Merged Les Stroud's bigfoot show?

mike3 said:
So what happens if you don't know of what kind of natural explanation could explain it? Obviously, you shouldn't jump to "Bigfoot!", but what should you do? Would him just saying "Well, I don't know what caused this" be better?
Click to expand...

It's painfully obvious. You actually go LOOK at the broken trees first. Because generally what you find is that some weakness was introduced into the tree from a variety of sources. An injury as a sapling allows rot to begin because the bark is not protecting that spot. Ants or other insects can burrow inside and further weaken it.

My firewood comes mostly from just that source. The trees can grow to tremendous size but be fundamentally weak, causing them to snap off like a broken match stick. I have dozens of monster spruce down this year within half a mile of the cabin because we had a pretty good wind storm. Hundred footers and larger.

Observe how they don't even inspect the trees. It's that stupid. They glance from a distance and make up a story about bigfoot when just inspecting the tree will explain if you aren't a total moron.

treeants_zps8f5306b6.jpg



edit: look at me showing my four year old son. This is a hundred foot tree that had ants weaken the inside of the tree. You can see the black holes like a bee hive. A lot of the inside is reduced to sawdust. The rest is about as strong as balsa wood. Only the very outside of the tree was healthy, insufficient to support the tree in a strong wind. All you have to do is LOOK at the tree and you can see why it snapped where it did: the weakest point.
 
Last edited:
When Bigfoot chooses to break a tree it looks for ones with natural weaknesses. Not because Bigfoot is lazy but because it is intelligent.

If you inspect the broken trees you will find clues to the inherent weakness. Bigfoot sees that too and breaks the tree.
 
A patch of woods with healthy strong unbroken trees is also evidence of Bigfoot activity. It indicates that Bigfoot has passed through and decided not to break any of the strong trees in that area.
 
Another example where you'll find a whole bunch of them in one spot with smaller trees is where you have a moose rubbing his antlers on all of the trees in an area he is defending as his turf. Here it is aspen or poplar because the bark is soft and smooth, more to their liking. They don't do it to the monster trees because the bark is a lot harder and rougher. They seem to really like the size depicted in Stroud's video.

Both wind and snow loads will then cause these trees to snap after a few years of rot caused by the moose antler damage to the bark. I have a pretty good example in mind of this but right now I am dragging trees home and posting between runs. If I get some donations to my Thailand expedition fund, I'll go over to that spot and take some pics.
 
Last edited:
dawgma said:
You cant rule out hypnagogia anymore than you can rule out that he was suffering any of dozens of different possibilities. We know him to be a credible and reliable person in what he does and being that he is not even really a Bigfoot believer, he comes forth as more credible than those who go out into the woods deliberately hunting it. That is the point of the article. A credible NON believer who knows how to track and survive in the wilderness, going out and seeing whats there. Being a skeptic, you would think you would want an unbiased person out there, instead of an idiot Boboo, who every tree knock is a Sasquatch
Click to expand...

A credible non-believer wouldn't even poke Standing with a 10ft pole, let alone doing two shows with him. If Stroud did any research on this guy, he'd see he was a total fraud. There's literally a Sasquatch infestation whenever Standing ventures into the woods allowing him to get a variety of HD images and video. But of course, only if no one else is around.

I loved the way Les continually agreed with all of Standing's BS and at times even defending his credibility.

He was either blinded by his own fascination of BF or he whored himself out to the network. Regardless of what the reasons were, his credibility has plummeted to the likes of Boboo.
 
What does credibility mean? Does it mean that if a credible person says that they saw a Bigfoot that Bigfoot must exist? Or does credibility mean something else?
 
Olowkow said:
I'm a Les Stroud fan too. Please post the email address, I'll write also.
He always seemed above all that, but eating bugs, bats, and all that time alone...takes its toll I guess.:D
Click to expand...

I always like Les' shows but I think something is afoot re ratings. For example having his 16 year old son tag along makes no sense in the show .
 
