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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
www.barnesandnoble.com...

Sorry it isn't a scientific article with a picture of BF body in it but you haven't came prepared either.




posted on May, 23 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Swing80s

Anyone who has pondered the mysteries of human evolution will be fascinated and eager to join Dr. Meldrum in drawing their own conclusion.

Well that's helpful.
What conclusion would that be?


edit on 5/23/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=17694476]Shepard64[/post

I have never watched survivor man bigfoot,I have watched mountain monsters.
I have watched documentaries on the topic and I think there could be something
to this.I think it will take someone bringing in a body before anyone really believes it.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Swing80s
www.barnesandnoble.com...

Sorry it isn't a scientific article with a picture of BF body in it but you haven't came prepared either.


Lol. So if you can't link to your claimed "bigfoot genetic studies" (because there are none), why claim such a thing? You were spinning a bit of a whopper there.The only published scientific study that has been conducted found that people were mistaking mundane creatures such as racoon, for bigfoot (surely gotta make you wonder hasn't it?)

Cheap paperbacks from the "new age/fiction" section of all good bookstores (lol) aren't much of a source. Ever wonder why none of Meldrum's claims been offered to any scientific journals? Even then, Meldrum (who accepts almost anything as bigfoot) himself says that there are no such definitive genetic studies.

That's because there is no real bigfoot. There is only the make believe one that people enjoy pretending is real. Folklore.



edit on 24-5-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Swing80s
www.barnesandnoble.com...

Sorry it isn't a scientific article with a picture of BF body in it but you haven't came prepared either.


Lol. So if you can't link to your claimed "bigfoot genetic studies" (because there are none), why claim such a thing? You were spinning a bit of a whopper there.The only published scientific study that has been conducted found that people were mistaking mundane creatures such as racoon, for bigfoot (surely gotta make you wonder hasn't it?)

Cheap paperbacks from the "new age/fiction" section of all good bookstores (lol) aren't much of a source. Ever wonder why none of Meldrum's claims been offered to any scientific journals? Even then, Meldrum (who accepts almost anything as bigfoot) himself says that there are no such definitive genetic studies.

That's because there is no real bigfoot. There is only the make believe one that people enjoy pretending is real. Folklore.



The reason why no scientific genetic studies of Bigfoot exist is NOT because the creature does not exist. That's false logic. Instead, it is because very few scientists will ever get involved in researching the subject. It's a career killer. Those one or two people who do get involved come to the Bigfoot issue with their minds already made up (they will never confess this, of course!) and they manipulate and interpret their research so as to arrive at a negative result that reinforces the prejudices of their academic colleagues. By refusing to face phenomena that do not fit the scientific paradigm under the pretence that these phenomena are unreal, scientists perpetuate the make believe of their academic disciplines. And they enjoy every minute of it.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi

The reason why no scientific genetic studies of Bigfoot exist is NOT because the creature does not exist. That's false logic.


Really? How about...there are no genetic studies of bigfoot for the same reason there are no similar studies of lizard people, dogman, mothman cupacabra, fairies, elves, leprechauns, unicorns and santa. Reason that with whatever logic that takes your fancy. lol.


Instead, it is because very few scientists will ever get involved in researching the subject. It's a career killer. Those one or two people who do get involved come to the Bigfoot issue with their minds already made up (they will never confess this, of course!) and they manipulate and interpret their research so as to arrive at a negative result that reinforces the prejudices of their academic colleagues. By refusing to face phenomena that do not fit the scientific paradigm under the pretence that these phenomena are unreal, scientists perpetuate the make believe of their academic disciplines. And they enjoy every minute of it.


Not buying what you are selling, thanks. When you have to sell your product via a "conspiracy of science" rather than it's own merits, that will usually be because it has no merit to sell it with.

It is really quite the opposite. Scientists (like most people) would be thrilled if bigfoot were real. Unfortunately for bigfoot, they are bound by intellectual integrity and the demands of real science. As such, make believe doesn't work out too well. Sykes went to a lot of trouble to do the opposite of what you are claiming. That the result was a foregone conclusion is not his fault. He was quite the hero among bigfooters at one stage, until he found 0 bigfoots that is.

