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.

 

Les Stroud. You all know who he is right? Well...

page: 8
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
There are vids with humans who have some terrible disease, which causes hair to grow all over their faces, even their noses, fingers, all over. This looks kinda like one of those folks.




posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Having read thousands of reports I believe bigfoot is real. However I'm not sold on this video. Led did 2 shows then left everyone hanging.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Les i meant reply to: dvldwg89


edit on 6-8-2014 by dvldwg89 because: misspelled



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I finally saw the 2 part bigfoot series. I thought it was very well done. Les gave a very good analysis and played the role of the skeptic. I really hope they decide to do more of these, preferably with him alone. I don't really trust Standing, but those tree structures seem like too much work for a hoaxer, and couldn't have been made by a bear or other native animal to the region. Yeah, he could have gotten some friends to help him set all that up, but why? At what point do you believe something so badly that you need to spread lies to convince others? I didn't really like the way the last bigfoot episode ended, it was like a cliff hanger, but there were no more episodes. I really loved Survivorman, and hope it returns. Les should return to the spot he was at and do it alone to see if the same type of things happen. In reality it's not unrealistic at all to think that some groups of gigantipithicus didn't actually go extinct 100,000 years ago as suspected, they just isolated themselves from humans, probably because humans tried to kill them off. Those suckers were huge and muscular and would perfectly explain a large amount of Sasquatch encounters.

edit on 6-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
those tree structures seem like too much work for a hoaxer


I would strongly disagree. Never underestimate what someone intent on deceit is capable of doing.

You're being conditioned to accept those structures as evidence of Bigfoot by the nature of the video. If those structures were featured on a documentary about tribal cultures, would you say, "Hey wait a sec, those look like structures made by Bigfoot!"

Of course not.
edit on 10-8-2014 by SaosinEngaged because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: SaosinEngaged

originally posted by: Barcs
those tree structures seem like too much work for a hoaxer


I would strongly disagree. Never underestimate what someone intent on deceit is capable of doing.

You're being conditioned to accept those structures as evidence of Bigfoot by the nature of the video. If those structures were featured on a documentary about tribal cultures, would you say, "Hey wait a sec, those look like structures made by Bigfoot!"

Of course not.


Well yeah, obviously they could have been set up by humans, it would have just been very difficult. Les analyzed the ages of the trees used, which would mean Standing would have had to dedicate decades to the hoax. I'm not being conditioned to accept those structures as bigfoot evidence, I didn't say anything about that. I merely said that it would be difficult to pull that off in a remote area without technology. So he decided to get together with some friends to weave some trees into a pattern every 5-10 years to deceive somebody on a TV show, 20 years down the road. It just seems a little extreme, that's all. It's like Les said, it's either all an elaborate hoax or there's something else going on that defies explanation. They are pretty much the only 2 options.

I definitely do not think Les is in on any hoax, so Standing would have needed to coordinate an effort of people to come in and follow them around and make loud noises in the woods, planting fake footprints, taking apples off the trees and make whooping noises as well as other things that would be incredibly difficult to fool Les, a guy that's lived in that area and done survival stuff out there his entire life. Especially when they are hiking and climbing up hill for several hours. That would be incredibly difficult to coordinate. The only other option is that Les is in on the hoax, and I highly doubt that because his reputation is at stake here. At this point I don't know whether to believe one way or the other, but it's not a ridiculous proposition in the least. Scientists have discovered species thought to be extinct numerous times.
edit on 11-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaosinEngaged

originally posted by: Barcs
those tree structures seem like too much work for a hoaxer


If those structures were featured on a documentary about tribal cultures, would you say, "Hey wait a sec, those look like structures made by Bigfoot!"

Of course not.

Agree. If they were genuine at all, they might easily reach the conclusion "don't know what caused that". If they wanted to know what did cause it, perhaps they could have consulted people more knowledgeable about the particular ecosystem in an effort to find an explanation. Or at least conducted some genuine research before inferring "monsters are among us".

Instead we get the "can't explain that, so a species of 8' ape like creatures with no known existence and completely unknown to science, could have been the cause" type of inference common to this field of study. Surely the only logical explanation...after you also rule out the breeding populations of very strong elves and leprechauns with gigantism that are known to inhabit NA in exactly the same numbers.

Same with the "noises in the bush". That a couple of amateurs don't know what they are, means no more than that. It doesn't mean it could be bigfoot, it means one of them claims bigfoot and the other is prepared to go along with the possibility because the opposite would not sell very well. That there was no genuine effort to actually find out, says it all.

This highlights the difference between science and folklore and explains a lot about the subject. Les wasn't in on any hoax, though he was prepared to partake a little "folklore in action". Trees, unknown noises and ground impressions in places frequented by people do not a bigfoot make. Though it's a lot more glamorous to infer that it could and leave it at that...





edit on 11-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Instead of discussing wether this is fake or real, we should be discussing HOW FAKE it is.

I'd say it is pretty darn fake.What do you guys think?



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I would consider Les an expert in that ecosystem. He did grow up there and first got into survival in that area. He and his wife spent a year straight surviving near that area completely independent from technology, living off the land. He knows his stuff when it comes things like survival, tree breaking and noises that various animals native to the region make. Now if it turns out that Les is involved in the hoax I will be very upset because I've followed him for a long time and he puts good information out there. I've never trusted Standing, however and his video looks VERY fake. If he pulled one over on Les, he's a damn good faker, that's all.
edit on 12-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   

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

I would consider Les an expert in that ecosystem.

I wouldn't. From this he appears to be anything but, nor is he a sceptic. Either that or his bosses/advisors/financiers required him to go along with it. Wouldn't sell very well if he just said "yeah cut the crap Todd, we're not looking for trees, we know they exist, now show us where your Muppets bigfoot are".

I put more faith in the people who do use such areas regularly, particularly those with scientific qualifications and even regular people who live and work in such areas (arborists, botanists, geologists, biologists etc. some of whom definitely do see this as quite humerous), rather than a survivalist entertainer looking for bigfoot.

They didn't even give the trees nor the area a genuine inspection, nil effort to even try to find an explanation lol. To infer bigfoot this way is simply dishonest.


He knows his stuff when it comes things like survival, tree breaking and noises that various animals native to the region make.

Apparently not. It looks like Les would struggle to find his @-se from his elbow, based on this. I did get a chuckle when they were ruling out every cause, scratching their head wondering what brought the trees down, when a few feet below the very tree they were looking at...was a stump of around the same age that gives every impression of having been neatly cut off with a chainsaw/saw...lol. Quite curious that they only found such things beside the road in areas that showed lots of signs of human disturbance and activity. Every cause Les ruled out, could well have been part of what did happen.

I no longer trust anyone when they claim that certain structures have no explanation, or similar with bush noises etc. Invariably that turns out to be wrong. Others who look into such things find similar, sometimes with comical results. There is one scientist who recorded such a "monster" and replayed it to a group of hunter/outdoorsy types who "grew up hunting/camping etc" in the area and knew every noise...only to feel silly when it was explained...quite easily.

Though he lost it with the "let's give Gigantopithecus the benefit of the doubt".....wtf? So based on dubious claims, an ignorant look at fallen trees and some night noises, it follows that a large pongid ape (most likely) didn't go extinct in Asia but upped stakes over to NA and hyper evolved into an upright hairy human along the way (a transgender one at that!)...without leaving a trace...despite regularly playing with "habituators" in their backyards and existing in every mainland state...

The same "benefit of the doubt" would also indicate Gigantopithecus made his way along the bering land bridge, Canada to Iceland where he morphed into the creature known locally as "Elves" (the "island rule" accounting for their now diminutive stature). This migration would surely explain the rash of Leprechaun and Elf sightings as one popuulation also made their way through Europe in the middle ages.

This was very poorly done.


Now if it turns out that Les is involved in the hoax I will be very upset because I've followed him for a long time and he puts good information out there. I've never trusted Standing, however and his video looks VERY fake. If he pulled one over on Les, he's a damn good faker, that's all.

The very fact that he needed Standing for "filler" says it all. Wouldn't be very entertaining just siting/ walking around the bush always minus a bigfoot. No doubt they knew of his reputation. As usual this had nothing to do with bigfoot at all (it never does), but simply tried to be an entertaining look at claims with a bit of feigned scrutiny...and as usual bigfoot (or anything that could genuinely indicate such a thing) wasn't there...

Some of the claims from areas where Gigantopithecus certainly did exist and where his evolutionary lineage still has extant members to this day, has possibilities though (yet still unlikely).Though there is no bigfoot in NA, it is simply "pretend" for adults, it's folklore.



edit on 14-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Seriously Barcs, have a look at the pic from this below. Going only by such a limited look, someone claiming no logical explanation for trees falling here (regardless of possible strange pattern), is simply not being genuine. No "cut marks" or indications human activity? Really? (not that it would necessarily need this for explanation anyway) Have a look at the stump.....for starters.




edit on 14-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   
The video is 100% fake, that costume is so lame.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Clonevandal
The video is 100% fake, that costume is so lame.


Ok. Lets see you reproduce it.

What a ridiculous comment. If it's fake, it's a very well done fake. You can reply to this when you've constructed a blinking animatronic sasquatch of your own.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   

edit on 8/15/2014 by EyesOpenMouthShut because: Retracted pending further review



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Seriously Barcs, have a look at the pic from this below. Going only by such a limited look, someone claiming no logical explanation for trees falling here (regardless of possible strange pattern), is simply not being genuine. No "cut marks" or indications human activity? Really? (not that it would necessarily need this for explanation anyway) Have a look at the stump.....for starters.





