Survivorman back at the search for Sasquatch

[NorCalWitness]

14 hours ago, norseman said:

My kids loved Bear Grylls. Watched him each week. Lo and behold he did a Salmon River episode. And in one shot he is standing in the Stoddard creek trailhead explaining that he was in the middle of the wilderness. I paused the episode with my kids all complaining and ran up the stairs and got my photo album and held it up to the screen. Dead ringer. It’s a mountain that the pack trail goes up the face. They cut the pack bridge and Forest service road out of the shot. It was at that moment my children’s hero shattered. Sorry!😬

 

[Backdoc]

^^^

 

I always thought of Bears show as teaching survival principles.    I never felt he was in actual danger but was out there looking to teach principles.  Some of this was random and some was set-up by producers.   Did bear really spend the entire night in that Igloo?    Does it matter?  It was teaching the principle of building a shelter when it is cold.

 

I think of an episode where bear was messing with some honey in a beehive.  the bees stung his face, and he swelled up.   I never got the idea he was out there all by himself.   

 

 

The impression I always had with Survivorman is it was just him and his camera and very little equipment.  

 

 

If bears earlier episodes were not completely truthful is that because he said he was alone, or did we just assume he was?  Clearly bear had a camera man or two following him around out there.   it a safe assumption that camera man had all the supplies they needed and more.   They might have even had a Survivorman approved harmonica. 

 

Here is one of Bears cameraman. 

 

 

After a few episodes or seasons I think bear was clearer about giving any impression about being in danger, alone, and so on.   I don't know on running wild with Bear Grylls if actor Ed Helms or Will Farrell really spend the night under primitive conditions or if they had a trailer or hotel nearby.   Maybe they just acted like they woke up the next day.   Either way it was meant to be an entraining show to show the principles of survival and pushing your limits.  

 

 

 

 

I 

Edited January 10 by Backdoc

[wiiawiwb]

Two different approaches to survival as far a I can see. I believe Stroud's approach is more conservative and deliberate while Bear's is more pedal-to-the-metal.  Personally, were I to be in a survival situation, I'd choose Les Stroud or Matt Graham as a partner. Definitely not Bear.

 

Glad that Stroud is back out doing sasquatch hunting. 

 

 

 

Edited January 11 by wiiawiwb

[bipedalist]

Gotta say it, wonder if the shows where Bear is seen dissecting carrion for the good parts to eat were faithful to reality, lol!

 

The bear-chewed salmon with Obama was memorable, with the US Secret Service chef grimacing in the background!  

 

Bear said the White House chef had cooked a legit salmon under glass just in case. 

 

Bear says the early filming guests like Will Ferrell got the superheavy experiences as they lightened up the experience for guests thereafter. 

 

I sort of thought the overnight experiences were hokey and Bear says five or six days of filming were required to get from point a to b in one of the Youtube interviews so you gotta wonder if they didn't have a strategic helipad hideaway camper somewhere.

 

When push comes to shove I prefer the low key outings such as espoused here: (it worked for me) so would probably take on a Survivorman outing over the full Monty Grylls approach. 

 

Edited January 11 by bipedalist

[Frisco85132]

On 11/9/2024 at 1:03 PM, 7.62 said:

I'm wondering what he needs the money for ? He's a pretty low tech guy when he goes out and doesn't use a crew of people

where he needs to make payroll .I'm fairly certain he already owns anything he needs to take with him including thermal and night vision .

 

If he finds something that really proves they exist not more tree structures or tracks then he won't have any problem

finding the funding from Discovery or any media comapny really to get it into production . Hell they will be beating down his door with offers

 

 

Dilution of risk.  The first rule is "use other people's money".  His name and reputation carries gravitas, and he is known for his integrity.  If he takes money from XYZ Network he risks losing control over his work and risks being Bear Grylls or Dual Survival or worse....Finding Bigfoot.  I kicked in some $$.

[Backdoc]

When it comes to efforts around a cause I always say this:

 

Is what they are doing helpful or harmful to the cause.

 

Let's talk Bigfoot.  Obviously, a show like Survivorman or whatever live and die by ratings. They are not doing it for free. TV has Shark Week.  They never seem to have Garden Slug Week or Worm Week as the ratings would be pretty bad.   

 

 

 

Like any business so long as Survivorman or Running Wild with Bear is not fraudulent or harming people more power to them.

 

I see Surviroman or whatever as a useful vehicle to help promote the discussion of bigfoot.  The bigfoot issue gets to ride on coat tails of all the fans of these shows.

 

It is only a problem if the person doing the promoting engages in fraud or other things which harm the public.  Apart from that, it is useful to the Bigfoot subject.  It would be no different than them promoting a brand of hiking shoe.

 

When it comes to Survivorman his shows make the viewer feel what it is like to really be out there in the middle of nowhere.  Once this is achieved a viewer is more likely to consider there could be all kinds of things out there yet to be discovered.   If Les wants to promote Bigfoot, Bigfoot gains credibility.  

 

Where I see a problem:

 

To me the subject of Bigfoot is in a trail in the court of Public Opinion.  To make your case you want to have the best people out there doing it.  In this way you want Meldrum, Munns, and so on.  Sorry to say it but shows like Finding Bigfoot come across as Goofy.  In this way the Goofy factor far outweighs the benefit of having some Bigfoot dialog.

 

The Bigfoot issue won't get total acceptance until there is body.  But any acceptance it will ever get will only be by representatives and experts the public can be comfortable with.  

 

I'll take Survivorman.  I'll take any of these people who want to loan us their credibility to show the discussion of Bigfoot can be an adult, reasonable, scientific discussion.

 

The final danger comes when Les or whomever studies the subject of bigfoot but those they are involved with might be a fraud or a hoaxer.  

 

 

Is what they are doing helpful or harmful to the cause.?

 

The answer seems to be its helpful until it becomes harmful. 

 

 

 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

......Is what they are doing helpful or harmful to the cause.?........

First, define the cause. Is it:

 

1) Profit?

2) Catch a sasquatch?

3) Help sasquatches?

4) Further Science?

5) Fame?

6) Etc, etc, etc?