There is no way bigfoot's existence will be confirmed from such studies anyway, even if he were real. The most they will do is open the possibility. It's going to take a bigfoot, or reasonable portion of one. The problem there is that there is not, nor has there ever been anything indicating bigfoot exists (unless you are prepared to make believe).

The shame is that looking into bigfoot could have been a genuine scientific study. It's too far gone now (irredeemable) and whatever bigfooters are on about it is obvious there is no physical creature involved. it's only relevant to sciences like social psychology and cultural anthropology. It is not bigfoot, but the subculture of bigfootery, that is worthy of study.



edit on 24-5-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I dig the show..I like how les is skeptical,but yet open minded.It's better than "finding bigfoot"with all the theatrics..I'd like see another season of the show.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   
I'm not even going to try and persuade the 600 pound gorrilla in the room as he has already made up his mind and nobody can change it. Don't see what the point for somebody like him coming here is...?

Anyways as somebody with a minor in Zoology (that would make me a Zoologist right?) what I could say would lend more credence then him. The fact that I have taken 300 level college courses in bio/chem automatically makes me more of an authority than you. I don't know for sure if Bigfoot is real but PURPLE UNICORNS do exist and people would believe me over you going by your own empirical logic


Anyways I hope Les' finale is going to be in Greenwater WA.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Swing80s
I'm not even going to try and persuade the 600 pound gorrilla in the room as he has already made up his mind and nobody can change it.

It would be easy to persuade. Simply stop playing bigfoot make believe and provide something that would indicate bigfoot exists that isn't obvious folklore or make believe science. Or even show any research of the type we would expect if people really believed it existed. Is there any?

The reason you don't try is because you can't. There is nothing but folktales and accompanying folk/pseudo science to do it with.


originally posted by: Swing80sDon't see what the point for somebody like him coming here is...?

Sounds a bit arrogant. You aren't required to see the point for others to post here. It's unlikely anyone is going to seek your approval and they certainly don't need it. It also appears you intend to simply veer discussion to ad hominem arguments when your bigfoot beliefs are challenged.


Anyways as somebody with a minor in Zoology (that would make me a Zoologist right?) what I could say would lend more credence then him. The fact that I have taken 300 level college courses in bio/chem automatically makes me more of an authority than you.

That's convincing...

A "bigfoot scientist" in the offing? That would be quite a feather in the cap, as those words surely flow together so well. Just like "creation scientist", "leprechaun scientist" or "fairy scientist" and so on. If you want to really sound good "mormon bigfoot scientist" does it best. No contradictions there.

Lets see...offer nothing but folktales...."double dog dare ya" to spend a night alone in the dark (are you people all afraid of the dark?)...claim scientific studies that don't exist...back it up with a paperback by a pseudo scientist who himself recently has said quite clearly that no such definitive studies exist...veer the topic straight to ad hominem and top it off with a rather anemic "appeal to authority" fallacy.

All the ingredients there!

You might have been away for the lesson where they discussed the work begun by people like "Linnaeus" and how species gain recognition, taxonomic classification etc. It seems one requirement is that they actually exist. Quite a stumbling block for bigfooters it seems, yet science is big on such pesky details lol.


don't know for sure if Bigfoot is real but PURPLE UNICORNS do exist and people would believe me over you going by your own empirical logic

Logic not your strong point? lol.

Though you are getting the general idea re unicorns-bigfoot. You have basically been arguing a purple unicorn's existence for several posts now. You have just been calling it bigfoot instead (unicorn=leprechaun=santa=bigfoot etc).





edit on 30-5-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Same way you become an "exobiologist," I assume.


Unless bigfoot is being seen in outer space now (wouldn't be surprising lol), you don't see that little detail as relevant?



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: zysin5

Hi I'm new and all. Great to be here.

just thought I would ask a question/s.
I agree and disagree with what you have to say.

what evidence best influences your thoughts (negative or positive) on Todd Standing and why?
What evidence has been made in argument against Todd Standing? ( I would greatly appreciate a list and or maybe even a link to it )

Do you think they the Sasquatch really exist?

Do you think a group (secret or obvious, central or decentralized) exists that would go to the trouble of discrediting any Sasquatch researcher that gets to much solid evidence proving the existence of such a species of animal?






posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Destinyone

The way I see it is this...

