Forgive me!

http://thedilbertstore.com/com…../1990/12/8

He's warming up the crowd so he's going to use more "common man" terms, monster vs cryptid, and "undocumented species" just doesn't have the same ring when you're getting a crowd ready. You lose that if you come out and give the technical descriptions of what you are doing.  Adding Make-Believe really does change the equation…if he said that, but he didn't.  That would indicate that he's chasing after things that not only he KNOWS do not exist but which he refers to in a belittling way, but again, he doesn't say that.

Let's look at these quotes.

http://www.cinemaspy.com/Inter…..Truth/4688

"I think they saw in me someone who wasn't necessarily a crypto guy. They didn't want someone who was going to be an advocate for bigfoot and say, "I know the Loch Ness Monster is out there," and things like that."

Just what exactly is wrong with him saying this (other than the implication that all cryptozoologists are rabid believers in every creature reportedly out there)? If you get someone who is a bigfoot advocate, you get someone very Bill-like from FoF. And we see how well that goes. By getting someone who is of Josh's character and belief, as he states here, you would get someone who is, maybe, more "skeptical"? Nothing wrong with that, and there is nothing in the quote above that says "thus, this show is BS."

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/…..ationtruth

"JG: I think that, first of all, sometimes I'm a naysayer in terms of the material and I think that's what makes the show work. I think what you don't want is someone out there who just has this boilerplate attitude where they just believe in everything. I think that makes a show that a lot of people who are skeptical are not going to respond to. I think what makes 'Destination Truth' work is I approach all these stories with a grain of salt and I want to meet these people and hear what they have to say and we really want to get our hands dirty."

Naysayer in terms of the material does not at all mean a naysayer of the show, it's more along the lines that he has doubts about a particular creature existing, and sure enough, they have disproved or come up with regular explanations for some things. You definitely don't want someone with the attitude of believing everything, when you have that, you're back to FoF. His statements are really not ones that are open to misinterpretation.  The last sentence (the one containing grain of salt) is probably the one that you see as indicating that he thinks this is all BS.  I don't see it that way, any good investigator is going to take a story with a grain of salt, meaning that he hears it, but wants to prove the veracity of it himself.  Sort of like a lot of us here.

"There's something pulpy and fun and we try to fire on a lot of different cylinders. It's a travel show, sometimes it's a food show and it's definitely an investigation show with mysteries."

I see nothing wrong with this, either, nor does it come across as saying that he doesn't buy into any of it.  It is, in fact, quite an accurate description of the show.  He does add that it is "definitely an investigation show with mysteries" in addition to the "food and travel show."  I agree that the food portion and the unnecessary travel experiences (the vehicle nonsense) are, well, unnecessary but it does show what the "street situation" can be like.  I just don't think they need to dwell on it as much, but I also doesn't think that Josh's admitting that food and travel are a part of the show undermines his feelings for it.

http://scifitalk.com/2010/09/0…..onference/

"Well, for me, I’m a skeptic when it comes to the paranormal. I’m really open-minded, I’m always sort of, I guess hoping is probably a good word, because I think that everybody kind of wants to believe that there is something going on in the afterlife.So, I’m always hopeful and I’m open-minded about it, but I don’t have an expectation that I’m ever going to find anything."

Good answer I feel, and one that is what I would look for in someone doing this sort of thing. Going strictly by what he says, he's skeptical (good), open-minded (also good), hoping that there is something else out there (nothing really wrong with that), but no expectation that he's going to find it (no problem with that either, he's going in without preconceived notions). None of those statements give me the impression of someone who thinks that the show is just BS.

http://www.weirld.com/Paranorm…..Truth.html

What do you think about the Chupacabra?

The Chupacabra is not a real monster. It’s other things that are killing livestock. I think people are quick to associate any slaughter of farm animals with it.

This is Josh's personal opinion about one particular "monster" (or, cryptid, if you will). It says nothing other than what his personal belief is about the Chupacabra and in no way comes across as him appearing to think that the entire field of cryptozoology or a show centered on such is a joke or BS.

Do ghosts exist?

Unconvinced.

Same answer would be given by everyone here probably. It means Josh has not seen any evidence that they do. If you read the FOLLOW UP question that he was asked which is "Really? Why?" Josh responds, saying:

"I’ve never had an experience that left me feeling as though it was….I mean, everyone has had those experiences where they think they hear something, see something or feel a certain thing, but it’s so difficult to make the leap and say ‘it’s a ghost.’ The whole notion of ghosts is something that is so hard to substantiate and I haven’t had an experience that’s left me with that kind of faith. I would love to believe that there are supernatural, paranormal things in the world. I think that would make the world a more interesting place. I just don’t know if they’re there."

That's a pretty darn good answer. I think it is the sentiment felt by a lot of people here. But we, too, are still here, some of us are still looking for answers of more out there. This in no way makes him out as one who thinks that what he is doing is BS, it's more that he's out there looking for the answers that he (and others, even here) still want to know.

In none of the shows have they made any definite pronouncements that a certain creature exists.  The closest could be the Yeti instance.  They have left some as "open ended" and several they have dismissed based upon findings.  The one I have the contention with is the Sloth which they could have dismissed before going to Panama.

It's not really a matter so much of interpretation as reading the entire set of interviews and seeing what he says in their full context and not reading things into it that are not there.

We here are skeptical and answer the descriptions of a lot of what Josh describes (unconvinced, wanting proof, etc)  I, for one, am open-minded (another of Josh's descriptions) and if there were reports of a particular creature in some place, I would be first in line to investigate because we do NOT know everything.  And even if the possibility of its existence were slim, going there to explain what something is NOT is also quite a useful endeavour, as well.

Nothing of what I see in the above interviews comes across as "not so subtle references … that he is well aware the show is complete bull****"  Even if he DID feel that, he's not going to come out and say that in an interview (especially in a not so subtle way)  He does like the traveling and he's not going to do anything to jeopardize that.