Reminder: Joe Rogan Questions Everything Tonight

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on July 24th, 2013

Joe Rogan is hosting a new TV show about Bigfoot, UFOs and ESP, and he says the show is teaching him “a lot about crazy people.”

“The same pattern exists in people who believe in UFOs, or who believe in ghosts, or who believe in psychics,” says Rogan — who performs stand-up on Friday at the Hard Rock Hotel.

The pattern is: True believers risk looking foolish, even if they are telling the truth, so they can get pretty defensive.

“If you really saw a UFO, and you tried telling people — how crazy would you sound, even if it really did happen? It would (mess) with your head because nobody would believe you,” Rogan says.

Rogan is open-minded but values facts and truths over ideology. He gave me a five-minute primer on gigantopithecus and Homo floresiensis.

“There are real, legit anthropologists who believe in Sasquatch,” Rogan says.

But some true believers in Sasquatch and UFOs ignore contradictory facts and evidence of hoaxes.

“They only see things that confirm their idea. It’s called ‘confirmation bias.’ It’s a real problem with people and ideas,” Rogan says.

“Some people just get it in their mind there is a bigfoot, and then every time some dude in a monkey suit takes a blurry picture, they’re convinced it’s the best Sasquatch footage ever.”

Joe Rogan Questions Everything” debuts July 24 on SyFy.


Life-long unexplained paranormal mystery-addict Joe Rogan ventures into unknown worlds and untapped territories to search for answers to life’s most startling theories. Having explored these questions for years on his podcast, Joe now takes his journey to the next level, traveling the country and knocking on any door necessary to find the truth. In his own unique and inquisitive style, Joe will stop at nothing to quench his curiosity for the unknown.

Joe Rogan Questions Everything premieres on Wednesday, July 24 at 10/9c.

Les Stroud on Joe Rogan’s show and they discussed Bigfoot on the show.

Apparently there will be a special Survivorman Bigfoot episode!

They also discussed Finding Bigfoot and Meldrum’s Falcon Project.

Here’s the video of the Bigfoot segment. Of course, being as it is Joe Rogan’s show, there is some off-color language…

About Craig Woolheater
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.

6 Responses to “Reminder: Joe Rogan Questions Everything Tonight”

  1. Goodfoot responds:

    Joe Rogan is a really bright guy. I enjoy his video podcasts, and I’m going to look for this.

  2. Megatherium responds:

    As I watched tonight, I was pleasantly surprised by Joe’s show – and supremely jealous. Here’s what appeared to me to be a pretty ordinary guy like myself – interested in All Things That Go Bump In The Night since he was a kid – who was fortunate enough to hobnob with the likes of Jeff Meldrum and other bigfoot experts.

    I kept expecting some of the sensationalism (or hot chicks) that one sees on Fear Factor. We saw none of that (darn it). Joe had the opportunity to lessen the serious nature of the examination by making some sort of suggestive comment – as he might do on Fear Factor – when the discussion turned to wood knocking and bigfoot mating behavior. If he did so? It wasn’t to the degree that would make one question his genuine interest in the subject matter. Joe clearly knows his role in each show.

    Would he talk to people who were really in the know about Bigfoot? Sure enough, there was Dr. Meldrum and other notables as part of his investigation. Would he be skeptical and in a way that demonstrated well-thought out skepticism and not in obvious ignorance as we so often see in TV of the same vein? (*cough* Destination *wheeze* Truth…) I believe he was. Was he willing to admit after listening to experts that perhaps even though he thought something was BS he HAD to acknowledge that an expert in the field thought otherwise? He did in the case of the linguistic analysis of purported bigfoot conversations. Way to go Joe!

    I found the examination of bigfoot evidence by Joe, balanced, relatively unbiased, and had a more comprehensive and professional feel than other similar programs on SyFy/other channels.

    I’ll be tuning in again.

  3. NMRNG responds:

    It was a pretty good show but its chief problem was that by trying to be thorough and discussing a broad spectrum of the evidence, Rogan bit off more than anyone could chew in a one-hour television show and spread the material too thinly. Large portions seemed to be edited out and not too skillfully in places – for instance, Rogan started talking about DNA evidence but did not mention Melba Ketchum or her studies (which I believe was what he was talking about at the start of the DNA segment) or give any explanation for where the alleged 100+ samples of sasquatch DNA came from, it was all either omitted or edited out of the final program.

    It would have been nice to have provided another 30 seconds on Dr. Meldrum’s background for those who are not familiar with him in order to provide him with greater credibility and another few minutes of his opinions – his interview was too cursory. Joe could have omitted the several minute segment showing him and his sidekick chatting on their podcast program and spent that time instead on showing more substantive evidence.

  4. NMRNG responds:

    Another problem I had with the show was that Rogan gave more time to Dr. Matthew Johnson, founder of some bigfoot research group on Facebook called “Team Squatchin’ USA” than he gave to Jeff Meldrum. Although to his credit, Johnson apparently believes that Rick Dyer’s claim he shot a bigfoot is another hoax, let’s not forget that a few months ago, Johnson also posited a theory here that bigfoot is the product of the Nephilim (biblical fallen angels) seducing human women; I find that theory as plausible as claiming that bigfoot was the creation of some drunken elf, whose toy experiment went horribly wrong and it escaped from the North Pole.

    I did not find Dr. Johnson to be particularly credible in his appearance with Rogan last night. He wore a very ill-fitting and sloppy tee shirt over jean shorts and looked like a slob, not a child psychologist with a Ph.D. Defenders can comment (with some validity) that one should be above caring about image and should avoid being silly, shallow, and judgmental. However, a highly educated professional who is supposed to be an expert on human behavior should be aware of the importance of first impressions, credibility, and looking the part. It’s a very rare person who has a doctorate degree who does not want people to take him or her seriously and image does matter. It’s one thing for an entertainment industry personality like Rogan to wear a tee shirt (probably a trendy, $70 designer tee shirt) but for a highly educated professional to look like that going on television signals something is just not quite right. I’m no fashionista and not a snob, but I would have expected any person in Johnson’s position to have worn at least some sort of collared shirt and maybe a pair of Dockers. What normal person, particularly a professional who would be concerned about his reputation and credibility, wouldn’t want to look respectable in a television appearance?

    He also did not seem as believably articulate in describing his habituation encounters as I would have expected. He claimed that he had a sasquatch actually brush against him and push him aside as it went down a trail at night. That is inconsistent with nearly all known (and certainly all recent) reports of sasquatch behavior – has there been any sort of credible claim of sasquatch-human physical contact since Albert Ostman in 1924? His human hybrid theory, although touched upon in a cursory fashion, sounds like he has bought into Melba Ketchum’s conclusion that sasquatch is the product of a male ape mating with a human woman in the distant past and I don’t find that theory plausible.

    It bugs me when people in the field of cryptozoology neglect that single most fundamental issue involving the field: credibility. As everyone on this site knows, cryptozoology is rejected, in whole or in part, by most mainstream scientists and by a large portion of the population. When someone who professes to care about the topic goes on television and does not care enough to look the part of the respected professional he purports to be, that sends a message that if he cannot take the appearance seriously, why should anyone take him seriously. I really do not understand why so many people in this field fail to understand the importance of credibility. If someone acts like or espouses the theories of a quack, crackpot, or wacko, it reinforces the common stereotype that cryptozoology is based more in fantasy than reality and that its proponents are not to be taken seriously or given much credence. So if I sound like I’m hypercritical, it is not because I enjoy a negative outlook on life, but because I would like to see cryptozoology be given more mainstream respect. Don’t we all?

  5. MattPriceTime responds:

    As someone who is business and is around people, “looks” ultimately come and go. I see people go out of their way to be utmost professional even in a simple class and others that take it very casual. There is no creedo defacto rule a professional type has to always dress like a stereotype. And quite frankly when in the woods, that seems all the more reason to not be looking like you are about to have a million dollar press conference. Some people will shred that argument to pieces of “why does it matter”. In a medium that just stated someone’s credentials before putting them on screen, i personally do not care one bit what they chose to or not wear.

    As far as theories, hybrid accounts in relation to humans point blank need to not be shoved under the rug. We have biological holes that need to be answered and i find it more embarrassing we don’t address them. Either are belief in how close animals need to be to produce offspring are wrong, or the branches in the fossil record in some cases need to be a lot closer than we think they are presently.

    Regardless of where Bigfoot’s evolutionary footprint lands, we should also really do something about the field though. Walking in the woods investigations don’t really get us anywhere still. Besides the show and an expert just literally told the truth in mentioning the evidence was always inconclusive or while it was unlikely to be faked, could still be faked. That’s not really convincing anyone.

    I’m not one for spearheading sasquatch, but if said animals are real (and i do believe they are) they are too intelligent to be caught by the magical human devices we put out there or go in the woods with. Maybe the hunting styles of the fake show or so out of thin air diplomacy will be more rewarding objectives.

  6. NMRNG responds:

    Well, some people might not have a problem with someone showing up five minutes late for a job interview, but that doesn’t make it a good idea.

    Does anyone else find it inconsistent for sasquatches to be too intelligent to be caught in a camera trap, yet dozens of them have been caught in headights running across roads and highways? It seems like a car at night, which can be seen miles way and heard from very far away, also, should be a lot easier to avoid than a silent 5″x5″ plastic box hanging from a tree.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.