The Proof Is Out There

I have only watched a couple of episodes of ''The Proof is Out There'' but already find it a compelling show to watch, the experts who comment on each presentation are credible and the host Tony Harris keeps it interesting and moving at a nice pace.

''The Proof is Out There'' is presented like a Court Jury studying the evidence available and then making a decision on their findings, I like this format as it is not the decision of a single person, and you hear the different views of the experts followed by a summing up by the host Tony Harris, leaving you to form your own opinion after considering all that has been said.

Good to hear that it is continuing to a second season, and I will be happy to spend some time catching up on more episodes, recommend for anyone with a curious and inquiring mind.

I generally like this show, but have a comment about the zoologist who thought the film was a hoax because the creature didn't run away. Has this zoologist never been around animals???? I live in Hope, BC, Canada and have been 8-10 feet away from deer and Black bears, and neither of them interact with humans. So long as you don't move, or move slowly, most animals are content to leave you be. Watch a nature show about lions, woman! Antelope will let lions be close at the watering hole so long as they aren't being threatening.

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.

I'm a skeptic and think there are logical explanations for most things. One thing I love about this show, is they don't try and build some BS like other shows. They separate the BS from the true unexplained. Great show!

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.