Finding Bigfoot: Debrief of “Caught On Tape” by Cliff Barackman
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on June 18th, 2011
Cliff Barackman, bigfoot researcher on Animal Planet’s television series, Finding Bigfoot, does a video debrief of the North Carolina episode. He covers Mike Greene’s thermal footage, a large evidence grid search, and walks us through his possible sighting.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
Staring pink buffalo and technicolor flowers aside, it was an interesting interview. I do like to hear Mr. Barackman’s take on the individual episodes; especially how things get ‘slanted’ by the post-production editing. That grid search on the episode made it seem as if BFRO called up a local chapter of hunters and was doing a fingertip search for specimens. Whereas, when Cliff reveals the behind the scenes, it apparently was much more light-hearted and festive, which is nice to hear.
I personally don’t agree with some of his conclusions regarding what the evidence in question shows, but I respect the fact that he brings supporting facts and background information to show how he formed a specific opinion regarding the evidence.
These films are very nicely done.
Cliff presents himself as a quieter, more thoughtful Bigfoot Hunter as opposed to the blustery Moneymaker.
But Cliff’s statements in this clip reveal him to be just as unscientific, just as unconvincing as his louder companion.
In each statement, he shows the true believer mentality that he operates under. He makes very specific claims about a supposed species and yet that species has not even been proven to exist. That in a nutshell is the problem. We have to suffer through the proclamations of a believer about a creature that only exists (so far) in their limited imaginations.
Look no further for the reasons that the field is mainly the subject of laughter. It is right here among Bigfoot enthusiasts who write checks that their evidence can’t endorse.
@lancemoody
I think it’s hypocritical that you flame Cliff referring to his “limited imagination” where yours is obviously EQUALLY “Limited”.
So far, your multiple posts on Cryptomundo and articles on the Skeptics website that you Author, is that your words seemingly reveal you as a “True Critic” disguising himself as a “Skeptic”.
You should point that same accusatory finger at yourself for having a “limited imagination” and being “unscientific” in your articles.
If you want to be a straight out CRITIC, then just own it.
If you want to be a SKEPTIC, then be scientific about it.
Either way is fine, just don’t be a hypocrite about it while flaming others.
Nicely said riverguy!!
@riverguy
Hi,
My post points out the fatal scientific flaw in the Finding Bigfoot team’s approach: not having evidence that supports the conclusions that they proffer.
Can you point out the fallacy with this?
When you call someone a hypocrite should at least include evidence of what they are being hypocritical about. Your accusation is nonsensical to me.
Thanks.
@lancemoody
Notice that I was not just referring to this post, but your items throughout your body of work that I’ve read (posts in Cryptomundo and your articles on other sites). Notice what I said:
“You should point that same accusatory finger at yourself for having a “limited imagination” and being “unscientific” in your articles.”
IMO, your point of view and writing has a condescending tone that puts people down, while lacking the same ‘scientific’ backing and approach that you accuse of others.
This should be a familiar example of your work as a “Skeptic”:
“Much use is made of a FLIR thermal imaging camera as the team walks around the woods at night looking for a “Squatch” (apparently the producers decided that this term is snappier than “Bigfoot” because everyone on the team uses it in an embarrassingly self-conscious way).”
If you’ve followed Bigfooting or these researchers for any length of time, you’ll notice that they’ve used the term “squatch” for years and years. You’re also stating that these researchers are “embarrassed” or “self-conscious” by using this term. They’re not “embarrassed” this is who these people ARE and there is nothing wrong with that. BTW, you may want to correct your grammar and spelling errors.
Here’s another example snippet of your work:
“While it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the producers of this low budget, low ethics show might be willing to fake things to attract more viewers, it should also be said that the Finding Bigfoot team itself shows very little in the way of scientific integrity or know-how.”
Hmmm…sounds like someone has an axe to grind.
More “Flaming” than “Skeptical” IMO.
Or, how about this little number from your writings:
“Using an infrared camera, the team’s efforts look exactly like the original video which proves that the figure in that tape must have been man-sized, not Bigfoot-sized.”
Ahem “..not Bigfoot-sized.” What? if Bigfoots do exist, my “Limited Imagination” (using your term) may consider that Bigfoots are not born coming out 9 Feet Tall.
I don’t think I have to go on. These are your words, not mine. And, these are all from just ONE of your articles.
It’s not fun having your work picked apart and sometimes used against your best efforts. How do you think the Finding Bigfoot guys feel?
Give ’em a break, and support them in trying to teach the producer’s how to make a great Bigfoot series.
This goes back to science cannot prove a negative. You may ‘believe’ there is a bigfoot, you may ‘believe’ that no such animal exists. As for the evidence it is all in how you interpret it. AND if you have people who are welded to their belief (either pro or con) we won’t get anywhere at all. We need rational people who can look impartially at the evidence we have and go from there.
Do I think we have ample evidence to state that an ‘as yet undocumented’ animal is roaming the deep woods of North America; yes. Do I think we have ample evidence to state exactly what this creature is; no, we do not.
I do think many members of BFRO are over-reaching when they state unequivocally that Sasquatch does this, or likes that or communicates in this manner; absolutely. Are they wrong about their opinions; none of us has enough evidence to say whether they are right or wrong. Although, personally, I find it foolhearty to make a statement of fact without anything to back it up.
I tend to be an optimistic skeptic, as in I take a hard look at the evidence and discount anything that doesn’t ring true or can be explained in other, more mundane ways. But I do firmly and truly believe that there is an unidentified large mammal roaming (and probably migrating along with other mammals) in North America because there is evidence that cannot be explained away as mis-identification or hoax. I think many readers on this site tend to fall into the same category.
Therefore using ‘teh tru believer’ meme isn’t going to get much traction here. Yes, several of the televised BFRO members do step into that murky quagmire, but very few of us on this site will follow them. We observe, take what we think is worthy of further examination and let them keep on keeping on. Regardless of our personal feelings on the subject matter or the personalities involved, they are still out there gathering evidence. Evidence speaks for itself regardless of the spin ANYONE (pro or con) tries to place on it. It must, its the only way science works.
@Riverguy,
As far as the use of the term “Squatch” goes, my meaning was that they SHOULD be embarrassed about it.
I do believe that you are correct that the use of “squatch” is coming from the team not the producers as I surmised in my article. Unfortunately, this shows the true believer nature of the team in more stark relief.
When a team member says that a location looks “squatchy,” as I saw on the most recent show, it reveals a predisposition that isn’t scientific or even reasonable.
Indeed, now that I have seen the team travel all over the US, it is quite apparent that EVERYWHERE looks “squatchy” to them.
You didn’t mention the main problem I cited in my 1st response to you: that conclusions are being drawn by the team members that are not supported by the evidence.
Yes, I am a hard core skeptic, but that hardly means that I can’t communicate with or agree with folks who are not.
In this case the team of Finding Bigfoot has shown itself to be incapable of the work you want me to encourage them to do. I am not talking about editing tricks, etc. Instead I am referring to the silly and irrational way the team goes about their quest. As I said in my article, the undoubtedly horrible producers combined with the clueless team members is a match made in crackpot heaven.
@lancemoody
You’re response is all over the place, and I read a lot of your work before responding to your earlier post, so I think I have a lock on what you’re all about, so I’ll just take the position to agree to disagree.