Summary: FBI accepted a sample of tissue and hair, agreed to analyze it (within FBI policy- that they not only support criminal investigations and other law enforcement agencies, but also, at their discretion, may perform analyses for other organizations), and ultimately determined the sample was related to deer.
Also note they only analyzed the sample after it had been erroneously reported in the press that FBI had analyzed it and concluded it was not comparable to any known creature.
Revise that: my actual number one hope is the "Jeff Mangum built some kind of time machine and saved Anne Frank" theory is right, but that's admittedly harder to believe.
Seems to me like spreading rumors of a monster in the woods would be more of a great way to get hundreds of people with cameras to show up looking through your illegal drug operation.
This may be the best political advertisement I've seen. Or the only good one?/s
Yeah it's really funny. But beyond that, there's nothing mean or of substance in it. Most political ads cannot claim the former and try to hide the latter, I think ^_^
There's so many layers to that question. The major influencer though was most likely syndication.
Shows were designed to onboard viewers at any point in the series. This would enable shows to appear in random order across multiple networks and viewers would just accept them as they were.
Shows which juggled long term serial arcs while staying accessible to the random viewer seemed to be viewed retrospectively as the best of that era. Shows like X-Files, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Babylon 5, etc.
Shows which were purely episodic such as Star Trek: TNG or old Doctor Who don't hold up quite as well. They're still enjoyable episode to episode, but there's something missing that we've become accustomed to in modern television. Perhaps if you feel the rose colored glasses starting to slip into place in the future, you could look back on some of those shows that didn't age as well.
We've thrown out syndication as a concept, so what we're left with is almost lazy writing since they don't have to put a bow on every episode after exactly 46 minutes.
But ultimately I think there are those that feel that the 90's were the pinnacle of Hollywood. I recently read an article claiming '99 to be the best year in cinema. We're just living in a perpetual era of disruption and it's going to take a few more decades until people consistently figure out the new successful formulas that are unbeatable until the technology fundamentally shifts again.
Looking back on Star Trek: TNG, it's amazing how much less tension they can ratchet up in an episode. They have at most 20 minutes to resolve the plot.
The problem with serialized TV is that sooner or later you realize that it's all about making you think that there's something cool that's going to happen in the next episode. Nothing cool ever actually happens, but you don't realize this except in retrospect, and, occasionally, when there has been so much hype that the lack of a payoff is impossible to ignore (c.f. Lost, The Sopranos, Game of Thrones...)
The only exception I can think of is Breaking Bad.
I bought the X-Files mythology collection (main storyline episodes only). The monster of the week episodes are quite average, but if you watch the mythology episodes in order it's a pretty good show IMO, especially if you're into the aliens and government conspiracy theme.
I was going to post the opposite. I think the show is good/great up to season 5 or 6, but the mythology episodes get bad much sooner. I think by season 3 or 4 the mythology stuff is more often bad then good.
The earliest episodes are hit-and-miss; the writers got it figured out around halfway through the first season, and most of s2-s3 is good.
I think The X-Files also really only worked because of it's context and time in history -- there was a right-wing fringe that was terrifyingly paranoid of a Democrat in office after more than a decade of Reagan & Bush (the first movie aped some of that imagery, in a somewhat tone-deaf manner), and the idea of conspiracy hadn't yet morphed from Soviets and aliens into birthers and truthers.
I am really curious if you work for an ABC, and get high enough - do you get to learn about some "cool" things, or it's all just tedious politics/cartels.
It does seem to me that the number of conspiracy theories went way down lately (which is surprising, giving the proliferation of tech), whereas there is clearly stuff that's being kept a secret well, e.g. we never heard about the stealth Blackhawks until the raid in Pakistan, and only because it failed badly. Or nobody talks about plasma weapons, yet they got an effective prototype a decade ago iirc, and the project stopped reporting any news (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER).
If you get high enough, you can learn about some “cool” things just by watching YouTube. You probably don’t want to tell your government employer about it, though.
The funny thing is that this is the most disturbing one by far if true.
Some of those are almost a given to me - classified stealth planes, hypersonic missiles, sats having incredible resolution, power armor, "smart"-er than known missiles.
My bigfoot dowsing rods keep drawing out the words "idiomotor" and "apophenia" but I'm not sure which of the myriad languages these concepts could possibly be a part; must be my subconscious connecting to the bigsfoot and deciphering their language.
Not to get too serious too quickly, but I'm not sure why the idea of (so-called) Bigfoot falls under conspiracy theory.
Long to short, homo sapiens co-existed with other human-esque species. The idea that primitive HSs were somehow able to entirely extermination these other species feels like a pretty high expectation to me. Any survivors - and certainly there would be some - would have been able to do so because the ability to hide, run, not be found, etc.
Today's Bigfoots could be offspring of the survivers. Unlikely. But certainly, in theory, possible.
So we know for sure really huge apes, possibly as tall as 3 meters for sure used to exist. I'm not saying they still do, they probably don't. But it's not as big of mental hurdle dor me to clear, to consider if they have lasted, than for example, to believe in flying saucers from other solar systems.
I don't think it's fair to mention the police confrontations without all the facts / context. Simply put, based on the reporting by The Washington Post, the situation is not so clear-cut:
Where is DB Cooper? I think you underestimate how vast the wilderness is, as well as the fact that the species would have survived because it's pushed itself further into that depth.
I think it falls under conspiracy theory because some people might think that the government has covered up any knowledge of Bigfoot similar to aliens.
Aliens I can understand. That would unmind quite a few things (e.g., religion). But bigfoot seems pretty harmless. Unless of course homo sapiens would finally be forced to admin how fond we are of violence, killing, etc.
Obligatory Mitch Hedberg Joke: I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run, he's fuzzy, get out of here.
