Well, okay, there isn't one, but I think it's a shame.

I watched a very compelling documentary last night on TLC about crop circles and it was one of the best I've ever seen because they treated the subject with objective scrutiny and presented both sides (pro and con) with the same amount of respect ---

I am convinced that if this same group of producers could be persuaded to take on the subject of Bigfoot and look at the evidence in the same sober, balanced way they did the crop circles phenomena, we would have a documentary that might rival LMS. There are many arguments supporting the notion that BF creatures do in fact exist that are never given proper weight in these so-called documentaries (with the exception of LMS and a pitifully few others). On the other hand, any and all claims that the evidence put forward by "believers" is in fact useless is given incredible weight by the media (we all know how much trouble Heironimus and Long had convincing newsmen that the PG film was a fake, right?).

The crop circles program was one of the first I've seen where all the evidence and all the claims put forth by the elite group of scientists studying the subject was given the consideration it deserved, while also letting the opposite side present its views on a level playing field. No smart-ass remarks by a snide narrator, no poorly disguised swipes taken at either side.

Maybe we should start a campaign to get TLC to consider a BF special.

What were thier conclusions?
Why is it better than LMS? Did they have any definitive answers?
LMS didn't either.... Unfortunately I guess it was it was a great show for anyone that leans towards the general belief in BF, and maybe some fence sitters, but I'm not sure it turned too many nonbelievers around.

Of course they were very careful NOT to draw conclusions, but it was their even-handed approach to the subject, and the dignity they allowed it to retain, that impressed me. There are few in the media now days willing to give the subject of Bigfoot this kind of fairness.

Overall, to better answer the question, the viewer was left absolutely stunned by the weight of some of the evidence, even though, just as with BF, none of it is of a very substantial type. The weight of the evidence comes primarily from its overwhelming abundance (like the number of eye witness sightings of BF over the decades, and the incredible locations where some of the more compelling footprints have been found - just to give a comparison).

At the show's conclusion, you understand that there is simply too much to the mystery to reasonably attribute to hoaxers -- far too much. Same situation, in my opinion, with our favorite subject. I'd love to see a similar production from TLC that approaches Sasquatch in the same light.

As for LMS, one thing it did do with great effect was to show the public that more and more scientific study is being applied to the BF question, and that now more than ever the mystery is drawing the attention of the academic community. Just that gives more credibility to the subject.

I hear what your sayin', Cochise.

That was a good show, and they did a good job bringing in both sides.

What's interesting about the crop circle phenomena is that they have actually filmed hoaxers creating circles and yet they are considered an unsolved mystery and taken much more seriously than bigfoot. Yet in spite of the hoaxers that say they have made fake footprints(But never filmed) found by others and proclaimed as real bigfoot prints, this has never been proven.In spite of so many sightings and encounters by normal people, bf believers are scoffed at. I personally believe there is much more credible evidence for the existence of bigfoot than crop circles.

I'm with you socaldave! I heard a scientist say one time ( I believe it was Richard Noll, BFRO) on a Bigfoot documentary that if you were to take all the evidence of Bigfoot (footprint casts, Patterson Film, eyewittness reports, unclassified hair samples, dermal ridges on the foot print casts ect. and much more) and took it to a court of law, you could prove to a court of law the existance of the creature Bigfoot. But to the scientific community at large, no way! With all the people who have been caught hoaxing the crop circles, it does make you wonder why they take crop circles so serious and not Bigfoot. Like socaldave said, theres more evidence for the existance of Bigfoot than crop circles.

BluffCreek35

And crop circles have a better than even chance of being found and publicized. As several people have said, including D. Perez, that contrasts sharply with the 1000-to-one odds against remote BF footprints being found and publicized, and also against the extra work in hoaxing a sighting or non-visual encounter that will induce witnesses to search for tracks. (MAY induce--more likely they will just flee.)

It's almost funny that we 'take note' when a documentary or story etc. is presented without any 'obvious' or even 'not-so-obvious' bias towards one conclusion or another. It seemingly, and sadly, rarely occurs.

As to crop circles, I did not see this particular show but I certainly wish I had. I am mostly familar with the CC mystery and I would totally agree there's too much 'unexplainable' evidence to attribute them all solely to hoaxers. Not taking such 'unexplainable and compelling' evidence as a sign 'there's more to the story' is selling the story and oneself short. Kinda like this Bigfoot 'thang'. Attributing them (crop circles) to drunk englishmen with twisted senses of humor might sound simple and logical, but it gives them (the drunk englishmen ) far more credit than their 'mortal' bodies and brains are capable of.

As has been said many times, even if 99.99% of the evidence (of anything) is a hoax (or explainable by other means)....that last 0.01% HAS to be taken seriously. Seems this board's main purpose is in seeking that last 0.01%.

"Harry"

I agree. Isn't it frustrating!

I'm not sure that any documentary could really change a person's opinion on the subject. Especially when the evidence from both sides of the fence is inconclusive, you know?

True enough, Wildman, but when a "documentary" is so hopelessly lopsided toward one side (and in such a snide and unprofessional way, as was the sad- excuse-for-a-documentary that National Geographic presented) it serves only to deepen the uneducated bias already held by the general public.

I'm not expecting any kind of documentary or learned article to change the mind of anyone in the scientific community -- we all know that only one thing will do that; but I find it repulsive that networks with such clout continually choose to present BF programs with total disregard to the true weight of the evidence. I about blew a gasket when a so-called film expert declared on the NG special that the PG film doesn't contain enough "information" to be of any value at all.

That's why this crop circle show somewhat restored my faith (if indeed I ever had any) in the intrinic value of television as an educational medium. It was, like all other TV programs, produced with an aim to entertain its viewers, yet it steadfastly refused to take cheap shots and score hits by making one side or the other look foolish. I know it was easier for them to do this with the subject at hand than it would have been if the show had been about bigfoot, simply because the tabloids (and I include some otherwise distringuished network programs in that category) have already tainted the research by giving Long and Company complete reign without a single challenge).

Still, it CAN be done and it SHOULD be done, just as it was so effectively in LMS.

Man, this soapbox is sagging in the middle -- think I'd better go on a diet.

crop circles are not unworldly, never lose sleep over that fact

It's so refreshing to have someone on the board who can give us all these incontrovertible facts! Would it be okay if we submit to you a list of the things we've all been trying to figure out for years, and you could just clear 'em all up for us in one post????

Then we could all close this board down and go home, I guess.