Goldfinger is Overrated

I’m a Bond fan.  I have all the movies.  I have all the books.  To be honest, the movies are better.  Probably about once a year, I watch all the movies in order from Dr. No to Quantum of Solace.  A few days ago, I started this process again and last night was Goldfinger night.  I always look forward to Goldfinger because it is generally regarded as the best James Bond movie of all time.  Every time I watch it, I wonder why.  Last night was the first time I watched it with the intent to identify why I don’t like it as much as most Bond fanatics.  I’ve identified five major reasons why Goldfinger does not deserve its reputation as the best Bond film of all time.

1.       Lack of exotic locales.  Bond movies are known for their exotic scenery and settings.  Goldfinger basically shows us a British golf course, a Swiss factory, a stable in Kentucky, and Fort Knox.   It is not exactly the Greek Islands, the Swiss Alps, or the Caribbean.

2.       Lack of exciting action sequences.  The most thrilling moment might be the car chase in the first half of the movie.  It is short and Bond ends up wrecking.  In comparison, think of other great Bond chase scenes.  There are the ski chases in The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only.  There is the bobsled chase in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.  What about the exotic underwater gunfight in Thunderball?  There just is not any single “wow” action scene in Goldfinger.

3.       Unimpressive Bond girl.  I’ll give Goldfinger some props for Jill Masterson.  Too bad she’s dead twenty minutes into the movie.  The main Bond girl is Pussy Galore played by Honor Blackman.  I know that it is the best Bond girl name of all time, but Pussy Galore is actually fairly far down the ladder in Bond girl attractiveness.  Honor Blackman was 37 when she played the role and it shows.  Her face is caked with make-up in an unsuccessful attempt to hide her wrinkles.  If Ursula Andress from Dr. No is the standard against all Bond girls are measured, then Pussy Galore falls WAY short of the target.  Not to mention I find the character herself to be just silly.  She’s an annoying, tough lesbian until Bond throws her to the floor in the stable and forces himself on her, then she changes her evil ways and falls in love with him.  The Bond girl aspect of Goldfinger simply sucks.

4.       Bond is a bumbling idiot.  In Goldfinger, James Bond stumbles his way to success in spite of himself.  He is more like Inspector Cleseau than James Bond.  Let’s step through the main plot points to illustrate what I mean.

o   Bond gets knocked out and Jill Masterson gets killed in a Miami Hotel room.

o   Bond starts out with a small success by planting a homing device on Goldfinger’s car so that he can tail him.

o   After tracking Goldfinger to Switzerland, Bond gets in a car chase during which he gets Tilly Masterson killed and gets captured.

o   Bond briefly escapes only to be fooled by a mirror, wrecks his car, and gets captured again.

o   Bond is tranquilized and sent on a plane to Kentucky, where he is rejected by Pussy Galore.

o   Bond manages to escape his cell at Goldfinger’s Kentucky stable, he figures out the evil plot, and gets a message off to his CIA buddies before being recaptured by Pussy Galore.  Sounds good right?  Well it comes to nothing because his message is destroyed and he’s still held captive.

o   Bond has another chance to signal the CIA, but does not notice that they are watching him.  Instead he has a fling with Galore.  This turns out to be pretty much the key to solving the case.

o   Bond is taken into Fort Knox at gun point, where his is handcuffed to an atom bomb and left to die.

o   Turns out Pussy Galore saved the day by substituting Folger’s Crystals for the deadly nerve gas and alerting the CIA about what Goldfinger was up to.

o   Meanwhile, Bond manages to escape the cuffs and kill the evil henchman Oddjob, but nearly detonates the atom bomb by randomly pulling bunches of wires in a clumsy attempt to diffuse the bomb.  Thank goodness by this time, the Americans have busted into the fort, killed the guards, and somebody who knows what he is doing reaches across Bond and switches off the bomb.

Basically, James Bond did nothing in this movie except to get Pussy Galore to turn against Goldfinger in the end.  Even in the climax at the end, Bond could have just sat on his ass and waited for the cavalry to save him.  The American military would have taken out Oddjob and diffused the bomb with him taking a nap next to it.

5.       Related to the item 4, the movie leaves out the most important part of the story.  In the end, everything works out because Pussy Galore took care of things off screen.  At some point, she single handedly foiled Goldfinger’s plot by switching the deadly nerve gas and alerting the CIA.  It would have been nice to see how she accomplished this since it was the only part of the story in which the “good guys” do something successfully, but instead it is left as a deus ex machina plot twist.

Now to be fair there are a few mitigating factors that keep Goldfinger from being towards the bottom of Bond films.  All things considered, when weighed against the bad, these keep Goldfinger in the average range.

1.       One of the best Bond villains of all time in Auric Goldfinger.  He is the perfect mix of insanity and charisma.  He has no conscience, but just enough sophistication to seem human.

2.       One of the best evil henchmen of all time in Oddjob.  The hat weapon is original and sort of terrifying.  His silence throughout the movie adds to his mystique.

3.       Clearly the best Bond girl name of all time.  The name is so good that Pussy Galore is usually at the top of Bond girl rankings despite the fact that she is old and annoying.

4.       The best Bond line of all time, “No Mr. Bond.  I expect you to die.”  It is not only a classic Bond line, but transcends the films as one the best Hollywood lines ever.

5.       The iconic image of the Jill Masterson’s body covered in gold paint.  Absolute classic Bond moment.

6.       The Astin Martin spy car set the standard for Bond gadgets.  It is the best vehicle in any Bond film.

Overall, Goldfinger is a very average Bond film.  It has serious character and plot problems and was not well constructed.  However, its saving grace is the memorable lines and moments in the film that make some perceive it as a classic.

Finding Bigfoot: The Drinking Game

Role Assignments:

This game is designed to be played by four people.  Before the show begins, each person is assigned one member of the Finding Bigfoot team.  

First if there is one woman in the group, she is automatically assigned to Renea.  If there are two girls playing, the winner of a coin flip is assigned to Renea.  It is not necessary to develop rules for three or four girls, because it is inconceivable that a predominantly female group would ever watch Finding Bigfoot.  They can invent an American Idol drinking game or some shit like that.  If there are no women playing, then the players vote on who would be the first to be made somebody’s bitch in prison.  That guy is assigned Renea.

Next, the hairiest person left is assigned Bobo.  When Bobo is first seen on the show, if he is wearing a hat that includes any form of the word “squatch,” this player must start things off by chugging a beer.

The third assignment is decided by Bobo.   Bobo must judge the remaining two player’s sasquatch calls.  Whoever is deemed by Bobo as “bringing their A game” is assigned to Matt.  This player is the “team leader” and is the interpreter of the game rules in any dispute.  If, at any point during the show, there is unanimous discontent amongst the other players regarding his ruling, then he must whine like a bitch about it for awhile, then chug a beer.

The last remaining player is assigned to Cliff and must immediately take 5 drinks for having a shitty sasquatch call.

General Drinking Rules:

ANYBODY on the show says the word “squatch” - everyone take a drink.

A bigfoot witness takes them out for a reenactment, but at some other place than where the bigfoot sighting actually took place – everyone take 3 drinks.

A bigfoot witness is missing a tooth - everyone take 5 drinks.

Rules for Bobo, Matt, and Cliff ONLY

If your assigned team member does the following, then take the number of drinks required for the action.

·         Bigfoot call – 2 drinks

·         Commenting on someone else’s bigfoot call – 2 drinks

·         Doing some wood knocking – 3 drinks

·         Hearing a noise/seeing movement or eye-shine that they attribute to Bigfoot – 4 drinks

·         Finding physical “evidence” of bigfoot – 4 drinks

·         Describing a common bigfoot behavior or telling a witness that what they saw is common– 5 drinks

·         Says that something “rules out a bear” – 5 drinks.  (5 additional drink bonus if he rolls his eyes and says bear sarcastically as if they are mythical creatures.)

·         After hearing witness testimony, being the first team member to tell the witness, that they believe it really was a sasquatch – chug beer

·         Camping out alone – chug beer

Special Team Member Rules

These rules apply only to the team member specified below.  Only the player assigned to that team member drinks.

