Merged Les Stroud's bigfoot show?

I admit that the default should be that he us simply doing this for ratings. Its not clear to me that he is doing this because he believes in BF. Thing is, once you have gone stumbling about in a dozen or so radically different environments, what's left? Either slightly different versions of those environments , in new locations, or seek new angles to explore, or admit that your show has run its course.
 
Well I've lived in the woods my entire life. And I've had one encounter with something I couldn't identify. Much like with Les it was just a noise unlike anything I had ever encountered.

Now I don't really think there is a Bigfoot out there but if I did a "Travis Treks In Search Of Squatch" show where I examined the subject would I be the subject of such scorn and derision as I see in this thread?

Shouldn't we wait to see how the actual show is presented before tearing it apart?
 
Travis said:
Well I've lived in the woods my entire life. And I've had one encounter with something I couldn't identify. Much like with Les it was just a noise unlike anything I had ever encountered.

Now I don't really think there is a Bigfoot out there but if I did a "Travis Treks In Search Of Squatch" show where I examined the subject would I be the subject of such scorn and derision as I see in this thread?

Shouldn't we wait to see how the actual show is presented before tearing it apart?
Click to expand...

The title is pretty much enough to tear it apart, imo.

Especially if you actually have lived in the woods your entire life, because that means you know there aren't any squatches.

Then if you add a prominent footer to the production...
 
@Travis: Depends on the context. So far, the signs are not good. Regardless if you enjoy or not his show, there are reasons for expecting one more "OMG!!!" Did you hear that?" and "I have not found bigfoog, but the evidence is compelling and it may be out there" show. And thanks for your money.
 
Travis said:
Well I've lived in the woods my entire life. And I've had one encounter with something I couldn't identify. Much like with Les it was just a noise unlike anything I had ever encountered.

Now I don't really think there is a Bigfoot out there but if I did a "Travis Treks In Search Of Squatch" show where I examined the subject would I be the subject of such scorn and derision as I see in this thread?

Shouldn't we wait to see how the actual show is presented before tearing it apart?
Click to expand...

Initial reports had Stroud teaming up with Todd Standing; google the name and see what you think.
 
It was reported by several pro bigfoot outlets that Todd Standing would be in the bigfoot episode but the fellow who was here earlier and took such umbrage at comments about Les Stroud says no. I suppose it could have been a rumor or, perhaps, the producers decided having a known hoaxer would be bad for business.
 
So they probably replaced Standing with another footer then?

I can just see Les claiming a rock was thrown at him...and of course since he films his show alone in the woods...

BIGFOOT!
 
mustbeso said:
I suppose it could have been a rumor or, perhaps, the producers decided having a known hoaxer would be bad for business.
Click to expand...

In general the only people who know who Todd Standing is are Bigfooters. Established Bigfooters would never be a proper choice for a target audience anyway because there are so few of them. You aim for the non-Footer general public population watching cable tv. No problem including Standing.
 
Finding Bigfoot showed us in a very big way that the general population is entertained by crazy people saying crazy things about a crazy wildman that doesn't exist.
 
LTC8K6 said:
The title is pretty much enough to tear it apart, imo.

Especially if you actually have lived in the woods your entire life, because that means you know there aren't any squatches.

Then if you add a prominent footer to the production...
Click to expand...

Well so what? I know there are no squatches but I decide to do a show on it. What is the crime there?

Correa Neto said:
@Travis: Depends on the context. So far, the signs are not good. Regardless if you enjoy or not his show, there are reasons for expecting one more "OMG!!!" Did you hear that?" and "I have not found bigfoog, but the evidence is compelling and it may be out there" show. And thanks for your money.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how it would be a big deal. Now if Les were promising to take parents to a secret hideout where their abducted children are being kept because angels told him in a dream about it.....well that I can see being something worthy of hate.

But not this.
 
I would not use the word "hate" to express my fellings.

I just don't like the path the show seems to be following. Of course bigfootery is not as bad as other woo scams and is not a complete scam. But still, there are lots of schemes within it. But I think separating the gullible from their money, taking advantages of any sort from their blindness and ignorance are bad things. Not to mention the spreading of misinformation usually associated with bigfootery.

Its not as bad as the cases you cited, but its still not a good thing. Petty crimes.

ETA: Now, if the show becomes an exposal of bigfootery silliness, such as wood knocks and habituation, then congrats to Les Stroud and my sincere apologies for the misperception.
 
Last edited:
dawgma said:
What else do you need? Every episode is a week in some of the most treacherous places in the world, all by himself, doing all of his own camera work and with barely any rations.
Click to expand...

And a GPS and a helicopter with flying distance.
 
Correa Neto said:
@Travis: Depends on the context. So far, the signs are not good. Regardless if you enjoy or not his show, there are reasons for expecting one more "OMG!!!" Did you hear that?" and "I have not found bigfoog, but the evidence is compelling and it may be out there" show. And thanks for your money.
Click to expand...

I look forward to the show about unicorns.
 
dafydd said:
And a GPS and a helicopter with flying distance.
Click to expand...

Not to call you out but are you aware of safety laws and regulations, especially concerning filming a television show for a cable channel in protected areas?

Don't fault Les because there is a helicopter within 50 miles of him. He still films and survives with no one but himself while only calling short his trip twice in all those years.

Some laws you just can't break.
 
Clint Frivens said:
Not to call you out but are you aware of safety laws and regulations, especially concerning filming a television show for a cable channel in protected areas?

Don't fault Les because there is a helicopter within 50 miles of him. He still films and survives with no one but himself while only calling short his trip twice in all those years.

Some laws you just can't break.
Click to expand...

Please enlighten me.
Are these laws and regulations Provincial or Federal or both?

Please provide links to the laws and regulations you are referring to - especially to the ones concerning "filming a television show for a cable channel in protected areas."

edit: Oh, while you are at it - you might as well post links to the pertinent laws and regulations of the United States and other countries he has filmed in as well.
 
Last edited:
Paging Clint Frivens...please pick up the white phone. There are questions for you to answer.
 
rockinkt said:
I learned all I needed to know about Les Stroud's survival knowledge when I watched the show where he walked down a steep mountain area into a valley during a heavy rainfall - and then set up camp on a gravel bar on the creek in the valley.
I learned not to be that stupid when I was about 6.

He's a poser. Period.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha what a moron. I've tried to watch the show but each time have been so disgusted that I turn it off. The theme seems to be how to place yourself in danger and avoid the simplest most effective means of survival in favor of the convoluted and exotic - when you have a personal helicopter that can swoop in any time to the rescue.

Take for example being stranded on a road in Norway. Hiking out at a pace fast enough to stay warm but not so fast as to sweat would have brought him to safety in a matter of hours at the most and probably more like minutes. But it is entertainment, not a practical survival show, so he stays to entertain the audience by making his situation worse instead of better.

It is transparent that he sees cash in bigfoot and picked what he felt was the least stupid place to lie about an encounter, and take care to make it ambiguous, along the lines of "I had a bigfoot encounter but I am not saying it was a bigfoot..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom