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

I think its Todd Standing in make up...


Check out the video HERE its interesting

originally posted by: Barcs

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.

No Barcs. The point is that he claims to personally not understand how it could happen naturally and also claims that humans are very unlikely to have done it. While that is probably true(that he doesn't understand it) the inference that he is some sort of expert (very doubtful) and therefore can't be explained is nonsense. That Stroud reaches a personal false dichotomy of either "no explanation/ mythical creature" means nothing much.

It also doesn't mean his opinion is actually valid. He is simply entertaining (in more ways than one) the bigfoot idea based on his own limited knowledge and personal ignorance of what he is looking at...without any logical reason at all to even be thinking bigfoot exists. Other people could well be far more knowledgeable and give easy explanation. This is folklore, very similar logic to creation science where claims are not only strengthened by, but usually rely on ignorance (bigfoot of the gaps lol).

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

It was to point out there is obvious signs of human activity, that seems downplayed during the apparaisal. That Stroud has a good name with you or anyone else is irrelevant and yes this seems to need a lot of faith to believe he is really being objective. I have no interest in survivalist stuff and so offer no comment on anything else.

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?

Well, it must be right if they "said so"...

Labor this all you like but we already know trees exist and this is somewhat besides the point. That being, the obvious human impacts on this immediate environment were played down at best. Wonder why? We also know hundreds of millions of people exist in NA and that trees can be cut or can fall and even be placed by them in some very strange ways (regardless whether Standing or Stroud know that). So far we know of exactly 0 bigfoots. Surely we can conclude from this that we needn't look for real explanations, we just stick with the possibility that bigfoot made it lol. Let's give Giganto the "benefit of the doubt"!

Could be a few steps of research and logic (not to mention common sense) that are being overlooked here.....

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.

No, you can say that as a guess. So what if it is? A more intellectually honest appraisal might be to get people knowledgeable both in the area historically and/or with what they are looking at, to give a more qualified opinion on these type of claims.

In the end who cares unless bigfoot Karate chopped it off cleanly while he was there?

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).

Utter bs.

If they were being objective and displayed any sort of intellectual integrity they would say they personally don't know what caused it (doesn't mean other people won't). It means no more than that.

If they were interested, they could have set about finding out. They weren't because that could've ruined the bigfoot idea.

Instead they simplistically discount the only real possibilities instantly to leave open the possibility that imaginary monsters did it. Nothing logical or objective in that. Fairies, leprechauns, reptilian aliens could all be implied the same way, to the same extent.

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.

The stump discrediting him .....lol? If it was only that.....lol. This is no different to most of the amateur research (though not all) floating around you tube based on logical fallacies and over active imaginations.

That's a shame because the subject is worthy of more that that (regardless of whether bigfoot is real or not). This one seems simply borne of commercial opportunism and a chance to reach a wider fan base. Nothing terribly wrong with that either, in fact it implies strongly what the modern notion of bigfoot is and has always been. A campfire story, a bit of fun, folklore. For this reason I don't know why people get so upset with the likes of Standing or Dyer and his "Hank". None of the rest of it is any more convincing.

If there is a real bigfoot, it isn't the mythical creature of modern pop culture. The possibility of bigfoot existing and popular bigfoot research are basically completely different subjects. One is an extremely remote possibility, the other is folklore (as Standing/Stroud clearly demonstrate).

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.

He could well be genuine. That in itself adds no weight to anything he says and only means that, survivalist or not, he probably isn't the best person to rely on regarding bigfoot claims. Especially when his popularity with a certain audience will rely on him being sympathetic to such a creature's supposed existence.

If something like this does exist, you would expect at least one single solitary claim to be verified at some stage. That is yet to happen.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

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.

The video isn't fake, the creature it purports to demonstrate is.

We don't start with the assumption that obviously contrived and fake looking videos of non existent creatures are real in lieu of such demands. That's what bigfoot enthusiasts do and why it is psuedo science based on folklore

The correct way to go would be... let's see you produce a bigfoot to validate it.

Someone posted software awhile back that showed subtle movements or temperature variations in videos. Wonder how this would stand up to that.

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
I've had the opportunity to witness one of these animals, and it looked nothing like that.

Hi Jiggy.

I am not doubting you at all here. Though out of curiosity, have you given any thought to other explanation, apart from the "uncatalogued species of real apes running around NA" idea (and basically every other continent except Antarctica)?

No, I'm not implying insanity or anything of that type either. In fact, I see no reason to doubt you, only the conclusion itself.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
No Barcs. The point is that he claims to personally not understand how it could happen naturally and also claims that humans are very unlikely to have done it. While that is probably true(that he doesn't understand it) the inference that he is some sort of expert (very doubtful) and therefore can't be explained is nonsense. That Stroud reaches a personal false dichotomy of either "no explanation/ mythical creature" means nothing much.

It also doesn't mean his opinion is actually valid. He is simply entertaining (in more ways than one) the bigfoot idea based on his own limited knowledge and personal ignorance of what he is looking at...without any logical reason at all to even be thinking bigfoot exists. Other people could well be far more knowledgeable and give easy explanation. This is folklore, very similar logic to creation science where claims are not only strengthened by, but usually rely on ignorance (bigfoot of the gaps lol).

Which part of the documentary series are you referring to? He didn't say it can't be explained. He said that either it's created by humans OR it defies explanation. He said that it can't be explained NATURALLY (without human intervention). Do you have an explanation aside from humans building it? The show is about bigfoot, of course he's going to give it the benefit of the doubt when actively looking for it. If he constantly told Standing he was full of crap, the show would have been pointless.

It was to point out there is obvious signs of human activity, that seems downplayed during the apparaisal. That Stroud has a good name with you or anyone else is irrelevant and yes this seems to need a lot of faith to believe he is really being objective. I have no interest in survivalist stuff and so offer no comment on anything else.

No, it was not downplayed. He was talking about the structure itself, which did not have any flat ends indicating a chain saw cut. He didn't say there was no sign of human activity in the area at all. Obviously there was a road built there, so human activity is a no brainer. A stump in the area that's likely 20+ years newer than the structure is irrelevant, and anybody truly being objective could tell that easily.

No, you can say that as a guess. So what if it is? A more intellectually honest appraisal might be to get people knowledgeable both in the area historically and/or with what they are looking at, to give a more qualified opinion on these type of claims.

So you think the stump is the same age of the structure still? I honestly don't think it's even close, but again, it's Survivorman. The whole point of the show is not have a large amount of people there with him. He does his best work alone. Why would they bring in another expert just to confirm the obvious, that the stump is newer than the structure?

In the end who cares unless bigfoot Karate chopped it off cleanly while he was there?

Well humans also use axes, and in fact it seems likely that the structure was made exclusive using an axe, while the nearby tree was chopped down with a chainsaw more recently.

If they were being objective and displayed any sort of intellectual integrity they would say they personally don't know what caused it (doesn't mean other people won't). It means no more than that.

They DID say that! Again, I'll ask you. Do you have another explanation for the structure that doesn't include humans? Is there one? Because in the show Les Stroud clearly said that it's either humans or something unknown. If you have a natural explanation for an upside down tree wedged into a structure, I'd love to hear it. You keep mentioning that they discount the idea that humans made it, but they didn't do it once.

The stump discrediting him .....lol? If it was only that.....lol. This is no different to most of the amateur research (though not all) floating around you tube based on logical fallacies and over active imaginations.

Except for the fact that Stroud has been surviving in the wilderness for decades, Including spending an entire year near that very area. Les is an expert, and you have no means whatsoever to discredit him. A stump that is obviously newer than the structure they analyzed doesn't prove anything and he admitted that humans could have done multiple times. I don't see where the dishonesty is. You also seem to forget that they are doing a TV show on bigfoot, and Standing is the one who presented the structures, so to not even mention bigfoot would be utterly stupid on their part.

He could well be genuine. That in itself adds no weight to anything he says and only means that, survivalist or not, he probably isn't the best person to rely on regarding bigfoot claims. Especially when his popularity with a certain audience will rely on him being sympathetic to such a creature's supposed existence.