There are literally thousands of REPORTED sightings every single year... there's some footage, that is understandably blurry (being a Survival & Wilderness guy myself, I can 100% tell you, that unless you have specialized equipment, you will never, ever, ever get a clear shot of anything in the forest, with auto-focus constantly refocusing).

Having said that... I believe there are hoaxes, and a lot of them at that... but being someone that has seen a TR-3B (or something extremely similar) and the disbelief people will look at you with when you talk about this stuff... not EVERYONE is lying.

There are hoxers, there are frightened people that mistaken standing/walking bears... but some, a handful of encounters HAVE to be real... This legendary animal is real, its smart, it's ability to thrive in nature is beyond even the most respected wilderness survival instructors... it's an apex hunter.

Is it dangerous? I think some are (just like any intelligent animal), I think most just want to leave us alone & not make contact, and furthermore, I believe the natives in my area that will swear upon their grandfathers soul that they exist... these natives are spiritual people, and they would not (vast majority anyhow) make claims that could harm the spirit of their ancestors.

People have NO IDEA (especially lefty, city life, do gooders - that I simply shake my head to when they talk about overpopulation & natural resource depletion) how much wilderness is out there, even in the USA, there are places no man has ever set foot. Now think of Canada, there are places that you could be dropped, walk in 1 direction for a month, and never see another human being... and probably keep going for a longer period.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: mindpurge
a reply to: Destinyone

The way I see it is this...

There are literally thousands of REPORTED sightings every single year... there's some footage, that is understandably blurry (being a Survival & Wilderness guy myself, I can 100% tell you, that unless you have specialized equipment, you will never, ever, ever get a clear shot of anything in the forest, with auto-focus constantly refocusing).






posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
See there are alot of people saying there are no bigfoot evidence. But if there is one thing people should take from the Ketchum study, then it's the fact that bigfoot DNA is so close to human, that results to the untrained eye look "contaminated" by human DNA. All DNA samples that have come back with contaminated result should be re-evaluated by Ketchum. She is the one that cracked the code and showed us how do differentiate between human and bigfoot DNA.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I don't think they're going to get undeniable proof unless they go a little fringe. Hollywood ideas like Six Million Dollar Man where bigfoot was protection for an alien race / Star Wars Chewbacca. I once read a book written in the 1950s of an eyewitness account of a hunter that watched a saucer land. Two beings got out, followed shortly after by a Bigfoot. Then the story about the guy in VIrginia in 2003 that shot a bigfoot and got visited by the MIB. The researchers should correlate their night investigations with UFO sightings and abductions. If Bigfoot, like Hollywood wants to portray, is alien, this could be why they have never found a body. In UFO lore the greys from Roswell supposedly excreted waste through their skin. If the Bigfoots and alien greys are from the same planet they both quite likely evolved the same way and the Bigfoots might also excrete waste through the pores. This could account for the foul skunk smell and the lack of any feces.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: mindpurge
a reply to: Destinyone
People have NO IDEA (especially lefty, city life, do gooders - that I simply shake my head to when they talk about overpopulation & natural resource depletion) how much wilderness is out there, even in the USA, there are places no man has ever set foot. Now think of Canada, there are places that you could be dropped, walk in 1 direction for a month, and never see another human being... and probably keep going for a longer period.


I agree with your entire post, especially with the above quote. People really do not have any clue how much untouched wilderness is out there in the US, and most importantly in Canada and Alaska. You have sighting hotspots in California, Oregon, Washington state... but I think these are just the tip of the iceberg, once you consider the vastness of the Canadian & Alaskan wilderness (each going well below 3/km² of population density), you suddenly notice that if they exist, you will hardly ever find them. There are areas that are literally inaccessible, some so far remote that even a helicopter or an atv wont do the job due to the vegetation and unforgiving terrain.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I like Les Stroud and his approach and his methodology, but I worry a little that the big guy who is taking him out in the wilderness is setting up situations, partially downed tree formations and even is the one calling in the distance.

There just 'something' that makes me suspicious. I think his name is Todd Standing. His BF face video is obviously a mask.

Due to the 'Uncanny Valley' capability of humans to recognize a real 'humanoid' from a fake, we can pick up many fakes (though not all).

Many were fooled by the Michigan Dogman video (Gable Hoax), but that's not humanoid looking so we have trouble guaging it.

Les is now saying he believes it's real and top gubmint guys know it.

Survivorman Les Stroud - Military hiding Bigfoot existence



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Maverick7

More than a few places to find them as many will tell you in certain areas. You guys just need to go to some hot spots and see what there is to be seen, hear what there is to hear and you will eventually hear or see something. Has anyone here used game cameras specifically to find this crypto or any other animals in areas its known to be?



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Clairaudience

originally posted by: mindpurge
a reply to: Destinyone
People have NO IDEA (especially lefty, city life, do gooders - that I simply shake my head to when they talk about overpopulation & natural resource depletion) how much wilderness is out there, even in the USA, there are places no man has ever set foot. Now think of Canada, there are places that you could be dropped, walk in 1 direction for a month, and never see another human being... and probably keep going for a longer period.


I agree with your entire post, especially with the above quote. People really do not have any clue how much untouched wilderness is out there in the US, and most importantly in Canada and Alaska. You have sighting hotspots in California, Oregon, Washington state... but I think these are just the tip of the iceberg, once you consider the vastness of the Canadian & Alaskan wilderness (each going well below 3/km² of population density), you suddenly notice that if they exist, you will hardly ever find them. There are areas that are literally inaccessible, some so far remote that even a helicopter or an atv wont do the job due to the vegetation and unforgiving terrain.


I happen to know of a few places where you dont have to go deep into the woods to come across them but obviously they are still very unpredictable in the rougher terrain areas.
I just last week heard another one on a ridge above me doing something where most animals would not go save for a desperate bear that was running away from something. It was rooting around or just getting well onto the edge and displacing soil and ground material and I was deliberately going 10-15ish (very quiet car to boot) with my ear leaned out the window just enjoying the the sights sounds and smells. Now about a quarter mile down this road from the steep vertical hillsides where this happened there was a very small road crew doing road work that I passed on the way up to go swimming in the creek. So as we came down this road again from our swim we hit this road work area and I slowed waay down for the flagger gal who was young and smoking by the way when just as I rolled by her a bone chilling non human vocalization came from a few hundred feet north of that spot on the road.

This young flagger lady did not seem bothered at all as in zero reaction or she hid it well knowing what it was as many locals are very aware of the presence of these hairy savages. I continued to roll quite slowly down this patch of smooth new road surface and I chanced a quick glance into my mirror to see what the flagger was doing and she looked my way and stared for a good 10 seconds or so from 100ft or so very calmly and that was it I kept going.

Pm me if you wanna know the exact area this happened. I used to roam the woods alone as a kid but its alot like the ocean in that once you know what lurks you don't ever want to go back in without adequate protection. Having seen one in broad daylight but in a different part of the state I must say that I got a bad feeling when hearing this other one scream like that and I just had a not so pleasant feeling that if that was indeed what it sounded like it was not the friendly neighborhood circus monkey.
edit on 13-9-2015 by stabstab because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Clairaudience

originally posted by: mindpurge
a reply to: Destinyone
People have NO IDEA (especially lefty, city life, do gooders - that I simply shake my head to when they talk about overpopulation & natural resource depletion) how much wilderness is out there, even in the USA, there are places no man has ever set foot. Now think of Canada, there are places that you could be dropped, walk in 1 direction for a month, and never see another human being... and probably keep going for a longer period.


I agree with your entire post, especially with the above quote. People really do not have any clue how much untouched wilderness is out there in the US, and most importantly in Canada and Alaska. You have sighting hotspots in California, Oregon, Washington state... but I think these are just the tip of the iceberg, once you consider the vastness of the Canadian & Alaskan wilderness (each going well below 3/km² of population density), you suddenly notice that if they exist, you will hardly ever find them. There are areas that are literally inaccessible, some so far remote that even a helicopter or an atv wont do the job due to the vegetation and unforgiving terrain.


Yet most bigfoot reports emanate from the eastern half of the US, with many in suburban/semi rural/rural areas.

Yes, the US is a vast uncharted wilderness. It's not like it's been heavily exploited for it's resources for centuries or anything, pristine forest everywhere...





edit on 20-9-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join