Last edited:
Okay, I got about $250 worth of firewood dragged home so I took my camera out on the last run to show what a retard Les Stroud is regarding broken trees - and I mean MORON.

This first picture is a close-up of what moose do to trees with their antlers, this one from last fall (I mean damaged last fall, but photo from today):

6_zps9bc968f7.jpg


This is what it looks like a couple years later, an easily recognizable scab if you aren't a phony like Les Stroud:

7_zps771daa0a.jpg



Here is a shot of six trees within a ten foot radius, all moose damaged:

2_zpsd651138d.jpg


Here is a shot of three damaged trees all within inches of one another, and two of which have snapped off, about 20 feet from the last shot:

3_zps7275a4db.jpg


There must be a hundred trees damaged like this all within a stone's throw of where I was working today. Here's one without antler rubbed damage that has been snapped off at seven feet:

4_zps8a29b83e.jpg


That's because the moose that did it was eating the bark and nubbins. What they do is rear up on their hind legs and take the tree down with their front legs so they can eat the yummiest parts:

5_zpsf070a95e.jpg



This is just one reason why you can have a LOT of trees snapped off in one very concentrated area like Les Stroud was seeing. Except he is such an idiot with so little outdoor experience that he can't even figure out something this basic. Les Stroud is a fraud. I would not take him with me to collect firewood. He's going to be a liability that doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground insofar as practical living-in-the-woods knowledge.

He has gotten away with snowing people who know even less about the outdoors than he does, impressing them with novel but oftentimes stupid little stunts. I work in the woods regularly because I live in the woods and what impresses me about him is how he violates the most basic rule of using the most direct and safest tactic to extract himself from the situations he puts himself in. It is an entertainment show, not a survival course.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
When Bigfoot chooses to break a tree it looks for ones with natural weaknesses. Not because Bigfoot is lazy but because it is intelligent.

If you inspect the broken trees you will find clues to the inherent weakness. Bigfoot sees that too and breaks the tree.
Click to expand...

As Boss of the Woods he has a duty to eliminate the weak to improve the species.
 
marlborough said:
A credible non-believer wouldn't even poke Standing with a 10ft pole, let alone doing two shows with him. If Stroud did any research on this guy, he'd see he was a total fraud. There's literally a Sasquatch infestation whenever Standing ventures into the woods allowing him to get a variety of HD images and video. But of course, only if no one else is around.

I loved the way Les continually agreed with all of Standing's BS and at times even defending his credibility.

He was either blinded by his own fascination of BF or he whored himself out to the network. Regardless of what the reasons were, his credibility has plummeted to the likes of Boboo.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he's a paid professional talent doing what he's told for a paycheck. If you put your pocket book and your principles on a scale which would weigh more?
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Okay, I got about $250 worth of firewood dragged home so I took my camera out on the last run to show what a retard Les Stroud is regarding broken trees - and I mean MORON.

This first picture is a close-up of what moose do to trees with their antlers, this one from last fall (I mean damaged last fall, but photo from today):

[qimg]http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn180/lirajeanlogan/6_zps9bc968f7.jpg[/qimg]

This is what it looks like a couple years later, an easily recognizable scab if you aren't a phony like Les Stroud:

[qimg]http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn180/lirajeanlogan/7_zps771daa0a.jpg[/qimg]


Here is a shot of six trees within a ten foot radius, all moose damaged:

[qimg]http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn180/lirajeanlogan/2_zpsd651138d.jpg[/qimg]

Here is a shot of three damaged trees all within inches of one another, and two of which have snapped off, about 20 feet from the last shot:

[qimg]http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn180/lirajeanlogan/3_zps7275a4db.jpg[/qimg]

There must be a hundred trees damaged like this all within a stone's throw of where I was working today. Here's one without antler rubbed damage that has been snapped off at seven feet:

[qimg]http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn180/lirajeanlogan/4_zps8a29b83e.jpg[/qimg]

That's because the moose that did it was eating the bark and nubbins. What they do is rear up on their hind legs and take the tree down with their front legs so they can eat the yummiest parts:

[qimg]http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn180/lirajeanlogan/5_zpsf070a95e.jpg[/qimg]


This is just one reason why you can have a LOT of trees snapped off in one very concentrated area like Les Stroud was seeing. Except he is such an idiot with so little outdoor experience that he can't even figure out something this basic. Les Stroud is a fraud. I would not take him with me to collect firewood. He's going to be a liability that doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground insofar as practical living-in-the-woods knowledge.

He has gotten away with snowing people who know even less about the outdoors than he does, impressing them with novel but oftentimes stupid little stunts. I work in the woods regularly because I live in the woods and what impresses me about him is how he violates the most basic rule of using the most direct and safest tactic to extract himself from the situations he puts himself in. It is an entertainment show, not a survival course.
Click to expand...

There should be a spin off "Suburban Survivor Man", in one show he gets lost in the back yard and has to survive by drinking water from the lawn sprinkler and snaring squirrels for food.
 
I watched the last installment, just because we had Survivor on our DVR, and it got recorded inadvertently. I have always had high respect for Les and followed his series for years. When I saw this, I was astonished at first, then I realized he is somewhat, though possibly not fully, aware of the controversy and of how he is going to be criticized for doing what he is doing. He claims to be playing the role of the skeptic, and from what he has actually said so far, he seems to me to be doing just that.

For instance, observing tree bark markings, "That's no bear". Well, he's not saying it is therefore a Bigfoot. He is reporting sounds that he cannot identify, but not jumping to conclusions that they must be made by Bigfoot.

I am wondering if perhaps he has gone out of his way to give this guy all the rope he needs to fundamentally debunk himself right out of the Bigfoot business in the eyes of at least some viewers. For many people who just hear an occasional rumor of Bigfoot, they may actually benefit from this show, as I am pretty sure no bigfeet will be found while Stroud is present, and the guy making the claims will look kind of silly in the end.

I suspect that Les, not a stupid man, understands to some extent the religious, if not outright loony, nature of bigfoot enthusiasts with regard to things that go bump in the night. He stated this quite clearly. He's been stalked by panthers for crying out loud.

Surely, he knows that the videos and still photos of bigfoot are the result of an obsessed individual's need for attention, and outright fraud. What amazes me though, is that Les would feel comfortable going on a long hike with a guy who is obviously slightly nuts, and devoted to confirmation bias and arguments from ignorance.

I'm going to go with, "Les is no dummy. His efforts will probably add to the enlightenment of a lot of people who never really gave the issue much thought." And, he will have made a few bucks in doing so.

Thanks to AlaskaBushPilot for the pictures and explanations.
 
Last edited:
Interesting

AlaskaBushPilot said:
Okay, I got about $250 worth of firewood dragged home so I took my camera out on the last run to show what a retard Les Stroud is regarding broken trees - and I mean MORON.

This first picture is a close-up of what moose do to trees with their antlers, this one from last fall (I mean damaged last fall, but photo from today):

[qimg]http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn180/lirajeanlogan/6_zps9bc968f7.jpg[/qimg]

This is what it looks like a couple years later, an easily recognizable scab if you aren't a phony like Les Stroud:

[qimg]http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn180/lirajeanlogan/7_zps771daa0a.jpg[/qimg]


Here is a shot of six trees within a ten foot radius, all moose damaged:

[qimg]http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn180/lirajeanlogan/2_zpsd651138d.jpg[/qimg]

Here is a shot of three damaged trees all within inches of one another, and two of which have snapped off, about 20 feet from the last shot:

[qimg]http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn180/lirajeanlogan/3_zps7275a4db.jpg[/qimg]

There must be a hundred trees damaged like this all within a stone's throw of where I was working today. Here's one without antler rubbed damage that has been snapped off at seven feet:

[qimg]http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn180/lirajeanlogan/4_zps8a29b83e.jpg[/qimg]

That's because the moose that did it was eating the bark and nubbins. What they do is rear up on their hind legs and take the tree down with their front legs so they can eat the yummiest parts:

[qimg]http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn180/lirajeanlogan/5_zpsf070a95e.jpg[/qimg]


This is just one reason why you can have a LOT of trees snapped off in one very concentrated area like Les Stroud was seeing. Except he is such an idiot with so little outdoor experience that he can't even figure out something this basic. Les Stroud is a fraud. I would not take him with me to collect firewood. He's going to be a liability that doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground insofar as practical living-in-the-woods knowledge.