He is an expert on the wilderness. He knows the area. He knows the sounds that certain animals make in the woods, and knows how to track them. The one thing I hated about this show was that Standing was there. I'd really like to see Stroud go in alone without Standing or anyone else's knowledge of his presence. I thought the show was as objective as it could be. They gave Standing a chance to prove his case, but it didn't happen. Stroud admitted at the end that a few loud noises at night don't prove anything and that more work needed to be done to research this. He also said he won't believe it until he sees it. This show was way better than that "finding bigfoot" series and plenty other of those nonsensical shows that only look for shock value. I thought this one was actually well done, mainly because Stroud was there to ask questions and be skeptical rather than blindly believe Standing's claims. 90% of other bigfoot related shows can't hold a candle to this one.

originally posted by: Barcs
Which part of the documentary series are you referring to? He didn't say it can't be explained. He said that either it's created by humans OR it defies explanation.

So Les has no control over how his show is portrayed? He claims exactly the opposite, that he has complete control over the entirety of everything regarding the survivorman project, including this one (can post a link to that if you really need it).

With that in mind...from the "Science Channel (lol) - Survivorman Bigfoot".....

Now Playing | Bigfoot Built This (Maybe) 03:20
A unique tree structure stands in the middle of the wilderness that only a Bigfoot could have built.

This one is sure to be a favourite for the more objective types. Apples don't stay where you left them in the bush? Amazing!

Now Playing | A Present For Bigfoot 02:22
Apples are placed out as a present for Bigfoot and they're gone 24 hours later.

Sounds legit...Would this promotion be against Les' wishes?

He said he was "challenged to disprove this" regarding Standing's claims about the structure. Leaving open that a mythical monster could have made it. That was the whole point of it, obviously. To pander to bs. Hardly going to alienate his new found audience by being genuine (unless he really is that gullible of course). You can believe otherwise, if you wish.

He said that it can't be explained NATURALLY (without human intervention). Do you have an explanation aside from humans building it? The show is about bigfoot, of course he's going to give it the benefit of the doubt when actively looking for it. If he constantly told Standing he was full of crap, the show would have been pointless.

Yes. Natural forces, critters, humans, machinery... a mixture of any and all of them and possibly other things I haven't though of that don't include bigfoot.

Now your getting it.

No, it was not downplayed.

Yes, it was, in fact it was rather cursory.

He was talking about the structure itself, which did not have any flat ends indicating a chain saw cut. He didn't say there was no sign of human activity in the area at all. Obviously there was a road built there, so human activity is a no brainer. A stump in the area that's likely 20+ years newer than the structure is irrelevant, and anybody truly being objective could tell that easily.

Irelevant to you (and Todd and Les). To someone who is genuinely looking for explanation, possibly far more relevant.

So you think the stump is the same age of the structure still?

I never said that (though it is possible despite what you feel). I realize that I don't know, as I haven't researched it in situ (they don't give an indication where they have done this to any extent either).

What I pointed out were obvious signs of human activity (the stump being one indicator) that appears to undermine his claim of being "challenged to disprove this" as being a genuine one. This was not explained enough (or basically, at all). There was no in depth look or genuine explanation given for this conclusion. Why was he challenged? Why was the stump (and other indicators) irrelevant? Surely not based on his simply ad hoc, "off the top of his head" appraisal? Why wasn't it mentioned at all? Can you show me where the in depth study was? Arguing your own assumptions of why I pointed it out, is arguing a strawman.

Out of curiosity, do you really believe that a stump and the tree that was felled from it have to decay at the same rate? No other factors to consider there? Really?

Why would they bring in another expert just to confirm the obvious, that the stump is newer than the structure?

Bring an expert you mean (singular), rather than a couple of amateur self proclaimed experts? To look over the area and give the whole thing a proper inspection? Such as people who know about soil constituents and how it relates to botany and pestilence, further how it relates to wildlife and understands effects re weather patterns, understands the decay rate of trees in the area and so on. Someone who might have actually bothered to try counting the age of the stump(s) or the sticks/trees themselves, looked for the documentation of when work was done in the area? Whether other bigfoot hunters or game hunters frequent there and so on and so forth? That type of thing?

Nah, surely that's the last thing we need if we are giving "Gigantopithecus the benefit of the doubt".

They DID say that!

Nonsense. Standing claims it's from bigfoot. Stroud pretends to be challenged enough to humour him. That's simply pandering to someone's fantasy.

a reply to: Barcs

Again, I'll ask you. Do you have another explanation for the structure that doesn't include humans?

Possibly. Already give opinion, though difficult without genuine inspection.

It doesn't matter anyway, what I can offer you with a 100% guarantee is this...it wasn't bigfoot.

Is there one? Because in the show Les Stroud clearly said that it's either humans or something unknown.

with the emphasis on "unknown" to imply bigfoot, whether you noticed it or not......Les doesn't go to much effort to give genuine reasons for anything he says. He just seems to make claims off the top of his head, expecting the "surviver man" thing gives it credibility. It doesn't. If you are going with the "he didn't explicitly say or infer it could have been bigfoot" then I doubt you are being genuine also. He was pandering. I don't care what he says, as much as what he bases it on. His efforts appeared quite cursory at best, always the best way to pander to a bigfoot audience.

If you have a natural explanation for an upside down tree wedged into a structure, I'd love to hear it. You keep mentioning that they discount the idea that humans made it, but they didn't do it once.

For anyone that has felled timber (apart from these two, obviously), that might be one of the easier ones to explain.

Except for the fact that Stroud has been surviving in the wilderness for decades, Including spending an entire year near that very area. Les is an expert, and you have no means whatsoever to discredit him. A stump that is obviously newer than the structure they analyzed doesn't prove anything and he admitted that humans could have done multiple times. I don't see where the dishonesty is. You also seem to forget that they are doing a TV show on bigfoot, and Standing is the one who presented the structures, so to not even mention bigfoot would be utterly stupid on their part.

He discredits himself through his lack of objectivity, lack of effort and liberal use of fallacies.

This is no different to being "challenged" to explain how someone got strange lumps, so obviously we need to play along with the claim that they were taken by aliens. Alien implants...not saying it is...but.... To being "challenged" to explain how biology started, could be god. Let's take that seriously. The old...not saying it is, but......

About as objective and realistic as "Survivor Man North Pole- The Search for Santa".

He is an expert on the wilderness. He knows the area. He knows the sounds that certain animals make in the woods, and knows how to track them.

That's debatable. He looks like more of a "self proclaimed expert", which can be a very different thing to a real one. Wonder why he didn't track bigfoot?

He is also either quite gullible and credulous, or cashing in. That's less debatable IMO.

90% of other bigfoot related shows can't hold a candle to this one.

No different at all to "(Not) Finding Bigfoot", "Ghosthunters" etc. In fact, exactly the same bs.

He quite clearly demonstrated the following...
Trees exist.
Noises exist.
Ground impressions exist.
Apples can disappear if you leave them in the bush (lol).
Wildly unsupported claims exist.

...and there is commercial opportunities to be found in exploiting all of the aforementioned.

Whether his survivalist stuff is any good, I don't doubt that and I'll leave that up to those who watch it. Though this one was utter nonsense.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Thank you for saying all that! Pretty much my thoughts almost verbatim!
I made some posts in other threads about this.. To late now to dig them up.. Posting here so I can recall and post them 2marrow. Star for you Cogito! Reasonable and logical.

a reply to: zysin5

Thanks zysin5.

I sometimes wonder if am being too critical. It's nice to know that others feel a similar way.

It is understandable that amateur naturalists will make mistakes, survivalists or not. It really wasn't well done IMO and the motives for doing it at all, in view of this, seem iffy. Could be wrong, it certainly could have used some more qualified guidance if it wanted to portray itself as anything other than promoting folklore.

originally posted by: zysin5
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Thank you for saying all that! Pretty much my thoughts almost verbatim!
I made some posts in other threads about this.. To late now to dig them up.. Posting here so I can recall and post them 2marrow. Star for you Cogito! Reasonable and logical.

I agree with some of what he's saying, and am a big fan of his posts on evolution and science in general... But I can tell he's also quite biased against anybody that brings this topic up, to the point where he has grasped at straws to discredit Les Stroud. Bringing up the stump is a clear attempt at this, because there is no way to verify that the stump is the same age as the structure, and without knowing that for sure, it becomes a giant assumption. I'll be back later tonight to try to address in detail. Les may not be a scientist but he's far from an amateur.

Thanks guys! As promised.. here is everything I have written on ATS about this subject.

First one source.
This video serves to discredit some of the experts out here.
expert Jane Goodall says she is ‘fascinated’ by Bigfoot
Les Stroud is a good person to find the truth, however with all of his knowledge of the wilderness, he seems to lack the sense of the online world, and the lengths some folks will go to make a hoax.
Stroud claims, "why would someone spend 10 years just to make a hoax?"
Sadly there are many folks who would spend a LIFE time to make the perfect hoax. Les knows what he is talking about when it comes to living off the land, and the ways of the world. However he is slightly naive to the online world which he is not an expert on. I do not claim to be an online expert. But I do know people will go to GREAT lengths to make a hoax. Sadly.
Do I think bigfoot is real? I will say this. " It is possible."

So we come down to this. It is either Real. Or its a hoax. This is either proof, or it is a hoax.

This video here, I can not put my "faith" into this video here. For the reason that is just does not feel to me to be the real deal. But that is my personal "feeling".

If anyone will find Big Foot, it will be Les. And if he comes up empty handed, and is true to his word and fans, then he will tell the truth. And will not make something up for just ratings. I can hope anyway.

The sounds of rocks clanging, very well could be rocks falling lose, going down the cliff side.
The woops, could be Todd's minions out in the forest helping the hoax along.

There are to many people who WILL absolutely take great strides to make a hoax.
Some of the best hoaxes can lead to jobs elsewhere in the world.
A good hoax that is able to trick mass amounts of people are worthy to the right people who make it their lives work to keep up the greatest Hoax of them all. The Hoax of life. Take it for what its worth, and try not to read to deeply into that.
I am on the fence on Big foot.
The video in this thread. Well, it is what it is. And it will be real to some, and a hoax to others.
That my friends, is part of the bigger picture here. How far can they take it. How long before the hoax becomes something real. Then we must redefine what "real" is.


2nd one source
As its better to remain inconclusive rather than to show more fuzzy, can't make heads or tails of what you are seeing.
The videos Todd offers are just to good to be true.

The full face videos that Todd has of these "bigfoot" could very well be puppets. I am most likely willing to bet they where puppets. What say you Blue Shift?

Survivorman has no camera crew, this is in fact one of the main reason why I give so much credit to Les.
Its true. He is out there, just him, and his camera gear.

3rd one source
Now I am thinking. Maybe Les carries an extra energy bar in his pocket to balance out all that camera work. But over all. He is very creditable. And the show itself has taught me so much. Even if he has a hidden energy bar packed away, that would not dis credit him in my eyes.
But its important for those who have not seen the show. Know.. Its just Les.
I think 1 time he did one where he had his friend take part with him.
And the new one with his son.

I have a lot of respect for Les Stroud. And that is one of the reasons why I will give him the benefit of my doubts here.
Les Stroud is one of the few people I would give any credit too for all of his work on survivor man series on TV.
Time will only tell at this point. He is one of the few men on this Earth who is very well equipped mentally and physically to find Big Foot.
However, if he finds nothing, I will have more respect for coming up empty. Over coming up with just another blurred worthless video, or one that could clearly be a puppet.

I expect only the best from Les. Or nothing at all. Les is an honest man, and I do not feel he will steer us wrong.
I can only hope. As my personal feelings may be affecting my judgment on all this due to my respect for the man.
Its a little thing known as presence and Charisma. Les has both of these qualities. And people in general will believe a total lie from someone with enough charisma and presence. Its just how we are wired.

I remain skeptical until further notice. But I have faith in Les.
Yet I am slightly concerned why he would pick Todd. A proven hoaxer, and someone I do not find to be creditable.
As Les said however, Todd could have dedicated his life to hoaxing. Or there is something too all this.
Maybe Les will uncover the hoax and expose the hoax. Or expose himself as another "hollywood" ratings seeker.

I really really hope Les does the right thing. If he finds nothing. Then say there was nothing.
While it might be boring to watch nothing happen. Id prefer the truth over some fabricated blurry video, or puppet.

Do the right thing Les. As Les is one of the last bastions of hope I have for man kind in that sense.

Running out of room.. will con. in next post. Lots of stuff I have written on this topic.

4th one source
I have a lot of respect for Les Stroud. And that is one of the reasons why I will give him the benefit of my doubts here.
Les Stroud is one of the few people I would give any credit too for all of his work on survivor man series on TV.

I was slightly weary about him getting into the whole BF research. After listening to his reasons, and how he is skeptical about slightly put my mind at ease.
I just have one issue with his story. In Alaska he said he heard something. A primate type of noise. When he went for his camera, that is when he said it bolted. Did he see anything? Or just simply hear it.
I am confused about this, as he suggests he saw something moving away from him.
He also suggested something about a large humanoid shaking trees. A slight change in his story.
But that could be on my end.
As I will remain a skeptic on BF, until further evidence comes forward.

I really like Les Stroud, and he has my up most respect. I would be highly disappointed and disillusioned if I where to find out he would be part of a hoax. Or doing it for ratings for TV show.
Deep down I feel Les Stroud is better than that, and he is the guy for the job to find BF.

I however do not give the benefit of the doubt to Todd, a known hoaxer. So I am slightly torn here.

I suppose only time will tell.
But its important to note Les Stroud comes across as an honest, logical thinking man. Who in my heart has no intentions on fabricating a yarn.
I think he would like to see a BF with his own eyes. Like up close, or try to communicate.

I just don't know.... I will have to keep an eye on these threads. And hope that if nothing turns up, then nothing turns up. Over having something show up, but only to be fake or hoaxed.
Les Stroud to me, is better than that. But that is my personal feeling. And perhaps my personal feelings might be clouding my judgement. As I am about 14-20% on the fence about Bigfoot.
There could be, and what is there to lose?
As long as the show does not turn into one of those paranormal type shows, I will give it a chance. But I feel or see the same patterns they use in paranormal reality shows. I will be very disappointed.


And there we have it.. All my thoughts on the subject. Concerning BF and Les.
Thanks for reading..
And your replies!

I would like to add.. Why did they not put a camera on those apples? I mean come on. They said look they took them, but failed to set up a camera.. Very fishy to me.
If Les is making this up for ratings.. Then he lost my respect. But he was being very skeptical about this, but also being very naive at the same time.
He needs to get out there alone, and solo it. Then I might be more willing to believe the yarns they are spinning.

It looks too fake to be fake.......
Or fake enough to be real ????

originally posted by: Barcs

I agree with some of what he's saying, and am a big fan of his posts on evolution and science in general... But I can tell he's also quite biased against anybody that brings this topic up, to the point where he has grasped at straws to discredit Les Stroud. Bringing up the stump is a clear attempt at this, because there is no way to verify that the stump is the same age as the structure, and without knowing that for sure, it becomes a giant assumption.

Yet I never claimed the stump was the same age and this is a continuation of a strawman (where you misrepresent a claim and argue against that). I do claim there are ways to give a reasonable opinion of where some of those trees originated from, such as any stumps in the area (like the one you seem to take exception to, which was obviously cut off by humans), possibly helping greatly with explanation of the whole thing.

Depending on species and indeed if the trees/stumps are same species (yes some stumps can live a lot longer and even weather very differently to the tree that has been felled from it), it might be possible to either match them to any particular stump (you know things like "concentric rings"?) including ones obviously cut down, or genuinely rule this out. It doesn't need off the top of the head assumptions to support already dubious claims. It needs at least some attempt at scrutiny.

If it doesn't work out, at least it was an attempt. If you are unsure, an opinion of someone who is trained in such things can be helpful. Yes, real experts could also give a reasonable estimation as to the age of the structures and re the age of any stumps and indeed the probability of their origin. As it was, a group of "boy scouts" could have done better than this. Why would expecting at least some effort to provide something substantial, rather than relying solely on a self proclaimed expert's opinion, be grasping at straws?

If it is a central point to bigfoot claims and your not prepared to look for genuine explanations, why bother with it?

When you finish with "the stump" perhaps you can explain where I have gone so horribly wrong re the following points.

Was there attempt to contact the "trappers"? Firstly to verify that they actually exist. Then to verify and consider their story and take it into account in the field, if necessary. This could have proved enlightening, but we wouldn't want to risk spoiling a good anecdote.

Was there any checking documentation of when the road was actually made to verify that it was the age claimed. When it was surveyed, whether there was a track beforehand etc. Easy enough to do, but we just accept claims..?

A paltry effort to understand the tree structures. Some attempt to understand might have been nice. So what if survivor man would have had difficulty building it, there was never the impression he did and any inference that it must be mysterious because survivorman couldn't build it, or doesn't understand it, is ridiculous.

The "apples" in both the context and with the efforts given, should be rightly considered, even for those languishing in the far southern regions of the Stanford Binet Scale, as an insult to the intelligence.

The "sleep out" noises with zero effort to find what they actually emanated from. Isn't this something completely basic? Who cares what he can understand, or otherwise? What they do to actually find out is more relevant, this was non existent. It requires a little (an awful lot actually) more effort than was provided. Nah, rest easy, survivor man has heard some noises he doesn't understand so bigfoot could still be real. So what...?

If you can really show why this requires a biased pov, I'll consider it.

The notion that Standing's vids can't be mistaken for anything else and so is a good subject, while true in that respect, is also misleading. This never implies some sort of either/or scenario as if it could be a 50/50 proposition, which should be made clearer. Using everything we know about the world thus far, the faunal assemblage of NA, the fossil record, every genuine evidence based observation made ever made over the centuries...makes this quite an unlikely claim in itself. Requiring something substantial to support it.

Then if we take the fact that any similar claim, when it has reached a conclusion, has always been 100% in the negative regarding bigfoot...and also consider the level of nonsense that does go on in this field...it actually makes such claims deserving of an awful lot of genuine scrutiny (none of which was really provided).

I have the feeling that you take offence simply because you are a fan the one providing what is being critiqued. It is possible to patiently study all of these things and find real explanations. Firstly, you have to want to and be prepared to do this.

So I don't care too much what "survivor man" or anyone else can, or cannot, understand. I care more about what efforts they go to, to find explanations for what they don't understand.

It is obvious Les has no scientific training, agree there. Though even without this, the subject is deserving of better than what was given, which was simply another low brow form of bigfoot styled entertainment where he gives his own anecdotes regarding other unlikely claims.

It would be good to find explanation for why people have (historically) and continue to encounter bigfoot type creatures (on at least several different continents). I do believe some of them (certainly not all) are being honest, not so much with the explanations/beliefs provided so far.

If it is ever going to be seen as a genuine study and more than folklore, it doesn't need this.

Standing bigfoot version 1.


Standing bigfoot version 2.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I appreciate your detailed response. Just to clear things up, I'm not defending Standing, or saying that bigfoot or Gigantipithicus exists. I am defending the credibility of Les Stroud. I believe he is being as objective as he can be in his investigation, while still trying to make things exciting.

With that in mind...from the "Science Channel (lol) - Survivorman Bigfoot".....

Now Playing | Bigfoot Built This (Maybe) 03:20
A unique tree structure stands in the middle of the wilderness that only a Bigfoot could have built.

I'm beginning to see where you are getting your quotes from. You are looking at a few random segments of the episode, not the episode in its entirety. Now I see why you're put off by the very first statement that says to give Gigantipithicus the benefit of the doubt for now. The full episode has a lot more content and he explains it more thoroughly and talks about WHY he gives Standing the benefit of the doubt. If you haven't seen the full episode, you should, because he talks about Standing many times when he's not around, questioning his claims but saying that he has to trust him for now if he wants a chance to validate or falsify his claims.

"A unique tree structure stands in the middle of the wilderness that only a Bigfoot could have built"

This is the video summary, put on the site by Science Channel obviously for ratings, and is not a quote from the episode. The apples one is the same thing. They are not Les Stroud quotes, and I very highly doubt he has control over Science Network's summaries of his episodes. His show originally aired in Canada on OLN, but was picked up later by Discovery Channel and Science Channel. He may have creative control, but I highly doubt he can tell SN what exactly to put on their website.

He said he was "challenged to disprove this" regarding Standing's claims about the structure. Leaving open that a mythical monster could have made it. That was the whole point of it, obviously. To pander to bs. Hardly going to alienate his new found audience by being genuine (unless he really is that gullible of course). You can believe otherwise, if you wish.

Here are some of his quotes:

"Let's throw the bigfoot notion out the (window). Let's say natural occurrence. I can't think of a natural occurrence to pull this in"

"The snow couldn't have done this. I know that. Wind wouldn't have done this. I know that. Rot wouldn't have done this"

"There is one missing link, there is one last thing that could be left here. What about humans?"

"As a man, I could build this"

"There is age to the trees, and that is very difficult to fake. These trees were aged in position"

The quote about the challenge means that he has been challenged to disprove this, not that he's perplexed about what could have done it. He essentially says that Todd couldn't have been in there a few weeks ago with his buddies setting it up, because of the age of the structure. If Todd did it, he did it some 20 years ago. That's not entirely out of the question, of course.

Yes. Natural forces, critters, humans, machinery... a mixture of any and all of them and possibly other things I haven't though of that don't include bigfoot.

What natural forces or critters are you referring to? Please explain. We're talking about Stroud's credibility here, so if you can come up with a natural explanation for the structure, you'll show that Les isn't as familiar with the ecosystem as we were led to believe. He already acknowledged humans could build it.

The stump does not prove anything. It's very likely Les saw the stump and noticed that it was not the same age as the rest of the structure, so he deemed it unimportant to waste film time on. Yes, this falls under his expertise. They also could have discussed it but edited out of the final cut to save time on the show. What they do show, however, is a close up of Les analyzing the bottom of the tree, and it's substantially rotted away.

It is not a strawman, however, it was one of your big arguments to say Les wasn't being objective. I guess we should both drop it, since it doesn't suggest one way or the other.

Les doesn't go to much effort to give genuine reasons for anything he says. He just seems to make claims off the top of his head, expecting the "surviver man" thing gives it credibility.

Like what? Please give me some claims just off the top of his head that aren't related to his expertise? He said either it's an elaborate hoax, or there is something to all of this, and that pretty much sums it up.

For anyone that has felled timber (apart from these two, obviously), that might be one of the easier ones to explain.

That also wouldn't be a natural explanation.

He discredits himself through his lack of objectivity, lack of effort and liberal use of fallacies.

I'm going to need some examples of this, and please give me references to the quotes you give, so I can get them in context. Liberal use of fallacies? Really?

That's debatable. He looks like more of a "self proclaimed expert", which can be a very different thing to a real one. Wonder why he didn't track bigfoot

I don't think that's debatable at all. He's taken survival classes, he's not just a "self proclaimed expert". He IS an expert. I don't think a non expert could survive for a year straight with no communications, technology, etc in Canada. He also studies the ecosystems he survives in. He's not like those other amateur guys like Bear Grylls. Grylls could never pull that off. His show is very contrived. I honestly don't know why he didn't try to track bigfoot, but he may not have been able to find anymore tracks. This leads me to believe Standing hoaxed him, much moreso than him being in on it or not being objective in his analysis.

Was there attempt to contact the "trappers"? Firstly to verify that they actually exist. Then to verify and consider their story and take it into account in the field, if necessary. This could have proved enlightening, but we wouldn't want to risk spoiling a good anecdote.

Do you really think that it would be that simple to find out who cut down the trees and when? In all likelihood dozens of people have gone through there and harvested lumber, and it's doubtful they have records of that. That kind of thing seems like a colossal waste of time.

The "sleep out" noises with zero effort to find what they actually emanated from. Isn't this something completely basic? Who cares what he can understand, or otherwise?

How do you know that there was zero effort? Do you expect him to just blindly run into the woods where he's hearing loud noises? That would either scare whatever is making the noises away or it could put him in serious danger.

I do agree however, that more could have been done. They could have set up a camera to film the apples. They could have done more with the footprints. I don't know if they were limited on time or equipment or what. This is why I really want Les to go out there by himself and see if the same things happened. Todd could have had a crew out there to try to pull one over on Stroud. I still believe Stroud was being objective.

a reply to: FlySolo

No. This hoax was filmed before Survivor man Les Stroud agreed to make the show. Sadly, I don't know why Stroud became involved with Standing.

Those pics/video are a hoax.

the wookie is real! It's chewie guys! All we need to do is get Harrison Ford to go out on an expidition with these guys and call him in. :-)

originally posted by: Kratos40
No. This hoax was filmed before Survivor man Les Stroud agreed to make the show. Sadly, I don't know why Stroud became involved with Standing.
Those pics/video are a hoax.

With all my LONG winded posts.. This sums it up in just a couple sentences! Star for you !

a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

Yeah, some fascinating stuff in that study, though I am not at all surprised at all the issues they have had with the publishing, etc. Typical of mainstream science and anything that goes against the status quo.

The bit of non-human stuff from an unknown male source.....my mind immediately went one direction on that one! Non-human, when even Neanderthal DNA is present today, and no one is calling it "non-human"; makes you wonder! Most cultures have stories of non-human beings interbreeding with humans. Now we have DNA showing just that. Fascinating stuff.