The Proof Is Out There

This show is like a beacon in a world of paranormal genre shows that cater to sensationalism, fabrication, fake experts, and reality-esque dramatization.

Tony Harris works well in this as a narrator, although his claim of being a journalist is a bit suspect. He calls it like the experts see it, and isn't afraid to get a little snarky when hoaxes are involved. That's perhaps my favorite part, because the only thing worse than the current paranormal genre is all the people muddying the waters by creating hoaxes for YouTube hits.

In another refreshing change, the experts are actual experts in their fields, not amateur or armchair types blabbing opinions or pseudoscience. They have credentials, credibility, and really know what the hell they're talking about.

I don't understand why some people are so upset when the verdict is "unexplained phenomenon", because frankly, that's exactly what they are. Further investigation might change that, but for the purposes of the show, that's really the only place they can leave it. It's also silly to expect this show to go beyond its scope and further investigate these cases. That's not what this show is about. The experts are simply giving their time for the show, and probably have no time or desire to leave their day jobs hunting for answers to this stuff.

All in all, it's a great show. I really love seeing video clips that have been labeled "100% authentic OMG paranormal" on other shows being debunked by science, logic, technology actually used properly, and common sense.

To be honest, I love looking at the unusual things around us and trying to figure it out with logic, science and common sense. This show leaves me divided. I know that many things we see on the show can be misidentified, optical illusions or very rare, and some are complete hoaxes, but I also know that not all things can be easily explained even with science.

The scientific method requires the same results repeatedly, so when they speak to 1 expert for their 'opinion' without actually showing the scientific method, I am still left with doubts of credibility.

I love that they start by analyzing the video for inconsistencies since AI and video compositing can produce realistic results. This should be the first test in all cases. If it's a fake, stop there.

However, there's a 'Marine Biologist'... thats the only title. No credentials, no PHD or title or accolades to build credibility, who gives her opinion in debunking animal related incidents and that is 'fact'? I'm not saying she's not correct, it's still her words, opinions and observations. A generic title doesn't make an 'expert' and an opinion from this 'expert' isn't proof. I wish there were a little more science in some of the episodes and less opinion to quickly dismiss things that still could be something else.

I am a believer in the paranormal/supernatural. I love to watch programs which deal in 'is this fast or fiction'. An annoying aspect of many programs is the way the scenes are edited with anxiety-causing sounds as part of the transition. This show does not play any of those tricks with sound and/or using strobing. The best part of the show is watching them present the photo/video//sounds then they have respected specialists look at them using their tools to do their analysis. Great job! I hope this show continues to a second season.

I believe Tony Harris is the real deal. He calls them as he and experts see them. No sugar coating, no bs analysis, he's not fake. I gave Him and the show a 9 was because there were some things blatantly obvious and they called it unexplained. Other than dat, Tony Harris is genuine and give the show two thumbs up! Congratulations on the new season. Im glad to see the show made it for another season. If you don't like it, don't watch! Don't be bagging on Tony Harris for doing a job, that's fun and trying to show the public, some of the most bizarre crazy a** sh't, thats out there. That's what its all about! Get it! Some of the weird a** experts still are experts and I trust what they say to be true. Unlike the News, there's at least video, were the news would say a unnamed source, now that's BS!

I enjoy watching this show, but I feel like if they're doing a story on something that may be difficult to "prove" or distinguish between fact or fake the do not do enough investigation. If the subject is easy to come up with an explanation for, they do a good job discussing what the phenomenon actually is. But, with things that don't have an actual explanation right away they just write off as "unexplained phenomenon" or stop investigating and just SAY it can be explained. I wish they would continue investigations on harder to prove things until they get an actual explanation, or at least narrow it down to a few choices.