It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anyone watch Survivorman Bigfoot?

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: LionOfGOD

originally posted by: NiZZiM
a reply to: Destinyone

Survivor man doesn't have a camera crew. It's just him alone.


Riiight...
www.imdb.com...

People STILL fall for the oldest trick in the book concerning "reality" TV???


That proves nothing.

A) The Survivorman: Bigfoot series has a camera crew for many of the scenes and they don't try to hide that fact

B) The original Survivorman series had shots leading up to when Les was dropped off. He always stated "now the crew will take off and leave me here for XX days alone."

There's a good reason Les has never been called a liar/fraud.




posted on May, 16 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull

I wasn't too keen on his using a known hoaxer as an expert... But, meh...


You can blame the show's producers for not properly vetting their guests.


It happens a lot, unfortunately. Either the crew gets online and searches for well-known people in a certain field without really checking into them or they get inquiries from these folks trying to get on TV and increase their publicity. Either way, it would be nice if they would exercise a little diligence instead of solely focusing on the entertainment value.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Oh, absolutely I do.

I'm much too big a Survivorman fan to blame him...
.

With so many other investigators out there who are umimpeachable, they had to pick him??? Blarrrgh.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: LionOfGOD

Did you even read the link you posted? and if you did, do you understand what you read?



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull

I wasn't too keen on his using a known hoaxer as an expert... But, meh...


How did you arrive at that conclusion (that he is a "known hoaxer")? The "bigfoot professor" doesn't seem to think so (and we know he' would never promote a hoax! lol).

I don't see him being a lot different to many others in bigfootery. How is he any different to Patterson/Gimlin? Is running around claiming that everything you see and hear is a bigfoot, for money, any different? What about selling fake casts? Passing off elk lays as bigfoot, selling books full of nonsense?

Once you realize there is no bigfoot, that what is actually being claimed isn't within the realms of possibility anyway, the term "known hoaxer" loses a bit of meaning. It becomes more about the hoaxers rejected by bigfooters and the hoaxers accepted by bigfooters. With another lot that are probably (knowingly for most part) mistaken/wishful thinkers. It's more about what can succesfully be palmed off onto believers.

After all, if you're going to pretend bigfoot is real, it needs at least a modicum of realism (or at least not too obviously fantasy/overtly hoaxed) or there's no fun playing lol. The more ambiguous and impossible to really analyze, the better, that's what the entire subject relies on.



edit on 17-5-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
ps. How does someone become a "bigfoot expert"? Certainly not from studying all of the collected specimens lol.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

You can blame the show's producers for not properly vetting their guests.


Doubt that. Les claims he has complete control over every episode. He gave his reasons for personally choosing Standing, quite clearly, from the word go.

Really, it's not going to be much of a show if he's just wandering around trapping lines/logging roads going "what was that noise" the whole time. The same if he wandered into the remote scrub for weeks on end. There's only so many times you can tell the "Ostman" fairy tale story and pretend it's scary, while you're lying in your sleeping bag (really, it's about as frightening as "Humpty Dumpty" lol).

With the chances of him finding an actual bigfoot hovering at around 0, he needs filler to make it at least some sort of (semi) interesting show. Hence Standing and others.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Being in the field. Knowing their environments and structures, beddings etc. Depending on who/what you believe, a lot of these "experts" have seen them and/or heard their calls and return knocks.
edit on 19-5-2015 by -Blackout- because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: -Blackout-
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Being in the field. Knowing their environments and structures, beddings etc. Depending on who/what you believe, a lot of these "experts" have seen them and/or heard their calls and return knocks.


I notice some of these "experts" have been at this for a very long time and still have exactly 0 to genuinely indicate bigfoot exists (apart form claims and stories). In most fields of study (apart from creative storytelling), this would be called complete and utter failure. Only in the world of bigfoot would this qualify as "expertness".



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I watched it solely because of Les Stroud. Wasn't much to the first episode to me. The only thing that intrigued me was the implication that there was no activity due to logging companies coming in. They talked about helicopters followed by a lot of gunfire. The conspiracy aspect of it was interesting.

If anyone were to find evidence, I would like it to be him. Way too many crackpots in Bigfoot, ghost and UFO fields IMO.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: -Blackout-
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Being in the field. Knowing their environments and structures, beddings etc. Depending on who/what you believe, a lot of these "experts" have seen them and/or heard their calls and return knocks.

Of course you are referring to guys like Cliff from "Finding Bigfoot." He's a elementary teacher off season and has a wonderful ability to explain everything to conclude it was a BF. How about Bobo Fay that knows that BFs like the smell of bacon. Matt "Moneymaker" can tell the accent of the BF with their "Ohio Howl." Experts right!



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Shepard64

So, if you happen to walk into a 500 pound bigfoot that eats deer raw, are you gonna catch him with your bare hands? No.

If you get to close you get a really intimidating get the crap out of my woods.

If you don't go, they'll never see you again.

And how many go hunting for something that "doesn't exist"?

Even better, would you dare pull the trigger if you there was any doubt that it might be a human in a costume making a hoax-video?

So you tell me... Is it really that weird that you don't have one in a cage or museum yet?



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
ps. How does someone become a "bigfoot expert"? Certainly not from studying all of the collected specimens lol.

Same way you become an "exobiologist," I assume.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: -Blackout-
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Being in the field. Knowing their environments and structures, beddings etc. Depending on who/what you believe, a lot of these "experts" have seen them and/or heard their calls and return knocks.


I notice some of these "experts" have been at this for a very long time and still have exactly 0 to genuinely indicate bigfoot exists (apart form claims and stories). In most fields of study (apart from creative storytelling), this would be called complete and utter failure. Only in the world of bigfoot would this qualify as "expertness".


Say what?
Multiple DNA studies confirm Bigfoot.. But they waved off the results as contamination because they were to close to human. Deeper study by Ketchum solved what it is, and what to look for to confirm Bigfoot DNA.
But, you'll need the root of the hair to confirm, and bigfoot fur is easily recognisable.

Multitude of prints with dermal ridges.

Check out David P's book on bigfoot.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: br0ker

Say what?
Multiple DNA studies confirm Bigfoot..

No they don't. It might be worth listening to what real research scientists/evolutionary biologists (as opposed to creationist veterinarians) who are experts in evolutionary genetics and do have experience in genome mapping, have to say about it. Why the relevant sequences are not a result of hybridization, why it has little to do with a "hominid" genome at all and what it really is. The Ketchum study is a good advertisement for why peer review is necessary. It's conclusions are ridiculous.

She was given advice about how to salvage her study, but instead ran off claiming "they persecuted Galileo too" lol because she prefers to think they are descended from some biblical creatures (there were giants in those days).


originally posted by: br0kerBut they waved off the results as contamination because they were to close to human. Deeper study by Ketchum solved what it is, and what to look for to confirm Bigfoot DNA.
But, you'll need the root of the hair to confirm, and bigfoot fur is easily recognisable.

See the Sykes study to find what bigfoot fur really is (racoon etc) and where he mentions the steps he took not to make similar mistakes as the Ketchum study.


Multitude of prints with dermal ridges.

That can be and are faked, with dermal ridges that have been replicated as casting artifacts.


Check out David P's book on bigfoot.

Who? Why? Has he (unlike anyone else) found a bigfoot?

The whole subject revolves around make believe. It seems doubtful that many of these people really believe in bigfoot anyway, as much as pretend that they do. Has there ever been one serious prolonged research expedition to find bigfoot?



edit on 19-5-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

You need to explore the facts around the prints, an all circumstances surrounding them. It's ignorant to call 3000 peoples sightings for hoax, when they risk ridicule by coming forth.

David P. In a seminar here, talking about his bigfoot research and involvement with ketchum.

m.youtube.com...



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: br0ker
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

You need to explore the facts around the prints, an all circumstances surrounding them.

No. Pontificating over and making far fetched claims about impressions something left on the ground are what 'footers do to help them pretend bigfoot exists.

'Footers need to follow such tracks to bigfoot, or supply something/anything genuinely indicative of the existence bigfoot. Hoaxing (a time honoured tradition) and artful misinterpretations of ground impressions don't really do it outside of the small group who like to pretend such things exist. You need to find what left these ground impression (it won't be bigfoot, it never is).

Among the obvious hoaxes that are accepted, you should also see some of the ones people like Meldrum reject because they don't fit in with their particular fantasy.


David P. In a seminar here, talking about his bigfoot research and involvement with ketchum.


Lol. Quite a creative storyteller, should go well in bigfootery.

Aliens, werewolves...sounds legit. Throw in Ketchum's nonsense and you could even have nephilim, possibly angels.


It's ignorant to call 3000 peoples sightings for hoax, when they risk ridicule by coming forth.


Typical 'footer strawman argument (where you make up your own counterpoints to argue against as if it means something). The subsequent fallacy (appeal to numbers) could equally apply to lizard people, fairies (which have a for longer history than bigfoot), dogman, mothman, chupacabra and anything else people claim to see.

It's quite amazing what people claim as a bigfoot encounter. Strange noises, a glimpse of something (that could be anything) usually in poor lighting, even the feeling of being watched or uneasy in the forest is enough to claim a bigfoot encounter.

Out of the very few that are reasonably unambiguous, we find bigfoot running around industrial areas of major cities, raiding dumpsters in shopping areas, around busy freeway underpasses.

Those that aren't lying and have seen something quite clearly (which seems to be very few) have explanation via psychology and the effects of modern pop culture.

What is clear is that very few 'footers really believe in bigfoot. Their actions (or lack of) show this quite clearly. It is a myth of pop culture that some people find enjoyable enough that they are prepared to suspend disbelief, overlook all rational logic, objectivity and common sense in order to continue enjoying it. A form of make believe. A fascinating thing in itself.



edit on 22-5-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I was just going to say to this skeptic come over here to Washington State. I used to go shooting at Greenwater (the last town before the seasonal pass when it's opened) and heard stories before and was surprised when Joe Rogen went there and interviewed the woman at the only gas station there whom I've bought gas from before. Or the fact that the only 95% Human DNA 5% unkown primate DNA confirmed was found in WA state before Les found hair in Alberta that was 95%Human 5%unknown as well. I DARE you to spend ONE night east of Green Water or south of I-90 and east of Highway 18. It's one thing to sit behind your computer on the east coast and say "a subspecies of humans doesn't exist" but it's another thing to come to the NW and actually go out in cool wet forest and get dirty off the beaten path.

I was delightfully surprised when they brought Jeff Meldrum who has the largest collection of hoaxed and unidentified molds of "Bigfoot" tracks in NA and who's a professor that teaches at University of Northern Idaho.

Also I personally believe that "Bigfoot" is an unidentified offshoot tribe of Pacific Native Americans that went off on their own or crossed the landbridge on their own thousands of years ago, and if you've seen how hairy some Mexicans are, imagine a wild offshoot of them that avoided people and lived in the mountains and caves (which there are plenty of especially around Mt. St. Helens, hence the 1922 attack and Ape Canyon); or an unknown primate that came over. Personally I believe it only takes 5-10k years for a unique group of people to go off by themselves and evolve into something completely different looking.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I love Les Stroud. As many have mentioned is this thread, he's the real deal. The survival reality TV genre is filled to the brim to artificiality, but Les has always been genuine. The same goes for Survivorman Bigfoot. While Finding Bigfoot is one of the biggest pieces of reality schlock that puts cryptozoology back a century, Survivorman Bigfoot is a genuine search for a sasquatch by someone who actually knows what he's doing and cares about it, while still managing to be an entertaining television program.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Swing80s

Got a link to these claimed bigfoot genetic studies? Where might they be published? Thanks in advance. Surely you wouldn't be telling whoppers.

The taunts show a fear of the boogyman that seems common amongst 'footers and are a part of the folklore, but being afraid of being alone in nature has no bearing on whether bigfoot exists. There are millions of people who do what you claim is "ew too scawy" including scientists conducting large scale wildlife studies that also never find bigfoot.

You also overlook (like most bigfooters) that the majority of bigfoot claims emanate from the eastern half of the US.

It is NA pop cultural myth/folklore. This is why Meldrum is yet to publish anything on his great bigfoot discoveries (he is a bigfoot folklorist with a science background). It is utter nonsense that is laughed at by most real scientists, with the few that have bothered to critique it in any depth openly calling it "a belief based pseudo science".

No real harm in making believe that bigfoot exists, though it is all that you are doing and all that anyone ever does, revelling in make believe.

The fascinating thing is why a minority of the population would need to cling to such a fantasy.



edit on 22-5-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join