with minimal rehashing of old, tired arguments. No derision of witnesses or making fun of them, just factual information. I admit that I'm biased about the existence of the creature, but I would find it fascinating to get first-hand accounts, without the spin or color of a vested interest involved.

What do ya'll think?
 
It sounds like an episode of Morgan Spurlock's "Inside Man." I mean this in a good way, because the series is informative without being judgmental. The episode on UFOlogy appears similar to what you describe.
 
It isn't really clear what you want to do. On the one hand you want it to be "skeptical", which by default makes proponents look like idiots if it really is skeptical - because that would demonstrate how the entire history is based upon very poor hoaxing and dishonest portrayals of native legends.

You have over four centuries of European Trading/Settlement in New England and centuries before that with native peoples having no evidence of bigfoot. The Algonquian people would have told them of it and golly - Harvard was founded in 1636 and has yet to take note of what would be the greatest find of history in almost four hundred years.

"Skeptical" in these kinds of documentaries the last 50 years means you ask an inane question like "what does bigfoot do in the winter". And when they answer that bigfoot migrates to Mexico you ask no follow-up question.

So what do you mean by "skeptical"?
 
By "skeptical" I mean not believing every little thing someone says - in other pro-Bigfoot documentaries, the narrator/host never questions what is said, and sometimes makes illogical judgments or extrapolations based on poor evidence (something along the line of "Well, if Bigfoot was here, then that must mean he was knocking/looking for food/scouting for an interdimensional portal"). Asking follow-up questions would be an important part of the process. I'm mostly interested in interviewing witnesses, not so much "professional" Bigfooters (mostly because I doubt they'd give me the time of day), but I'd love to get as much material as possible.

My intention is not to use unethical and dishonest editing techniques to make someone look like an idiot - if a participant looks like an idiot, then that's their doing, not mine. All of the raw footage would be available for purview, at any rate.

Believers interviewing people tend to use leading questions to get a particular answer out of a witness. I want to use fact-finding questions, but also leave room for the witness to tell their story and version of events. That doesn't mean I have to believe every word they say, or ask leading questions.

I personally don't believe it exists, but I'd love to hear from other people as to why they think it does, and hear about their experiences.
 
One of your challenges will be figuring out if the 'believers' are really believers, scammers/money makers (pun intended), or poor saps who pretend to believe in bigfoot so they can make friends among the other 'believers'.

I think most of them fall into the last category, while others believe most of them are scammers and hoaxers.
 
Vermonter said:
By "skeptical" I mean not believing every little thing someone says - in other pro-Bigfoot documentaries, the narrator/host never questions what is said, and sometimes makes illogical judgments or extrapolations based on poor evidence (something along the line of "Well, if Bigfoot was here, then that must mean he was knocking/looking for food/scouting for an interdimensional portal"). Asking follow-up questions would be an important part of the process. I'm mostly interested in interviewing witnesses, not so much "professional" Bigfooters (mostly because I doubt they'd give me the time of day), but I'd love to get as much material as possible.

My intention is not to use unethical and dishonest editing techniques to make someone look like an idiot - if a participant looks like an idiot, then that's their doing, not mine. All of the raw footage would be available for purview, at any rate.

Believers interviewing people tend to use leading questions to get a particular answer out of a witness. I want to use fact-finding questions, but also leave room for the witness to tell their story and version of events. That doesn't mean I have to believe every word they say, or ask leading questions.

I personally don't believe it exists, but I'd love to hear from other people as to why they think it does, and hear about their experiences.
Click to expand...

Look through the other threads on this page. You will find the example of someone who did just that and when he actually asked challenging questions of the witnesses, not one of them stuck with their story and admitted they made it up.

I've been interviewed a number of times for both the news and television shows - Ice Cold Killers most recently and it covered the same things I was interviewed for on City Confidential. The producers call you up or email and tell you what kind of show they are doing, ask if you consent to be interviewed, and in so doing you get a pretty good idea about what they are up to. I know everyone else they contacted for both those programs and what their reasons were for either consenting or refusing consent to be interviewed.

You are going to have the same issue. If you are honest and tell them you are a skeptic who does not believe in bigfoot, will go to the site of their alleged sighting, and ask investigative questions... you will lose a lot of witnesses, and this is actually an important point to your documentary if it is to be factual.

On the other hand, you can lie, at the very least a lie by omission, and pump people up in thinking there will be the kinds of questions we always see on these documentaries, which anyone making up a story would have no fear of. But then what do you do when they point out a place they supposedly saw bigfoot and a hundred feet away in every direction is a shopping mall, gas station, school, etc.? What you are going to find is these stories are incredibly lame. Of course they are - there is no bigfoot.


You would benefit a great deal by reading some of the threads here, like on alternate reality gaming. Any kind of research a person does, if they are serious, begins by looking into what others have discovered.

One of the reasons for that is when people tell you their belief is based upon the Patterson-Gimlin film then an obvious question is to ask what they think now that Greg Long interviewed the man wearing the suit and the original manufacturer of that suit. Etc.
 
GT/CS said:
One of your challenges will be figuring out if the 'believers' are really believers, scammers/money makers (pun intended), or poor saps who pretend to believe in bigfoot so they can make friends among the other 'believers'.

I think most of them fall into the last category, while others believe most of them are scammers and hoaxers.
Click to expand...

That's my hypothesis as well. For the most part it seems to be a collection of well-meaning individuals who want to share stories and be part of the group, and then mixed in with that are the True Believers, and then the scammers duping both of those (and each other). The documentary wouldn't attempt to label anyone - I wouldn't want to get sued for slander or defamation of character.

I may delve into some of the history of Bigfoot hoaxes, however. Still working out the flow of how I'd run this.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Look through the other threads on this page. You will find the example of someone who did just that and when he actually asked challenging questions of the witnesses, not one of them stuck with their story and admitted they made it up.

I've been interviewed a number of times for both the news and television shows - Ice Cold Killers most recently and it covered the same things I was interviewed for on City Confidential. The producers call you up or email and tell you what kind of show they are doing, ask if you consent to be interviewed, and in so doing you get a pretty good idea about what they are up to. I know everyone else they contacted for both those programs and what their reasons were for either consenting or refusing consent to be interviewed.

You are going to have the same issue. If you are honest and tell them you are a skeptic who does not believe in bigfoot, will go to the site of their alleged sighting, and ask investigative questions... you will lose a lot of witnesses, and this is actually an important point to your documentary if it is to be factual.

On the other hand, you can lie, at the very least a lie by omission, and pump people up in thinking there will be the kinds of questions we always see on these documentaries, which anyone making up a story would have no fear of. But then what do you do when they point out a place they supposedly saw bigfoot and a hundred feet away in every direction is a shopping mall, gas station, school, etc.? What you are going to find is these stories are incredibly lame. Of course they are - there is no bigfoot.


You would benefit a great deal by reading some of the threads here, like on alternate reality gaming. Any kind of research a person does, if they are serious, begins by looking into what others have discovered.

One of the reasons for that is when people tell you their belief is based upon the Patterson-Gimlin film then an obvious question is to ask what they think now that Greg Long interviewed the man wearing the suit and the original manufacturer of that suit. Etc.
Click to expand...

I'll have to go back and look for the thread you mentioned - I'm interested in seeing how that played out. Once I develop the documentary some more and decide on the flow and questions, I can start reaching out to people to ask if they wish to be interviewed. However, you bring up a lot of good points, which is why I wanted to post this in the first place.

It will be a huge challenge to represent myself and the documentary honestly, while still attracting witnesses and not scaring any off. This is a fairly large project even for a regional story, so as you said I'd spend a lot of time researching and coming up with effective questions and find leads on contacting people. Having that kind of material on-hand during interviews would be interesting, and if nothing else, being armed with as much knowledge as possible would allow me to be a more effective interviewer.

I greatly appreciate the suggestions and concerns; it's important to get a feel for how it would be received, and I want to produce a quality documentary. It's given me a lot to consider and the gears are already turning.
 
