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

a reply to: Baddogma

And my autonomic nervous system told me that clip was of a biological creature... and no cgi, make up or animatronics has done that to me before... ever.

Personally, I'm filing this under "maybe"... but sure do lean towards "yes."

I am trying to withhold judgment just because I don't want to be "that guy" ALL the time, but I am struggling. I like Less Stroud and the show was entertaining. I think there are enough legitimate points about why we should question Standing though. Is it possible he faked this? Yes. I watched both episodes very intently. What struck me was the lack of anything other than Standings "suggestions". Did you hear that? No, not really.

And I remember trying to scare a raccoon away and sounding just like Standing in that clip. The thing just stared at me as I jumped up and down with a broom stick. "ya! Get outta here". heh.

originally posted by: FlySolo

The back story to this was he was apparently surround by about 5 BF as they strategically darted around him in the darkness. Breaking branches and generally just freaking him the F out.

A couple of questions:
1. Was this the Todd guy by himself or was Les there for that sighting?
2. Why is he freaking out if he went to the woods specifically to find them and has found them several times before.
3. Why didn't he capture anything on video as his whole goal was to find and video them?
4. If he was truly as scared as he sounds why does he continue to go back by himself without proper safety measures such as additional people, guns, cameras, cages, etc?

Smells like a complete hoax money making scheme to me.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Uh huh... as far as Standing making suggestions, etc. Nothing else much impressed me... but...

I just keep going back to that feeling when I saw that clip of the wrinkled, rough, eye-blinking being... despite my logic saying b.s., my primal part recognized it as a biological creature and that was very weird for me... and a first (for the third time). I was in mid battle on some MMO game, glanced up at the TV after Les's big intro to the clip and froze... mesmerized, astounded and uncomfortable that I felt that way.

And, to be even more redundant, why the heck is this Standing guy hoofing around the bush when he could blow away the best Hollywood make-up artists and live a life few of us can only dream of?

I know all the reasons why it shouldn't be real... and agree with most of them... but... but...

a reply to: Baddogma

It's hard to argue with someone's gut feeling and I really don't have much interest in disproving it or screaming hoax. Anyway, I did this for fun tonight. Yeah, I know. To me the facial features look too human. white anglo saxon protestant human at that!

Why is everyone saying this Les guy is credible? Open your eyes. You don't have to be expert to spell "bull#" . He's a grifter with too much time on his hands. This "footage" is beyond laughable.

originally posted by: kazanoom
Why is everyone saying this Les guy is credible? Open your eyes. You don't have to be expert to spell "bull#" . He's a grifter with too much time on his hands. This "footage" is beyond laughable.

+1.
He's simply cashing in. The "survivor man bigfoot" was just the same old broken trees, sticks, bush noises = ew scawy could be bigfoot. Aka bulls#. Has to generate some interest and fill in the time somehow (as bigfoot doesn't physically exist) so he relies on Standing, whose stuff looks about as genuine as a $3 note.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I'm gonna go with Lee Majors. BF is actually Steve Austin

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

As far as the video thing being a human, of some sort, yeah, I'd agree... that's part of the weirdness... sorry to Chewie, but I knew he was a tall dude in a suit.... and Caesar looked cgi... I went with it for entertainment purpose.

Sorry to only have a gut reaction... it is embarrassing, but it is what it is.

Skoal, sir.

ETA oh, and get real... you LOVE being "that guy"... heh. I don't mind you being "him" btw. Grounding is a good thing.

Have you considered that the blinking looks fake because the video is slowmotion? My guess would be that Standing is dwearing his ghilli suit hiddin on the ground or in some bush. He is probably filming with very high zoom.

a reply to: Baddogma

oh, and get real... you LOVE being "that guy"...

your damn right I do.

a reply to: hesse

Have you considered that the blinking looks fake because the video is slowmotion?

no but I considered that the blink looks contrived. Like all of this discussion over a blink. Why? Because there is nothing else! Obviously there is more footage.

a reply to: FlySolo

This video from his channel is even more interesting! Look how FAST it goes up that steep slope!!!

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: FlySolo

The footage itself appears to be from Todd Standing and wasn't actually filmed by Les Stroud. Standing has received a lot of criticism in the past for similar videos. I remember he was sitting on them for something like 2 years and would only release screen captures. This was apparently because he was trying to make money off of his footage (which is a big red flag).

I haven't seen this particular clip however, and I have to admit it's quite interesting. It could very well be faked, but it's a well done fake. The blinking squatch is a nice touch.

Unfortunately, although I would love to see smoking gun evidence of bigfoot, I do not believe that this is it, and I remain skeptical.

And there's the rub.

No footage? People claim it didn't happen.

Blurry footage? People claim it's fake, and that anyone can get a clear picture/video.

Good footage? People claim it's "too good" to be real.

No pleasing people, is there?

As for the money, believe you me, if I ever got good video of Bigfoot, you'd better believe someone is PAYING for it. They want it on a show? Fine, at a cost. That's be one heck of a discovery, and why not make a few bucks from it? That isn't an automatic sign of "fake" as far as I am concerned. Plus, check out the video I posted above. Fast-moving, but very intriguing! I saw only a small portion of that episode, but Les looked pretty worried.

originally posted by: MrSmith
Wait a second, look at it a couple more times people. Watch its lips and nose area in relation to the broken off branch thats in front of the apes face, after the blink, maybe 1-2 seconds later the apes head moves up and to the right to the viewer, as if its leaning back or changing posture ever so slightly, Im thinking maybe taking a breath and filling it lungs. Ive watched it at least 20 times and feel its not the movement of the camera Im talking about, its a movement within the torso of the ape, as I said I suspect the filling of the lungs and puffing of the chest ever so slightly.

Yes! Nice to see someone else caught that as well! There is movement. It's slight, because it's trying to remain "hidden", but it's there. Plus, something about the eyes seems real to me. Even the best fakes have a certain look. These; something is alive there, in my opinion.

originally posted by: Xterrain
I love how so many people who are unaware of Todd Standings approach to finding these creatures eludes everyone. You'd be AMAZED if this was a hoax because this guy would have to have a secret TEAM of assistants and a FX budget exceeding his own household income.

i agree. The cost of an animatronic head alone would be ridiculous for the average person. Bending the trees as they were would seem to be highly difficult for people as well.

originally posted by: Xterrain
Todd Standing goes out completely alone for weeks in the wilderness of Alberta, Canada and he has footage of multiple subjects in multiple instances. You should watch the one of him flipping the EFF out when he felt scared. Beyond this all, there's DNA evidence from multiple sources that's been peer reviewed, all proving that a male primate of unknown origin mated with a human woman some 60,000-100,000 years ago.

Indeed there is! Some old stories about something/someone interbreeding with human females, too.....

originally posted by: Xterrain
If this seems far fetched to you, then you need to listen to what Danny Vendramini's studies have found and stop being so anthropomorphic with regards to what "Sasquatch" actually looks like:

Interesting, but I started having issues when he acted as though the eyes for Neanderthals were way up on their foreheads. That isn't what we see in the skulls at all. His Clooney demonstration was lame, IMO. At that point, I lost interest. Plus, when it's known that modern people have Neanderthal DNA, it's clear they were (are?) a lot more human than he's comfortable with. I consider them another race. Makes the most sense, based on all the evidence over the years.

The Bigfoot DNA stuff, now.....that's something weirder, and creepier.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The cost of an animatronic head alone would be ridiculous for the average person.

Why would it need to be animatronics???

The Bigfoot DNA stuff, now.....that's something weirder, and creepier.

Do you have any links to papers or where an unbiased scientist (ie. not an associate of Ketchum for instance), preferably one associated with a University, has submitted and is willing to stake their reputation on such?

As to Ketchum's claims, she withdrew her paper rather than go through review (it wasn't rejected) and bought a journal to publish it in (it is the ony paper to appear in this publication). As to the paper itself...

Dr. Haskal Hart (Ph.D Chemistry) was initially supportive, but after months of reviewing her paper closely with none other than Ketchum herself.....conclusion - its nonsense, she found no genome and is severely deluded. He even submitted a paper about it to Ketchums "De Novo" journal...without response.

bigfootevidence.blogspot.com.au...

Dr. John Timmer (Biochemist with a Ph.D in Molecular and Cell Biology) also sought clarification where necessary (from Ketchum herself) in his review, which is rather a sympathetic and kind review really. His conclusion - it's nonsense, there is no genome of anything, it's a botched study and a good example of extreme confirmation bias.

arstechnica.com...

Here's a group of young scientists speaking with Dr. David Winter (Ph.D Evolutionary Genetics/Biology, who does have experience in genome sequencing) about Ketchum's paper. Amongst the laughter at times, he explains quite well why it is nonsense. It prompted one of them to wonder if there is a giant Panda type creature made up of dirt, dog and cat droppings with the hair of opossum and racoon holding it all together somehow wandering the forests of NA, uncatalogued of course lol.

www.youtube.com...

There is something seriously wrong in the academic community in a certain part of the world. This is very reminiscent of creation science.

Are there any others?

double post.

I would agree with above quote, though perhaps not about the type of creature he is obviously inferring.


It's interesting to note that the "bigfoot professor" who now finds this compelling (and makes all sorts of bogus claims about the PGF), also found the one below (hoax) quite compelling, with such fluid and graceful movements etc...Gotta wonder if there is anything he wouldn't accept as a bigfoot ?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

you're right about that. the Bigfoot DNA stuff is very interesting, regardless of all the smear. You can actually read about the progress of the study directly here, as opposed to hearing peoples second and third hand opinions on the matter. These are the same types of minds who in previous times refused to accept that the earth was round.




Sasquatch Genome Project

It has been a long and tedious battle to prove that Sasquatch exists. We have had the proof for nearly 5 years but building enough data to convince mainstream science has taken a lot of time. Trying to publish has taken almost two years. It seems mainstream science just can’t seem to tolerate something controversial, especially from a group of primarily forensic scientists and not “famous academians” aligned with large universities, even though most of our sequencing and analysis was performed at just such facilities. We encountered the worst scientific bias in the peer review process in recent history. I am calling it the “Galileo Effect”. Several journals wouldn’t even read our manuscript when we sent them a pre-submission inquiry. Another one leaked our peer reviews. We were even mocked by one reviewer in his peer review. Rather than spend another five years just trying to find a journal to publish and hoping that decent, open minded reviewers would be chosen, we published here. Denovo, the new journal is aimed at offering not only more choices and better service to scientists wanting to submit a manuscript, but also reviewers and editors that will be fair, unlike the treatment we have received. We furthermore have adhered to all of the standards set here in the link below, especially since the entire review and agreement to publish was done at the previous journal: publicationethics.org...

I watched the special & I didn't think Les was pushing for anyone to believe in bigfoot one way or the other. I felt like the people he was with seemed to be pushing the belief & probably had a financial incentive to do so.
I didn't really buy any of it but found it entertaining. Especially the "boo boo" part - I had to pause the recording because I & my kids were laughing so hard after I made some comment about bigfoot needing picnic baskets.

Les Strouds' son is just finishing up a round of chemo for cancer, so he maybe could use the money this might have generated, but I'd still give him the benefit of the doubt as being a genuine person.

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

you're right about that. the Bigfoot DNA stuff is very interesting, regardless of all the smear. You can actually read about the progress of the study directly here, as opposed to hearing peoples second and third hand opinions on the matter. These are the same types of minds who in previous times refused to accept that the earth was round.

Prof. Sykes (and just about every real scientist who has ever looked at it) has now openly discredited the Ketchum claims. He has sited it in his own paper (that was peer reviewed and published in a mainstream scientific journal) as being unscientific, basically nonsense. So perhaps one of the world's leading geneticists and the scientific community en masse still think the world is flat? Such logical fallacies won't make the boogyman real.

Once again, every time bigfoot claims meet real science, they find everything else but bigfoot.

Why some people claim to see bigfoot isn't understood, as yet. The current research into bigfoot is well understood (a mixture of commercial opportunism and fantasy based pseudo science), it has become a somewhat fanatical quasi religion.

The shame is that it not only could have been a valid field of study (it's too far gone now), but that there are objective scientists who could well have studied similar claims (such as Orang pendek) that do have the possibility of being more than a sociological/ cultural myth type of phenomena. They are unlikely to now, however, as the bigfoot craze has spoiled the well somewhat.

It will probably take a real bigfoot itself that science can physically study now, before science will be bothered with the subject. When you get one of those be sure to let science know about it. Even then it might take verification from scientists who are not from the US, to be believable.