He has gotten away with snowing people who know even less about the outdoors than he does, impressing them with novel but oftentimes stupid little stunts. I work in the woods regularly because I live in the woods and what impresses me about him is how he violates the most basic rule of using the most direct and safest tactic to extract himself from the situations he puts himself in. It is an entertainment show, not a survival course.
Click to expand...

Its easy to see a lot of phony things on these shows done for the sake of drama. I wonder in how many instances, the narrator speaks of the dreadful need for rescue and how the EMT feel about such made up appeals. Fact is, they are usually talking about a boat or copter hired by the show which "rescues" the "victim". However I feel its only a matter of time until one of these shows bungle into the death of a participant. "Naked and Afraid" showed a potential bacterial infection in a guy's deep puncture wound on his bare foot. Eventually the medical staff intervened.
 
AlaskaBushPilot: Neat photos. Small point tangential to the overall discussion (as an arborist, I whole-heartedly agree with your point that the reason for a tree's failure can usually be determined by examination). The first photo you posted -- carpenter ants are indicative of significant internal decay, but they do not cause it to great extent. They remove the decaying wood to build their home, but they eat typical ant food -- not wood. By contrast, termites live in the soil, and do eat the wood.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/garden/insects/find/carpenter-ants/

Also, that tree looks like it is suffering from some type of fungus that induced "brown rot." Common in conifers.
 
Mr. Purple said:
AlaskaBushPilot: Neat photos. Small point tangential to the overall discussion (as an arborist, I whole-heartedly agree with your point that the reason for a tree's failure can usually be determined by examination). The first photo you posted -- carpenter ants are indicative of significant internal decay, but they do not cause it to great extent. They remove the decaying wood to build their home, but they eat typical ant food -- not wood. By contrast, termites live in the soil, and do eat the wood.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/garden/insects/find/carpenter-ants/

Also, that tree looks like it is suffering from some type of fungus that induced "brown rot." Common in conifers.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, thanks.

Another thing that happens to produce whole areas of bent over and snapped trees is a heavy, wet snowfall before the leaves fall. We had that happen in '92 here if I remember the year correctly. Entire forests of bent over and snapped deciduous trees that was evident for many years.

tsig - lol.

There should be a spin off "Suburban Survivor Man", in one show he gets lost in the back yard and has to survive by drinking water from the lawn sprinkler and snaring squirrels for food.
Click to expand...

That's EXACTLY what I mean.

It is frustrating to see people giving him such extraordinary benefit of the doubt. When a guy is parading around as an expert, yet can't explain broken trees (other than bigfoot) it is like a surgeon who has never seen a scalpel.

The first reaction should be "you are not a surgeon" instead of making excuses for his abject ignorance. It's okay if a regular Joe doesn't know what a scalpel is, but when you are claiming title as surgeon then our radar should be exploding.
 
This is a bulrush stem in the second day of freezing rain last winter. It's hard to tell from the picture but the ice is cylindrical.

I've spent more time than most alone in the bush but I certainty don't think as much as Stroud. I have to think he's aware of natural forces. My guess is he's following the money.
 

Attachments

  • 20131222_114323.jpg
    20131222_114323.jpg
    80 KB · Views: 10
William Parcher said:
What does credibility mean? Does it mean that if a credible person says that they saw a Bigfoot that Bigfoot must exist? Or does credibility mean something else?
Click to expand...

No, just being truthful and totally objective without waiving your principles for cash.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom