MovieChat Forums > Finding Bigfoot (2011) Discussion > It's been nearly 5 years, is Renae still...

It's been nearly 5 years, is Renae still a skeptic?

posted 9 years ago by Crustacean_Predation
56 replies | jump to latest

I have to think deep down she thinks sasquatch is real. After five years of crossing not only the country, but the world, and meeting with hundreds of people who have never met each other but tell almost the same details of their sightings, I think she's becoming convinced. I only caught the end of last night's show, but did see the part where her and Cliff were alone and heard knocks. You can see she was genuinely spooked when she heard that. Because she knows its out there.

[–] toddt07 9 years ago

I think she gets paid to camp and hike through the woods. Two things she probably does just for fun in her spare time. Why would she be any less skeptical anyhow. It's been five years and they still have no proof bigfoot exists. If anything her skepticism must be growing.

[–] blink8533 9 years ago

The last episode she said something about that this is the last state she hasn't been too. Why not get paid and enjoy the travel. She's just in it for the trips.

[–] toddt07 9 years ago

That's exactly my point. She's an outdoors person. These people pay her to hike and camp. That's why she's still on the show after five years. It's not because she's being convinced of anything.

[–] blink8533 9 years ago

BINGO!

[–] Scarecrow-88 8 years ago

Exactly. She's never been proven her skepticism isn't without merit. There was that one B&W footage she couldn't explain away, but the eyewitness accounts often seem exaggerated so she's obviously skeptical.

--
"Get the cheese to sickbay."

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

With the proliferation of internet and TV, these folks don't need to have met in order to have similar stories.

I agree with that other poster. Bigfoot is a better fit for stories than for science.

The longer this goes on, where all you have is stories and nothing real that can be studied.. it's like Bigfoot is a meme.

[–] Crustacean_Predation 9 years ago

With the proliferation of internet and TV, these folks don't need to have met in order to have similar stories.

That's possible for many cases in North America I suppose, but what about the shamans in South America or the guys living in the jungles of Indonesia that describe the same behavior?

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

Being the well versed scientist that Renae claims to be, she has surely heard by now that Jane Goodall has gone on record as stating she thinks it's possible that bigfoot exists.

So say what you will about most "skeptics", but anyone such as Renae (who considers and presents themselves as an objective skeptic) would be destroying their OWN credibility by dismissing the official opinion of someone like Goodall as akin to being just another crank.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

WhoToTrust is correct, I was actually listening to Science Friday on my lunch break that day when she came on and commented on Bigfoot being a possibility. I think that was in the early 2000s.

Personally, I think she just doesn't like.. you know, shutting people down. If someone's interested in Bigfoot, that means they're probably interested in primates generally, and in conservation (which is one of her great causes in life), and she doesn't need to throw cold water on that.

As WhoToTrust knows, I'm a Bigfoot skeptic, I currently don't believe in Bigfoot, but I also acknowledge that Bigfoot is a possibility.

Notice that Jane Goodall did not say that she believes in Bigfoot. Just that it is a possibility. She may be just as skeptical as I am about Bigfoot, but doesn't want to go dashing anyone's hopes. (I on the other hand am unafraid of dashing people's hopes ;)

Jane Goodall wants people to be interested in primates, and she wants them to be interested in saving their habitats, so she wouldn't want to go alienating potential supporters by casting doubt on their favorite mythic beast.

I too want people to be interested in primates, and I desperately wish more people cared about conservation... our planet is in sorry shape, and we could use more Jane Goodalls out there.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

And once again AlarmedGibbon shows up to dismiss the input of someone who doesn't automatically dismiss...

Again...dissappointed.

[–] Head_Cheese74 9 years ago

She is paid to act that way about Bigfoot being a possibility. That way the others don't look to stupid.

[–] ThreeZs 8 years ago

So you would cast aspersions on Goodall's good name in order to make your point?

There is nothing you can point to in Goodall's background that would imply that Goodall is that jaded and self-serving.

But you apparently are that jaded and self-serving. For what, an internet debate?

You say you care about conservation. Besmirching Goodall's name for an internet debate isn't the way to go. Her currency is her trustworthiness.

If you want to have an honest, friendly debate with WTT, dismissing each and every point he has to make with 'they were drunk,' 'Goodall has an agenda,' etc etc etc is not the way to go.

As for me, here are my biases, out on the table.
I'm an X-Files fan. I like WTT. He's insightful and a challenging debater.
I'm an environmentalist and animal lover. I adore Jane Goodall. For her kindness and forthrightness.
I like mysteries like, "Does Bigfoot exist?" They're fun to think about, and not everything needs a definitive answer. The fact that there are still mysteries in our world is reassuring, I think.

[–] Wookieebitch 8 years ago

So you would cast aspersions on Goodall's good name in order to make your point?

How did he do that exactly?

But you apparently are that jaded and self-serving. For what, an internet debate?

And why are you here, Z? I can't believe you actually posted this drivel. By yours and WTT's thinking, you are now a troll following people to other boards. You must be so proud.

[–] ThreeZs 8 years ago

She is known for her trustworthiness, but if she's saying there could be a Big Foot out there in order to further her own ends, that's pretty crummy, don't you think?

The suspense is terrible. I hope it'll last.
~Gene Wilder, RIP, Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

I'm starting to think that Goodall may have chosen the project that made her famous because she came to understand that most humans just weren't worth the effort any more.

At least with animals, there's no duplicity, subterfuge, attempts at obfuscation, or inconsistency. What you SEE is pretty much what you get.

Resorting to questioning Goodalls intent in ANY way at this point in history was about as low as I'd seen from AG when it's come to his intent to mock/ridicule/discredit/dismiss belief in even the possibility of such subject matter, making the question of why it's seemingly so important to him that NO ONE should view even the possibility of the existence of what are commonly referred to as fringe subjects like Bigfoot seriously as relevant as ever.

And on that note, anyone still think it's just coincidence that the VERY FIRST post AG DIRECTED AT ME SPECIFICALLY on the X-Files board (after following me there from here) was to imply I was among the "ignorant"... simply because I'd posted a link (the VERY FIRST story returned by Google for the terms "UFO" and "Cincinnati" I might add) about a possible UFO sighting in Cincinnati....in response to a thread about Gillian Anderson filming a movie titled "UFO" in the town of Cincinnati?

It would have been different if I'd said I'd without a doubt "believed" the story about the sighting IN the link, but I didn't. That was something AG suggested/implied, about me/for me.....JUST like he always does here when he claims FOR ME that I'm a Bigfoot "believer" so that he can then try to discredit me for being in his opinion just another hallucination seeing/drunk/etc. Bigfoot "believer". He's tried that so many times here I've lost count at this point, and now he's tried it one more time on TXF board.

To view such trolls as genuine skeptics is an easy mistake to make, especially in AG's case seeing as how he's admittedly more subtle than most, but based on the mock/ridicule/discredit/dismiss tactics he's ROUTINELY been seen incorporating on these message boards, to give him the amount of benefit of the doubt required to view him as anything other than the troll "skeptic" that he is would be to border on the far side of naivety.

And at the risk of sounding hyperbolic and giving AlarmedGibbon FAR more credit than he deserves, when considering the concept of truth, the idea to do another Google search using the terms "subtle" and "bible" occurred to me. Any guesses what the first story returned on THAT one was? (If you "believe" in that sort of thing anyway). 

[–] pacinofan58 9 years ago

If she isn't still a skeptic, she should be, because as you point out, it's been 5 years and they haven't found jack squat-ch!
You could cross thousands of miles and encounter hundreds of people who still believe the earth is flat too. People's stories aren't proof of anything.

[–] chas437 9 years ago

5 years and they still haven't found squat, so she's no longer a skeptic, she knows this is all a sham.

Btw, let me know when they find Bigfoot.

[–] engeer 8 years ago

Have a few eps running on the dvr this afternoon

I seem to recall a "meet the cast" sort of episode somewhere along the line where she describe growing up and hearing legends about bigfoot, and other mysterious cryptids.

I think she believes in the possibility of bigfoot.... as do I.... but it not an out and out 100% believer that bigfoot is really real.
(does that make sense)

I suspect some of the other comments are on to something...

her education as a field biologist gives the show a bit of credibility
(though I'd sometimes like to smack MM for his insistence that what people saw could not possibly be anything other than a bigfoot, despite her suggestions of other possible 'suspects' )

her being part of the show allows her to get out and about to see lots of places that she might not otherwise have the chance to see, on someone else's dime. Not a bad gig.

I do wish that they (the guys) were willing to be a bit more skeptical about their evidence... they might then actually be more credible as a whole.
For example: the guys on Ghost Hunters are believers, but they actually seem to try to debunk their own evidence looking for any possible, rational, explanation before accepting that they might have proof of supernatural.
Likewise, Josh Gates and his programs... he shows respect for the beliefs of the people he meets, but he also consults experts to view his evidence and offer possible explanations.

so, yeah,
bottom line, I think she believes.

ps
i do believe in the possibility. I hope never to be personally confronted with a reality.

[–] Mats_Thy_Wit 8 years ago

By all rights at this point, after doing it for this long, everyone involved in the show should be MORE skeptical than they started.

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by Mats_Thy_Wit » By all rights at this point, after doing it for this long, everyone involved in the show should be more skeptical than they started.

This would of course mean they'd accepted as fact that all the eyewitnesses they'd met around the world who said they knew without a doubt what they'd seen were all mass hallucinatory cranks whose stories were just made up.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

No sir, there's likely a wide variety of reasons for reporting Bigfoot sightings. You only listed one of them, and probably one of the more rare scenarios at that.

Think of it more like exaggerating a story to make it sound better, which happens all the time. Who doesn't like telling a good story? It puts you at the center of attention, and you get to tell a good yarn.

Let's just say a lot of Bigfoot sightings probably involve alcohol as well ;)

Say someone sees a bear walking upright, and they thought it was Bigfoot. Maybe they only caught a glimpse of it. But when they tell the story, they don't tell it that they just caught a glimpse of it. They say they got a really good look at it, and it was definitely Bigfoot.

Often times when people exaggerate, they're not really trying to lie. They're just trying to make it a great story. After all, what's the downside? That someone ends up believing in Bigfoot as a result of their story? No harm done, so they don't need to feel bad about it. Quite the opposite, people usually have a really good time telling an exaggerated story. Everyone involved, from the teller to the listener, has a good time.

I suspect most Bigfoot sightings are genuine misidentifications whose circumstances are are then exaggerated to make it sound like a better sighting than it really was.

And don't forget, lots of people in the woods camping throw back a few drinks, maybe smoke a little pot. This kind of thing no doubt contributes to sightings as well.

If Bigfoot were real, we would have found hard evidence by now. Hunters and outdoorsmen regularly see the decaying corpses of literally every that can be found in the forest, except for Bigfoot.

Bigfoot exists only in stories. That's where Bigfoot will live for all time, in our stories. Mark my words, we will never, ever, find hard evidence for Bigfoot. I'll be coming back to this board in 10 years, and we'll be in the same situation as now. No real evidence.

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

What a surprise, AlarmedGibbon has now basically added "they were just drunks" to his repertoire of automatic mock/ridicule/discredit/dismissal responses.

He just get's more and more scientific by the post. 

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

There's a big difference between indicating that people often kick back a few beers when out camping with friends, and calling them drunks. I'm sorry that distinction is lost on you.

But nonetheless, it's great to hear from you! :)

How'v ya been, my friend?

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » There's a big difference between indicating that people often kick back a few beers when out camping with friends, and calling them drunks. I'm sorry that distinction is lost on you.

Your past posting history of mocking/ridiculing/discrediting/dismissing the types of eyewitnesses you were AGAIN referring to in your previous post has made it abundantly clear that you were making no such distinction.

Sorry the transparency of your intent here is lost on you.

by AlarmedGibbon >> But nonetheless, it's great to hear from you! :)

How'v ya been, my friend?

And I apparently didn't didn't make it clear/simple enough for you last time. I do not consider as friends people who back-handedly insult the intellgence and reputations of others (as you so often do...and just did again).

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

Awww WhoToTrust, you're always so hostile!

Can't we just be friends? I really want to!

Don't let your hard heart get in the way of our very real connection!

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago



Always trying to make the OTHER person look like the bad guy.

You just can't help it can you.

Like I said...transparent...to everyone but yourself.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

WhoToTrust, come on buddy. You're being paranoid. I'm not out to get you, OK?

I'm just a normal guy who enjoys talking about Bigfoot, just like you.

Come on, be nice for once!

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

AlarmedGibbon >> WhoToTrust, come on buddy. You're being paranoid.• I'm not out to get you, OK?

I'm just a normal guy who enjoys talking about Bigfoot, just like you.

Come on, be nice for once!

It's funny that you try to deny you're doing exactly what I'm saying you're doing WHILE you're doing exactly what I'm saying you're doing.

Sorry that your attempts to distract from what you're doing (by making false, insulting, and derogatory accusations about me) are so transparent to everyone but you.

You may want to consider that your penchant for trying to publicly insult, ridicule, and discredit those you believe will be easy targets makes it clear that it's you who isn't nice...and never have been where these discussions are concerned

Come on, at least consider it for once!

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

Geez WhoToTrust, are you only friends with people who believe in Bigfoot?

Or are you too paranoid to have friends? Can you not even tolerate anyone who argues a skeptical viewpoint on this topic?

Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't be friends! Right?

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » Geez WhoToTrust, are you only friends with people who believe in Bigfoot?

Of course not. Typical that you would once again try to classify me as a "believer" though...even if only by indirect association.

by AlarmedGibbon » Or are you too paranoid to have friends?

Geez, trying to classify me as paranoid again.

What a surprise. 

by AlarmedGibbon » Can you not even tolerate anyone who argues a skeptical viewpoint on this topic?

Once again you give yourself too much credit as only arguing a skeptical viewpoint.

That is not what you do.

What you do is try to portray yourself as simply being skeptical...which is at the very least disingenuous since you base your skepticism solely on mocking/ridiculing/discrediting/dismissing of those who disagree with your opinion.

If yours was simple skepticism, your argument would be based solely on facts.

by AlarmedGibbon »Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't be friends! Right?

You've obviously not been paying attention. I've already explained why your actions here are the basis for why I do not and would not consider you a friend.

Pity. You used to be a decent troll, but you're becoming more and more transparent by the post.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

Thank you for calling me transparent, as that's all I've tried to be this entire time.

For instance, I'm willing to say what I believe (i.e. that I don't believe in Bigfoot). In that way, I've been much more transparent than yourself.

But I'm OK with that, since we're kinda like friends at this point. Frenemies at the least, hehe, which is fine with me. I know that we enjoy one another on some level, which is what counts.

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » Thank you for calling me transparent, as that's all I've tried to be this entire time.

For instance, I'm willing to say what I believe (i.e. that I don't believe in Bigfoot). In that way, I've been much more transparent than yourself.

But I'm OK with that, since we're kinda like friends at this point. Frenemies at the least, hehe, which is fine with me. I know that we enjoy one another on some level, which is what counts.

Troll.

And quit stalking me again to other message boards to post even NEAR me.

That kind of thing is just creepy...so creepy that even people who apparently consider that being a frenemy with someone is cute should know not to do it...because it's creepy. (THAT is the kind of transparency you've displayed...creepy transparency - which is not good).

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

Well, we're both here because we're interested in movies and TV and want to talk about them. I'm sure you'll see me pop up on various message boards, if you pay attention.

You and I actually have a lot in common! We're both interested in Bigfoot. We both like movies. We both watch South Park. I'm pretty sure we're both lefties, politically speaking. We're both interested in conspiracies, and aliens. You and I are probably much more alike than different.

Here's how I know that you don't actually consider me a troll.. you're still responding to me, and you haven't put me on ignore! :)

I'm sure you're aware of the internet adage, "Don't feed the trolls."

And yet, if I actually was a troll, which I am certainly not, all you would be doing is constantly feeding me by responding to my messages. What good would that do?

Regardless, I know by now that you won't ignore me. Because you secretly enjoy our back and forth.

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » Well, we're both here because we're interested in movies and TV and want to talk about them. I'm sure you'll see me pop up on various message boards, if you pay attention.

You and I actually have a lot in common! We're both interested in Bigfoot. We both like movies. We both watch South Park. I'm pretty sure we're both lefties, politically speaking. We're both interested in conspiracies, and aliens. You and I are probably much more alike than different.

Here's how I know that you don't actually consider me a troll.. you're still responding to me, and you haven't put me on ignore! :)

I'm sure you're aware of the internet adage, "Don't feed the trolls."

And yet, if I actually was a troll, which I am certainly not, all you would be doing is constantly feeding me by responding to my messages. What good would that do?

Regardless, I know by now that you won't ignore me. Because you secretly enjoy our back and forth.

Or...I'm simply getting you to continue commenting and pointing out your trollish/stalker tendencies so that others can publicly see you for what you actually are...despite your denials (which is another thing that trolls always do)...and the type of tactics trolls like you usually resort to.

Not surprised you've yet to understand how you've exposed yourself as a troll, since that's something trolls never seem self-aware enough to comprehend either.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

LOL, you and I are the only active members of this board. You're exposing me to who exactly?? hehehe

But you're right, we can't stop now. We simply have too much fun together.

Sooo, since I'm so transparent, as I've always tried to be, let's get to know each other better!!

I'll start, as a show of good faith. As of now, I live in Los Angeles, and me and my wife are currently watching The Americans, aaaaand loving it! :)

Now your turn. C'mon, be at least as transparent as me. So, where are you living, and what's your current favorite show?

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

Another thing internet trolls do. Try to get others to divulge personal information about themselves (that can possibly be used against them).

It's one thing to watch South Park, it's another to actually apply such concepts to real life...even when they're clearly spelled out for you.

So, another item to note for those who may be viewing these comments (now or in the future), trolls always seem to think they're smarter than they actually are.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

WhoToTrust, my friend, how could I use where you live against you? Or what your favorite show is?

Don't you think you're being a little paranoid?

How could either of those things possibly be used against you?

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » WhoToTrust, my friend, how could I use where you live against you? Or what your favorite show is?

Don't you think you're being a little paranoid?

How could either of those things possibly be used against you?

Again with the "paranoid" thing. One-trick troll pony much?

And if you don't understand the real-life concept of an internet troll using personal information against someone they're trolling, you're an even more ignorant and pathetic troll than even I have been suggesting you are.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

If my tricks seem rather pathetic, it's because they're not tricks. You're seeing things that aren't really there.

Again, how could I use your favorite TV show against you?

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » You're seeing things that aren't really there.

Troll tactic #24 - Suggesting the eyewitness didn't see what they actually saw.

And as anyone familiar with this message board knows, #24 is your personal favorite/go-to.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

You're truly afraid of revealing your favorite TV show? LOL! Oh well, don't worry, I still love ya.

Alright then, let's get back on topic. When did you start believing in Bigfoot?

Or, what was it that convinced you that Bigfoot was real?

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » You're truly afraid of revealing your favorite TV show? LOL! Oh well, don't worry, I still love ya.

Alright then, let's get back on topic. When did you start believing in Bigfoot?

Or, what was it that convinced you that Bigfoot was real?

Speaking of getting back on topic.

You were just asking me where I lived.

Why are you now trying to distract from the fact that you were trying to get me to REVEAL such personal information?

Things an internet troll does.

- Troll for personal information.
- Attempt to distract from the fact that they were trolling for personal information.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

You don't even want to talk about Bigfoot? On a Bigfoot message board? :)

You're a strange one, WhoToTrust.

I'll roll with it then. What would you like to talk about?

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » You don't even want to talk about Bigfoot? On a Bigfoot message board? :)

You're a strange one, WhoToTrust.

What's strange is that you keep trying to change the subject any time I talk about you trollishly trying to get me to reveal personal information.

by AlarmedGibbon » I'll roll with it then. What would you like to talk about?

How about why you're so intent on trollishly trying to get me to reveal personal information.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

Sure, I'll respond to that.

The answer is: I wanted to get to know you better. As a friend. Friends ask each other questions like that all the time.

Any other questions? What else have you been dying to know about me? =D

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » Sure, I'll respond to that.

The answer is: I wanted to get to know you better. As a friend. Friends ask each other questions like that all the time.

Any other questions? What else have you been dying to know about me? =)

A likely story...from an internet troll.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

Awww, you're always so mean! You're lucky I have a thick skin, otherwise we couldn't have this relationship.

You don't make it easy to be friends with you, at least online. But the best friendships are never easy.

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

As I already said recently, normal people don't usually stalk people they claim they want to be friends with to other message boards...as you've done again with me over the last couple of days.

It's trollish...and creepy.

And if I have to keep reporting you for doing so, I won't hesitate.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

It's not my fault that we're both fans of The X-files! I definitely think you're going to be seeing a lot more of me though. I enjoy talking with you so much, how could I resist??

Would you believe, in my nearly 3-year history on these IMDB boards, you're the only person whose ever accused me of being a troll?

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » It's not my fault that we're both fans of The X-files! I definitely think you're going to be seeing a lot more of me though. I enjoy talking with you so much, how could I resist??

I'll take Things An Internet Troll Says for $1000 Alex.

by AlarmedGibbon » Would you believe, in my nearly 3-year history on these IMDB boards, you're the only person whose ever accused me of being a troll?

I never said you weren't too subtle for most. In fact, it seems to be what you assume about most of the people you deal with. It's that kind of superiority complex that makes you the troll that you are.

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

But isn't that just armchair psychology?

What if you're wrong, and I am in fact being genuine?

[–] WhoToTrust 8 years ago

by AlarmedGibbon » But isn't that just armchair psychology?

What if you're wrong, and I am in fact being genuine?

Isn't it plainly obvious why you would want anyone reading this (including yourself) to believe that?

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

You're quite right, sir. The more time that passes without any hard evidence for Bigfoot, the more remote the possibility of its supposed existence.

Every Bigfoot believer should be growing more skeptical over time.

[–] popedon1 8 years ago

She's so full of sheet, she should've run for president. I don't know if she genuinely believes in Bigfoot. When she's not nit-picking the evidence (today she was saying the 5lb turd matt $maker found could've been shat by a large dog! I'd hate to walk that dog.), or telling the camera that the video or witness could've mistaken a bear or a big bobo dressed in an ape costume for bigfoot; her body language says the opposite when she's in the field.

She may not believe in Big Foot, but she def believes in big money. Cha-ching, Renae.