·         Bobo – During a reenactment with a witness, acts as a stand in for Bigfoot – 5 drinks.  Chug beer if he falls down while doing it.

·         Cliff – Explains some scientific/technological piece of equipment and how they intend to misuse it to find bigfoot – 5 drinks.  Chug beer if it is a live or decoy animal.

·         Matt – Gesticulates wildly while talking – 5 drinks.  Chug beer if his excitement is related to or the cause of somebody else on the show being pissed off at him.

Rules for Renea ONLY

As the skeptic, Renea has her own set of rules.

·         Commenting  on someone’s bigfoot call or wood knocking ability – 2 drinks

·         She hears a noise or sees movement/eye shine and points it out to the others – 4 drinks

·         She finds something that the others assume is physical evidence of Bigfoot – 4 drinks

·         Another member mocks her regarding her disbelief in a mythical creature:

o   To a camera – 5 drinks

o   To her face – chug beer

·         She says that she is “having a hard time finding an explanation” for something that the others think is proof of bigfoot – chug beer

·         Camping out alone – chug beer

The Just in Case it Actually Happens Rule

If the team captures actual, clear, close, concrete video footage that indisputably proves the existence of Bigfoot or they come across an actual Bigfoot carcass in the forest, then the following events must take place.

1.       Renea must kiss the bare ass cheeks of each of the other players.  The player can drink as much as he or she needs to prior to performing this task.

2.       Cliff must fashion a bigfoot costume out of any available materials at hand and make a video of himself pounding back a minimum of eight beers while wearing it.  Then he must describe for the camera bigfoot’s typical behavior of drunkenly, stumbling through a house breaking shit.

3.       Bobo must chug half a bottle of Jack and run through the neighborhood yelling the phrase, “Squatching squatchers finding squatchy squatches in the squatchiest squatchlands” until he passes out or pukes.

4.       After shot gunning a twelve pack, Matt must call first his boss and then his mom and say, “This is Matt Moneymaker and I told you Bigfoot was real, BITCH!”

Finding Bigfoot - 01/30/2012

In my weekly write-up of Finding Bigfoot, I’ve listed my top five moments from last night’s show.  After coming up with this list I picked my overall favorite and provided an explanation of my pick.

1.    Bobo cooks bacon to attract Bigfoot.  He eats a single piece in order to show Bigfoot that he is not trying to poison him.

Although cooking bacon to attract Bigfoot is fairly funny, I did not select this option.  This is because it is possible that he was joking about the poisoning thing and just wanted to eat a piece of bacon before setting the rest out as bait.  The guys on this show say so many absurdly stupid things it is nearly impossible to distinguish between their jokes and their statements of “fact.”

2.    Matt Moneymaker thinks it would be good idea to bring a mother with a child along on an expedition.  Based on a crazy lady’s story, he comes to the conclusion that female squatches are attracted to children playing.

I’m pretty certain this was a serious suggestion.  However, this comment did not get my vote, because it was too off the cuff.  There would have to be a longer, more detailed planning of this approach to garner my vote.

3.    During a grid search, they come across a big pile of branches.  Even at first glance, it is obviously a deposit left by a flood.  Added to this is the fact that a stream is a few yards away.  There is no entrance, no roof, and no interior to the “structure.”  It is just a freaking pile of sticks.  Despite all of this, geologic flood expert Cliff says that he thinks the stream is too far away for the pile of debris to be a flood deposit.  The “skeptic” Renea buys his expert opinion and is stumped to find an explanation.

This one almost gets my vote because it is a complete microcosm of what this show is all about.  They find some sketchy evidence with an obvious non-sasquatch explanation.  They find some excuse to dismiss this obvious explanation and decide instead that the finding proves the existence of a mythical beast.  However, this one was just too predictable and not funny enough to get my vote.

4.    Bobo is walking through the woods with a group of children.  He falls on his ass.

If I was voting for solely the biggest laugh, my vote would go here.  However, this moment does not capture the stupidity of the Bigfoot Hunters near enough to earn my vote.  I do wonder about the parents of these children.  Speaking as a parent, Bobo is far, far down the list of people whom I would allow my child to go into the woods with.

Would you trust this man to be alone with your children?

With a digitally added mustache it becomes clear that he is actually Ron Jeremy.  Not a man I want around my children.

5.    After a Bigfoot call, they hear a loud thump from a meadow.  They start to look for the rock that Sasquatch threw.  They thought that if they found it, they could get DNA from it.

Ding, Ding, Ding!!! We have a winner.  This one has everything I love about the show.

·         Trying to attract a shy creature with a loud noise at night. Check.

·         Hearing a random noise in the forest at night and being 100% sure it was caused by Sasquatch. Check.

·         Coming up with a pseudo scientific crazy scheme to obtain concrete evidence of their imagined encounter with Bigfoot. Check.

·         Bumbling around like idiots, while searching for something in the forest at night. Check.

Bonus points for failing to find any rocks lying in a forest meadow!

Wikipedia Vandalism Done Right

I think everybody should, at least once, try their hand at Wikipedia vandalism.  It is juvenile, but can be fun.  I think as long as you don’t go absolutely nuts, you can get away with it quite awhile before your IP address is banned from editing.  First of all, be at least somewhat clever with it.  Don’t just fill a page with profanities or something like that.  It’s very bad form. 

The object of the game is to get your revisions to last as long as possible.  The best way to do this is to modify obscure entries or make small, almost hidden changes.  I’ve put together a guide below to give you some ideas.

·         The screen shot change.  This one is only good for seconds before someone in Wikipedia land fixes it.  It is usually targeted to send to a particular person.  It is also the most juvenile entry on this list and the likeliest to get you banned.  The idea is to change an entire page, quickly capture a screenshot, and email it to your target.  If you take longer than a minute, your change will be removed.  An example would be taking the Tennessee Volunteers article and replacing the entire contents with “ARE GAY” in big orange letters.  Grab the screen print and email to your annoying Vol fan friend with a snarky statement about always suspecting something like this.

·         The Mad Lib revision.  Remember Mad Libs?  Those books where you filled in missing words in the story to make it funny.  As a child, we generally just used words like stinky, pee, poop, fart, gross, and booger over and over again to hilarious effect.  As adults, we can add adjectives to Wikipedia entries.  Just take an existing article and fill it up with almost correct sounding adjectives.  So, an excerpt from the article on Ben Franklin goes from:

Franklin, always proud of his working class roots, became a successful newspaper editor and printer in Philadelphia, the leading city in the colonies. He was also partners with William Goddard and Joseph Galloway the three of whom published the Pennsylvania Chronical, a newspaper that was known for its revolutionary sentiments and criticisms of the British monarchy in the American colonies.

To this:

Rotund Franklin, always proud of his upper working class roots, became a dirty newspaper editor and printer in Philadelphia, the foulest city in the colonies. He was also sexual partners with William Goddard and Joseph Galloway the three of whom published the Pennsylvania F’in Chronical, a satirical newspaper that was known for its sadism and revolutionary sentiments and false criticisms of the swishy British monarchy in the whisky drinking American colonies.

·         Source revision.  This one is pretty limited in scope, but it is designed to last a long time.  I mean who ever checks the sources at the bottom of the page?  Although if someone did, they may be surprised to find that some of the information of the article came from such scholarly works as “Completely Made This Part Up”, “My Butt”, “Work of Pure Fiction” or “What the Hell Are You Doing Reading the Source List, Poindexter?”

·         Might be true revision.  The amount of time this one lasts before being removed is mainly dependent on the obscurity of the article.  If the article is a well known, often accessed subject, your change probably won’t live for a long time.  The strategy here is to add a sentence containing a fact that might be true.  You get bonus points if you footnote it to a source you made up (see last bullet point).  Here is an example from the entry on “New Coke.”  The bolded sentence was added.

The results of the taste tests were strong — the sweeter mixture overwhelmingly beat both regular Coke and Pepsi. Then tasters were asked if they would buy and drink it if it were Coca-Cola. Most said yes, they would, although it would take some getting used to. A small minority, about 10-12%, felt angry and alienated at the very thought, saying that they might stop drinking Coke altogether.  Further, 2% rejected the taste of the new formula, because they claimed that they could no longer taste the cocaine, the amount of which had been significantly reduced in the new mixture.

·         Notable Alumni.  This is one of my favorites.  Pretty much every college and a lot of high schools have a Notable Alumni section.  Just add your friends and coworkers to the listings for the schools they attended.  If it fits the existing template for the page, put their job title.   So between Nobel winners, Hollywood celebrities, and powerful CEOs, you come across “Ted McLaughlin, Director Regional Sales.”  These entries tend to last a really long time before a Wikipedia editor get annoyed enough to remove them.

·         Semi Famous people with the same name as someone you know.  For example, Mark Adler is a member of the Canadian House of Commons.  But it would be perfectly correct to add a section to his article to cover the fact that Mark Adler could also refer to another guy who attended the University of Georgia in 1995.  He used to enjoy getting drunk on the porch of his frat house and chasing after joggers that passed by on the sidewalk. 

A Treatise on Youth Basketball

I just got back from watching my 10 year old’s basketball game.  She just started her first season of youth basketball.  This is my third time through having a kid play basketball at this age.  The games are somehow painful and hilarious at the same time.  I’ve come to realize that all of the players at this age can be sorted into one of three categories.

1.     The Shooters (aka classic ball hogs) - These kids basically have one skill.  They can dribble.  So they are usually play point guard.  Despite their position, they have a very few assists.  They will consistently ignore four open teammates to showcase their ball handling skills.  They invariably end up trapped in the corner by all five defenders.  The logical thing to do here would be to work a pass to a teammate for an easy basket.  The Shooter always decides it is best to desperately fling the ball at the hoop with a one handed, off balance shot from an impossible distance.  In the rare event that they get a basket, it is a spectacular shot.  In their eyes, the cheers and glory they receive make it worth their shooting percentage of 1%.  In general, a team’s offense depends on their ability to rebound the Shooter’s air ball.  Although they are usually point guards, if you have more than one on the team, they make good centers or power forwards.  This is because if they get the ball, they are the only category of player that you can count on to shoot without hesitation.

2.    The Freezer – These kids have a knack for getting rebounds and intercepting errant passes.  Once they get the ball, they have no idea what the hell to do with it, so they just freeze in one place holding on to it.  Often someone from the other team tries to grab it from them creating a jump ball situation.  However, some Freezers are quite adept at protecting the ball.  There they are, frozen in spot, leaned over with elbows out, tightly clutching the ball in their gut.  Coaches, parents, and other players are desperately shouting varying instructions. “Dribble it! Shoot it! Pass it to me!”  Game action only resumes after a painfully long delay, when the Freezer responds to the loudest instruction he heard.  Their effectiveness as players depends largely on the loudest voice associated with the team.  These players are usually your leading scorers.  Coaches should generally play them at center or power forward and be ready to shout, “SHOOT IT!”

3.    The Panicker – These kids treat the ball as if it were on fire.  They refuse to touch it for more than a second.  Some of them are pretty good at getting the ball in their hands, but it is soon gone.  Basically, the split second they get the ball, they are throwing it somewhere.  They very rarely dribble.  At first perception, it seems to be completely random where they direct the ball.  It could be the hoop, a teammate, an empty area of the court, or out of bounds.  Despite the seemingly random nature of their decision, there seems to be preponderance of throws that go squarely to a player on the other team.  They usually lack the ball handling skills necessary to be good point guards, but any other spot suits them fine.  It will be completely happenstance as to whether they are effective players no matter what position you put them in.  I recommend they play at the shooting guard or small forward spots.  This is only because the other positions are already taken.  That said, if your team lacks a Shooter, there is a sub group of Panickers that handle the ball fine until they are pressured.  These kids can confidently bring a ball down the court as point guard, but as soon they are pressed in any way, they errantly fling the ball somewhere.

For new coaches, I’ve put together a few potential line ups assuming at least two of each category are available on the roster. 

Balanced:

Point Guard – Shooter

Shooting Guard – Panicker

Small Forward – Freezer

Power Forward – Freezer

Center - Shooter

This is designed for the Shooter to bring the ball down the court and errantly throw up an air ball.  The other Shooter and the Freezers are in the best position for rebounding the ball.  The coach should immediately begin to yell, “SHOOT IT!” at the top of his lungs in case one of the Freezers gets the ball.  If the Panicker gets the rebound, this alignment puts all four teammates between her and the basket.  Presumably this will put some pressure on her to throw the ball in the correct direction giving your team a 4 out of 9 probability of ending up with the ball.

Ball Protection:

Point Guard – Freezer

Shooting Guard – Freezer

Small Forward – Panicker

Power Forward – Shooter

Center – Shooter

This should only be utilized with a substantial lead.  It is designed to run out the clock.  The key is to take the ball out of the hands of the Shooters and Panickers who usually turn it over quickly.  Generally the point guard will bring the ball down the court.  When she is pressed at half court, she will hold the ball and freeze.  The coach should yell “PASS IT.”  If yelled loud enough, she will find the shooting guard as the easiest target.  The shooting guard will receive the pass and immediately freeze.  Again, the coach should yell, “PASS IT!”  The coach should repeat this process until a pass goes errant or a shot opens up (be sure to yell “SHOOT IT!”)  The Shooters are in the best position to get the rebound.  If the Panicker somehow ends up with the ball, it is a complete crap shoot what they will do with it.

Aggressive:

Point Guard – Panicker

Shooting Guard – Freezer

Small Forward – Freezer

Power Forward – Shooter

Center – Shooter

This is used when you’re playing from behind and need to take some risks to get the lead back.  The Panicker will bring the ball down and randomly fling it.  If by some chance your team ends up with it, you have your leading scorers with the ball.  The Shooters are in a position to keep rebounding and shooting.  If Freezers get the ball, they are in position to respond to either “SHOOT!” or “PASS!”

As an aside, one potential problem with multiple Shooters on the court is that they actually fight over the ball.  I saw this today with as a matter of fact.  Two Shooters on the same team both got the rebound.  They proceeded to struggle against each other for the ball while their coach was going crazy yelling for them to stop fighting.  The official was really confused about what to do.  I thought he was just going to step in and tell them to stop, but eventually he called a five second violation and awarded the ball to the other team.

Finding Bigfoot: The Play

A one Act, two Scene play by ADawg:

Scene 1:  It is night.  Sasquatch hunters Bobo and Renea are silently walking through the forest wearing strange looking camera set ups which point at their own faces.

Bobo:  Let me try a call.  (Cup hands around mouth) WWWWOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Cliff’s voice over Radio:  That was a good one.  Sounded just like a squatch.

(A rustling occurs off stage)

Bobo:  DID YOU HEAR THAT?!?!?!?

Renea: Yeah, I…

Bobo: SSSSHHHHHHHHH!!!!  It’s over there.  (Looks into woods with camera like device)  I’m getting a large heat signature at 2:00.  It’s right there.  I think it’s a squatch.

Renea: Or some other large mammal, maybe a deer, or a bear, or a….

Bobo: Deer and bear don’t break sticks like that when they hear humans.  I heard a stick break.  That is squatch behavior.  When they hear people talking, they step on sticks to try to show dominance.  I’m going after it.  (Takes off running in direction of noise, Renea follows)

(Grunting and the sounds of a large animal crashing through woods proceed them)

Bobo (panting heavily):  I….think….we’re….going….to….catch….

Large Bear:  RRRROOOAAAAR!!!!! (Bobo and Renea both turn and run in opposite direction with bear in pursuit).

Bobo: AAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!! (Bear knocks down Bobo and mauls him.  Renea continues to run.  Bobo is left lying motionless after bear leaves).

Scene 2:  It is day.  Renea, Cliff, and a Forest Ranger are standing by the mauled body of Bobo.  The scene is surrounded by crime scene tape.

Forest Ranger:  So it was a bear and you saw the attack, right?

Renea: Yes.

Forest Ranger:  And you two actually thought it would be a good idea to chase it, causing it to attack you?

Renea:  Well, we chased something large.  We heard a noise and thought it was Bigfoot, so we chased it.

Forest Ranger:  You’re walking through the woods at night, heard a noise, thought it was Bigfoot, chased it, and got attacked by a bear?

Renea: Yes.

Forest Ranger:  What made you think it was Bigfoot?

Renea:  We made a Bigfoot call.

Forest Ranger:  You made a Bigfoot call?

Renea:  Yes, and before that we knocked some wood together?

Forest Ranger:  And that made you think it was Bigfoot?

Renea:  Well, Bobo thought it was Bigfoot, I was skeptical.

Forest Ranger:  You were skeptical?

Renea: Yes.

Cliff:  Well in my mind this proves Bobo was right.  You guys must have been chasing a Bigfoot.  Only a squatch would have been smart enough to lead you to a bear.

Forest Ranger:  (Stares incredulously at Cliff, waits for him to continue)

Cliff:  Squatches have been known to keep bears as pets and train them for personal protection.  This is definite proof of that kind of activity.

Forest Ranger:  (Begins to say something. Shakes head and decides to remain quiet)

Renea:  Well, I’m a skeptic, but based on what I saw and what you’re telling me, I’m beginning to be a believer.  That bear was definitely protecting something.  It was provoked into attacking Bobo.  I can’t think of any other reasonable explanation.

Forest Ranger:  (Shakes head again and talks into radio).  We have a body from a bear attack.  It needs removal.  (Indistinguishable response from radio)  Uh, no I don’t think the bear is a threat.  Based on the situation, I wouldn’t expect any further attacks.  It was apparently provoked…

Cliff:  By a sasquatch.

Forest Ranger:  Uhhh.  Yeah sure.

Close Curtain.

Finding Bigfoot Critique

So, I watched a couple episodes of Finding Bigfoot last night.  I think they were both reruns, but it’s been awhile since I’ve watched this awesome show.  My critique consists of a game called "What Are the Chances?"  I’m going to compare the Finding Bigfoot crew members' theories about their findings to the first alternative that pops into my head.  Then we ask are ourselves, what are the chances that their theory is correct opposed to my alternative.

1.     FACT: After listening to a tape of timber wolves howling that was recorded in the wild, they notice that one of the wolves sounds slightly different.  It is more guttural.

Their theory:  Squatches are smart.  In order to evade detection by humans, they disguise their calls to each other by closely imitating the sounds of other fauna in the environment.  Only the trained human ear can detect these variations and pick out the squatch call.

My proposed alternative:  Maybe all wolves don't sound exactly alike.

2.    FACT: The crew was walking through the woods late at night.  In order to attract a bigfoot, they are banging pieces of wood together (ironically while whispering to each other). In the distance, they hear a loud splash coming from a stream.

Their theory:  The shy, reclusive bigfoot thought that a good response to a couple of clowns banging sticks together would be to throw a big rock into the water.

My proposed alternative:  They scared a beaver.

3.    FACT:  They heard a whistle.

Their theory:  Obviously it was a sasquatch.

My proposed alternative:  It was a bird.

4.    FACT:  There are many reports of squatch sightings by campsites at which the campers are sitting around a campfire playing guitars.

Their theory:  Based on these reports, squatches are attracted to human made music.  Despite their fear of humans, this is a good way to attract sasquatches for observation.

My proposed alternative:  Generally speaking, the hippy campers making these reports are stoned out of their minds at the time and they are seeing trees.

5.    FACT:  It is dark.  After making some bigfoot calls, one of the crew see an “eye shine” looking at them from the tree line.  The eyes are at about human level.

Their theory:  It’s got to be sasquatch.

My proposed alternative:  It’s a bear.  But that’s pretty boring for the “what are the chances game.”  So instead, let’s say it is a local resident’s escaped pet chimpanzee, which is conditioned to human voices and came to investigate.

Based on this exercise, I’ve come to the conclusion that the stupidest person on the show is Renea, the skeptic.  She is constantly stumped to provide an alternative explanation for what the crew experiences.  She remains skeptical, but…… how to explain the weird noises and things they see?  She should start with the presumption that, “It could be ANYTHING other than a sasquatch.”

One last thought on the show.  How great would it be if one episode, they hear a noise, see a large heat signature on their infrared camera, and take off in pursuit.  After a few minutes of stalking the beast (actually crashing clumsily through the woods), the bear they're following turns around and attacks them?