The most interesting Bigfoot documentaries are about the people and how they incorporate belief into their lives.

It's actually REALLY BORING to hear more eyewitness stories. They are useless.
 
When you're ready, I've got a sweet bigfoot song that should play over your credits. I offered this song to JREF member Kitakaze several years ago for a documentary he had been planning, but it looks like that one ain't gonna happen.
 
I thought both shows did well in terms of accurate representations because they did their homework before arriving and really were interested in the truth. They could have chosen to interview people promoting a government conspiracy theory and sensationalized it, but what they did instead was put that to bed decisively.

One of the things I hate about faux "investigative" or "documentary" shows is posing these false dilemmas... some say bigfoot inhabits the vast wilderness (of suburban Detroit) and some say it is not likely. We spent a whole year producing this show and were incapable of deciding... But City Confidential wanted accuracy.
 
Actually, Bigfoot lives in the abandoned building of Detroit itself.
“The lack of urban expansion in the city due to a poor economy could mean that some species have found their way back into their old habitat. It is also possible that the lots of empty houses could work as an incentive for wild animals seeking shelter. As a result, these witnesses could easily misidentify the native species of the area,” said Lorenzo Martinez, animal behaviorist and teacher at a Spanish university.
“No no, that was not a dog or a bear. That was either some sick man dressed up for fun or a freaking monkey with a man’s face, like a Bigfoot. Whatever you wanna believe, up to you. That’s all I have to say,” said Brown.
Click to expand...

http://cryptozoologynews.com/bigfoot-living-in-detroit-ruins-house/
 
It sounds like an interesting idea for a documentary - do you have any previous work up on YouTube or something?
 
Vermonter said:
I've been passively involved with Bigfootery for a few years now as a skeptic. Quite frankly the whole sub-culture is fascinating and there's a lot of mythos surrounding the non-existent creature.

I'm a budding filmmaker based in Vermont (if the name didn't clue you in), and I've been giving some thought to developing a small documentary on Bigfoot in New England. My brother, an artist in New York, has been involved in the New York Bigfoot scene for a while. He essentially draws sketches of what people describe, and it seems that there's a strong "presence" in the Whitehall region of New York.

One thing I find fascinating is the ability of "researchers" to ascribe personality details and lifestyle habits of said fictional creature. We've never found a body or even a live one, but that doesn't stop the die-hards. Sure, we can attribute personalities and histories to fictional characters like Batman and even dragons, but the difference is that (mostly) everyone agrees that neither actually exist.

My idea is fairly simple: Interview Bigfoot researchers and witnesses and compile a documentary based around that, with minimal rehashing of old, tired arguments. No derision of witnesses or making fun of them, just factual information. I admit that I'm biased about the existence of the creature, but I would find it fascinating to get first-hand accounts, without the spin or color of a vested interest involved.

What do ya'll think?
Click to expand...

Just in case you are still interested, there used to be a TV show called Critical Eye which took a good look at various paranormal things, including Bigfoot.

Anyway, one of the things they did was to interview several Bigfoot witnesses and showed how the description of Bigfoot changed considerably over time. And, of course, if Bigfoot was real, then one would expect the descriptions to be much more consistent.

Therefore, I suggest that you look for this show before starting your own.

Thanks.
 
Crossbow said:
Just in case you are still interested, there used to be a TV show called Critical Eye which took a good look at various paranormal things, including Bigfoot.

Anyway, one of the things they did was to interview several Bigfoot witnesses and showed how the description of Bigfoot changed considerably over time. And, of course, if Bigfoot was real, then one would expect the descriptions to be much more consistent.

Therefore, I suggest that you look for this show before starting your own.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Since there are many different tribes of bigfoot the inconsistency is actually proof of the observations.

(how to make up a fact to explain away a problem)
 
Channel 4 (UK) Bigfoot Files was a really good skeptical 3 part documentary on all things Bigfoot. You can watch all of the three episodes here (it may be UK only).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom