NorCalWitness Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 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!😬 1
Backdoc Posted January 10 Posted January 10 (edited) ^^^ 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 Posted January 11 Posted January 11 (edited) 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 Posted January 11 BFF Patron Posted January 11 (edited) 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 Posted Thursday at 07:18 PM Posted Thursday at 07:18 PM 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 Posted Friday at 05:10 PM Posted Friday at 05:10 PM 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. 1
Huntster Posted Friday at 06:17 PM Posted Friday at 06:17 PM 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?
Backdoc Posted yesterday at 04:49 AM Posted yesterday at 04:49 AM The “cause” is anything of substance moving the needle in a positive way toward eventually proving the existence of Bigfoot.
Huntster Posted 20 hours ago Posted 20 hours ago (edited) 12 hours ago, Backdoc said: The “cause” is anything of substance moving the needle in a positive way toward eventually proving the existence of Bigfoot. On 9/26/2025 at 9:10 AM, Backdoc said: .........Is what they are doing helpful or harmful to the cause.........\ ........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......... It appears that any media exposure to the public offers both potential rewards (fresh reports) and detriments (hoaxing). I'm afraid sasquatch publicity has created a monster of its own that will never be captured or killed. Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon J. Glickman, Diplomate, American College of Forensic Examiners PHOTEK, 209 Oak Avenue, Suite 202, Hood River, Oregon 97031, USA: Quote .........The relationship in the clustered data is the correlation between population density and frequency: the Group A correlation of +0.9661 is high relative to the Group B correlation of +0.1244. A second relationship in the clustered data is the correla- tion between population and frequency. When Group A is separated from the dataset, its correlation to popula- tion rises from +0.1192 to +0.5664. Group A is differentiated from Group B by its high correlation to population density. This is consistent with the model of receiving a report of a cataloged animal (Eq. 1). Let’s assume that manufactured reports will be uni- formly distributed across the population. If the rate of manufactured reports is constant, then the frequency of reports should correlate to population. To some degree, this is seen in Group B. There may be other unidentified influencing factors such as mean media exposure to Big- foot, which may influence the density of manufacturing. The author speculates that Group A and Group B represent different phenomenon. Group B may represent manufactured reports because of the correlation to population, whereas Group A may represent a different phenomenon because of its correlation to population density. The author hypothesizes that if Green’s data is the superposition of multiple phenomena that this is the expected result.............. The more people, the more problems. The best path toward discovery is to work quietly without fanfare. Fortunately, that lesson appears to have been learned by several groups of Sasquatch researchers. We have enough foundational data. The only way that the public can help is to provide fresh reports which can be investigated quickly. BFRO provides that ability, though I cannot say if that ability is utilized to its optimum or not. All that posted ^, I would disagree that discovery would be my "cause". I would say that a person habituated to a sasquatch family would be the cause, ala Goodall/Fossey. All quiet. No fanfare. And that might be occurring as I type.............. Edited 20 hours ago by Huntster
Backdoc Posted 15 hours ago Posted 15 hours ago ^^ I”d love a ‘Gorillas in the Myst’ for Bigfoot but we all know humanity wouldn’t stop there. It would the ideal scenario. We could ‘see’ bigfoot and know bigfoot but Bigfoot could be left alone.
Huntster Posted 14 hours ago Posted 14 hours ago 47 minutes ago, Backdoc said: ..........I”d love a ‘Gorillas in the Myst’ for Bigfoot but we all know humanity wouldn’t stop there. It would the ideal scenario. We could ‘see’ bigfoot and know bigfoot but Bigfoot could be left alone. Yeah, I could be quite satisfied with close up, intimate video and documented narrative from a researcher like Goodall or Fossey who lived with a family of sasquatches, but yeah, humanity can't stop there. Better to just leave them alone, just like my Daddy said so long ago............. 2
norseman Posted 9 hours ago Admin Posted 9 hours ago I don’t think you’re gonna have a “Gorillas in the mist” style experience with Sasquatch. In my opinion they will choose the time and place of most encounters. And only three reasons for an encounter. 1) They kidnap you as a potential mate. Albert Ostman? Indian Folklore? 2) They kidnap you as a potential adopted offspring. Dennis Martin? Indian Folklore? 3) They kidnap or attack you as a potential food source, or revenge or territorial. Russell Annabel Gilyuk, Bart Schleyer, Indian Folklore, Ape Canyon? And you’re not likely to survive any of the three encounters. We are not dealing with a tropical hominid, we are dealing with something that spends a great deal of time in cold, wet and winter conditions. It must then hunt to sustain itself. It must have a very high caloric diet. With many stories of Sasquatch hunting ungulates and eating fish and shellfish. In the right setting at the worst time of year? I could see an isolated human being taken for food easily. That’s just not something that Gorillas do. 1
Huntster Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 8 hours ago, norseman said: I don’t think you’re gonna have a “Gorillas in the mist” style experience with Sasquatch.......... Oh, I can assure you that I (personally) am NOT going to have a "Sasquatches in the Mist" experience. My time in the mist for any reason is coming to a close. Quote .........In my opinion they will choose the time and place of most encounters. And only three reasons for an encounter......... ........And you’re not likely to survive any of the three encounters.......... Yeah, that appears likely. So I'll just leave it alone. Heck, I can't even get Mrs. Huntster to go down to the PNW in winter anymore, and I'm certainly not going down there in summer, so I'll probably never even see one from the safety and comfort of a car. I remember a story from (I believe) Peter Byrne about a woman who lived in a house in a wooded area who had a pregnant sasquatch hanging around. She'd see it from the window on occasion. Then she saw it once with the baby, and didn't see it again. No pics makes it somewhat suspicious, but she might have had my attitude. This story was interesting. I wonder what this sasquatch wanted? http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=15821 1
norseman Posted 39 minutes ago Admin Posted 39 minutes ago 33 minutes ago, Huntster said: Oh, I can assure you that I (personally) am NOT going to have a "Sasquatches in the Mist" experience. My time in the mist for any reason is coming to a close. Yeah, that appears likely. So I'll just leave it alone. Heck, I can't even get Mrs. Huntster to go down to the PNW in winter anymore, and I'm certainly not going down there in summer, so I'll probably never even see one from the safety and comfort of a car. I remember a story from (I believe) Peter Byrne about a woman who lived in a house in a wooded area who had a pregnant sasquatch hanging around. She'd see it from the window on occasion. Then she saw it once with the baby, and didn't see it again. No pics makes it somewhat suspicious, but she might have had my attitude. This story was interesting. I wonder what this sasquatch wanted? http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=15821 How I interpret the encounter. 1) Growl- What is this thing (tent) doing in my spot! Whoa! A human male popped out and is shooting at me! Run away! 2) Rock tossing- Get the hint! Pack up your garbage and leave my fishing spot, NOW! 3) Human is now outside tent- Wow maybe I won’t have to fish after all! He is kinda cute though. I will approach him in the open this time and see what he does. Nope! He is shooting at me again! Run away!
Recommended Posts