SpecialsTarget Disturbing yet enthralling

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Sammy-Jo Cervantes There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

fraseratkinson-84694 Spoilers-if you are as smart as paint or are intoxicated and want to laugh at stupid peoplethen you will thoroughly enjoy this unconvincing, pathetic attempt at coercion. Clear indications of untruthful behavior from witnesses. "professionals" are self educated persons with no recognized qualifications . Whoever decided this should be aired should be ashamed of themselves, fear mongering on mentally inadequate persons.

Robert Hosier People get too caught up in the reenactments on the show and prematurely judge the stories to be false, based on the "creativity" of said reenactments. Of course, these reenactments are going to have instances of inaccuracy and even falsehood - intended to increase the "entertainment value" of the show.The fact is, the stories ARE real - that is, of course, if you believe the people telling them. Problem is, the more these "eyewitnesses" tell their stories, the more subtle little details appear that weren't in the original telling of the stories, many years prior. If you want to believe them, there are many things you must ask yourself and research:1. How were their stories reported in the first place? Did the eyewitness' themselves call in their own stories? Most of the time, that's exactly what they do. Or was it anyone related to them, even their neighbors? If so, they must ALL be considered suspect, as they would obviously benefit from all the attention given them. Usually people involved in those "embarrassing" types of situations don't generally want any attention at all, because they don't want to be ridiculed or considered "nuts". What other motivation would someone have for reporting their own stories. Maybe the only people they should be reporting their stories to are the local Police! Sometimes that's what happens and the Press picks up on it.2. Have these witnesses ever been paid for their stories, in any way at all whatsoever? Were there any stipends or comps, like free food, hotel, or anything at all that could be construed as "compensation"? People who don't take any payment for their stories whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form, can probably be considered a bit more truthful. Did they ever write books that paid them for their stories too? Again, witnesses taking any type of payment at all in exchange for their story, no matter what form the story is in, must be considered suspect. Having their face of TV, or in the newspaper, magazines, and any other forms of media is a great way for them to get the attention they desire.3. Have they ever been given polygraph examinations? Yes, these tests can be overcome, which is why they are no longer considered evidence in a Court of Law, but you've really got to do your research on it and have nerves of steel to pull it off. A surprise poly exam would still be a good general tell, though.Personally, I'm like Mulder and Scully from the "X-Files". I want to believe. Hell, I've even had my own Bigfoot experience myself and have seen 2 UFOs too. Yeah, they're both VERY real and no one will EVER tell me different. I've not reported ANY of them too. However, I have a hard time with the motivations of the witnesses telling their stories to the Media. Really, they need to be vetted properly first, BEFORE hearing their tales, if they want any credibility at all.The stories told in "Monsters and Mysteries in America" are very intriguing, but should be taken as entertainment only, at least until the witnesses themselves can prove their motivations for telling their tales and can be properly vetted for their truthfulness potential.

Aaron Cadieux This show is blatantly dishonest when handling the eyewitness accounts provided to them. Season 2, episode 2 featured an interview with Raynham, MA resident Bill Russo, who describes an alleged encounter he had with a 3 - 4 foot tall hair-covered creature. His alleged encounter took place while walking his dog in the early-morning hours just after midnight.Bill Russo's alleged encounter took place in 1990. Monsters and Mysteries changed the year to 1995.Bill Russo's alleged encounter took place on a paved road beneath a street lamp, and not in the middle of a swamp as depicted in Monsters and Mysteries.Promotional descriptions of the episode featuring Bill Russo's alleged encounter claim that Russo was attacked by the creature. At no point did Bill Russo ever claim that he was attacked.In the same episode, video footage is shown of an alleged demonic pukwudgie attack. The video footage was provided to m2 Pictures (the production company responsible for the show) by Andrew Lake. In the episode, the video footage is described as having been shot in the Hockomock Swamp in the Bridgewater region of Massachusetts. In reality, the footage was shot in the Freetown State Forest, a location over 20 miles to the Southeast of the Hockomock Swamp. That same footage was also altered by the producers of Monsters and Mysteries. An alleged pukwudgie face from a still image provided by Andrew Lake was superimposed into the video footage and presented as evidence in the episode. It is also interesting to note that the still image was taken in Rhode Island, and not in the Hockomock Swamp, or even the Freetown State Forest.This show is manipulative, deceptive and dishonest, and is "Reality" TV at its worst . . .

Embryoyo My wife & I both believe in the unexplainable, and since we hail from the PNW, she's even been an active Bigfoot researcher with one of the largest non-commercial organizations in the world, but this show owes me my Kit-Kat bar. The "actors" portraying the so-called experiences of individuals hardly seem believable a great majority of the time. In fact, the only story - or "actor" - that gripped me enough to not laugh at them was the Chupacabra lady.As an avid & active Bigfoot researcher who knows more about the mysterious creature than you, my wife confirms the "roars" in the Sierra Nevada episode are completely fake. They seem made for shock, not scientific research. Even as an outside observer I couldn't help but laugh at the fact that these "people" (actors) thought that the legendary Sasquatch would - for some UNEXPLAINABLE, absolutely UNKNOWN reason - faceplant the window of this guys' truck despite years of avoiding detection by actual experts. Even if you take this show with a grain of salt, you might have trouble enjoying it.Save your salt - and your time.