The point was that it couldn't happen naturally, meaning the trees didn't just fall into place. They didn't say there was no logical explanation. They said that humans constructing it, was pretty much the only explanation, and it would have been difficult. Les says this numerous times in the show. They never once discount the possibility of humans doing it.

Also, how do you know for sure that the stump is the same age as the trees in the structure? I'm looking at it right now from every angle and none of the trees have a clean cut off point to match that stump. Each tree is either rotting more or has a broken off look to it. I'm certainly not saying it's impossible or that it's evidence for big foot, but it seems a bit hasty to find one single stump that doesn't match any tree on the structure and use it to tarnish Stroud's name.

Plus they said the trees in the structure appeared 50 years old and the road they walked in on is 10 years old. If that's the case, how did they get a chainsaw out there at that point in time to create the structure? In all likelihood that stump is newer than the structure. You can tell just by analyzing how much it has rotted away in comparison with the rest of the structure.



Do those really appear to be the same age? That stump looks much closer in age to the growing tree immediately to the right of it, than to the trees in this structure. It still doesn't discount humans creating it, but it shows they are indeed being objective (at least Stroud is).



Here's another shot of the bottoms of one of the trees in the structure. The stump isn't even remotely close to as decayed as this.

Anyways I'm just trying to be objective here, I'm not saying any of this is evidence for bigfoot, I'm defending Stroud as he doesn't strike me as a bull#er and I've learned quite a bit from him over the years. I think what you're saying about the stump discrediting him is wrong and that Les Stroud was absolutely being objective in his analysis. It's pretty much a given that since that road was built, humans have been going back there and harvesting lumber. You could probably find tons of stumps like that in the area. But 30-50 years ago? I'm not so sure about that. The stump appears to be much more recent than the age of the trees in the structure.

As for your previous post, yes, it's a TV show. Certain things are obviously emphasized for dramatic effect, but I believe Stroud is being genuine. If something like this does exist, it doesn't necessarily mean that every single legend ever made and every single claim of a bigfoot sighting is automatically true. Keep that in mind as well.
edit on 15-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   
People keep throwing around the word animatronic like it had to be some $30,000 robot. A guy at comic-con made an Iron Man helmet for a couple hundred and he could make it move mechanically. If you happened to have your income rely on making a hairy moving mask, you would put hours of work into it and make it. It doesnt have to be robotic.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   

edit on 15-8-2014 by Ridhya because: Double post somehow



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
This has nothing to do with Les Stroud, aside from the fact it was aired on the show he is doing about bigfoot. Todd Standing captured this a while back, and it has received a lot of scrutiny since then. Personally I believe it is a fake, and not even a good one at that. I've had the opportunity to witness one of these animals, and it looked nothing like that. Standing has other videos similar to this one that are also obviously fake, at least in my opinion. There is virtually no movement at all, which is the first red flag. The animal doesn't even blink, twitch a facial muscle, nothing. The only video that "might" be real that he released is the bigfoot standing up from behind a rock, but there is not enough detail to be definitive.

Personally I dismiss anything the guy does because it is highly suspect. Many of us in the bigfoot research community were extremely disappointed when we heard that Les Stroud was associating himself with Todd Standing, because we knew the reputation he has within the community. To Les' credit though he admitted the possibility that Standing could be a fraud or could be legitimate. The two go out there and they really didn't find anything definitive. They found some tree branch structures and maybe some footprints, but this is not definitive. Standing probably didn't hoax the footprints, but he could have made the tree structures years before, as we know he was at that exact location...It was supposedly where he had an encounter.

Even hoaxers can have a legitimate sighting, or come across other types of legitimate evidence, but it is always hard to take them seriously. To my knowledge there hasn't been any definitive proof that he is a hoaxer, but it is widely speculated that his videos and still images depict something that is not a bigfoot. But again I want to reiterate that Les Stroud had nothing to do with the above images.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

I agree. I think the reason they teamed Standing up with Stroud was for dramatic effect. He's the last person I'd really want doing this. I think this was the show's decision rather than Stroud's. I think that Stroud approached it all in the right way. He was skeptical but gave Standing the benefit of the doubt to see if there was anything to his claims. Even at the end of Stroud's series he says more research needs to be done to find a conclusion. Again, I'd like to see Stroud go out there alone and see if he has similar experiences. Standing could have had a team out there to fool Les, and he could have built the structures decades ago, but who knows really?



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

That is no les stroud's footage.

This guy name Todd something came out with these videos (animatronic bigfoot masks imo - they don't move like an animal would) and he claimed they were real.

So Les never one to turn down and adventure did a few shows (and is still doing them i believe) where he goes out in the the Canadian wilderness, where this Todd guy shot the video and claims to have run into bigfoot and even been attacked by groups of them, to see what he can find.

He is remaining skeptical. But not, that is not survivorman footage.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join