Survivorman Bigfoot - Directors cut - Todd Standing trip AB

[Twist]

7 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Whom do you trust?

 

I wish we could have a trust profile on various experts and people who claim a bigfoot event.   I know this is not easy- if not impossible.  On top of that, it would be tough to know if one could trust the person or organization doing the grading.  

 

It's difficult to know if some of the people/video/book/story is even worth the trouble.  I remember a TV show where one of the anthropologists had some forced but legitimate compliments of Jeff Meldrum.  He seemed reluctantly open- minded to the concept Bigfoot might exist but just wants proof.   He was fair in that he complemented Meldrum on his knowledge, scientific approach and so on and what Meldrum was bringing to the topic in a much-needed way.   

 

We might grade someone like Meldrum as a high grade where someone else might get a low grade.   Roger Patterson would fairly get a lower grade for some reputation score unrelated to bigfoot (paying bills, not returning a camera) but his encounter and the film would both get a very high grades.

 

We need some grading system or weeding out of the bad stuff if the Bigfoot topic will ever move forward.  There are just too many kooks and nuts and too many who are just as unreasonable as the unreasonable skeptic hardliners.

 

I have not followed Standing beyond a video that I watched.  It felt very weak in my opinion.  If I am right, then what does that say about the person putting it out there as real?

 

Who are those who we should rate highly?   Who are those who are the best case or best evidence?  If one is to go to the Supreme Court of Public Opinion, I would much rather have Bill Munns, Meldrum, and others than I would Survivorman or some guy who claims he shot bigfoot and buried him in the woods.  I realize the BFFs is a great place to have that discussion and sort that out.  We must find a way to call balls and strikes.   Believers need to be a bit more skeptical.  We cannot expect Skeptics to be more openminded, however.   For that to happen, it will only come for top-grade experts, witnesses, stories which check out, film, and so on.  I still doubt we can make that happen.  When we are given an opportunity for a TV show, documentary and so on we must put the best case forward.

 

This Who-do-you-trust issue must be resolved if we are ever going to know how to move forward.    

 

What you suggest would just be an arbitrary judging of evidence and opinions.   This would most likely create more divide than we have now.   With social media and the internet etc everyone has a voice on any subject they want.    Each individual needs to make their own decisions on what to believe or not.   Topics that are black and white get skewed on a daily basis let alone a subject that’s currently as ambiguous as BF.  
 

Not trying to be negative, just realistic, at least in my opinion.  

[Backdoc]

^^^

 

Fair points.  

 

 

I realize my hope is more of an aspiration than anything realistic.  

 

If Standing or others put this stuff out, we need to be prepared for the fact they could be right.  Here are 3 considerations:

 

1- They strongly believe they have an authentic picture/ video but are honestly mistaken.

2- They were hoaxed by someone else.

3_ They were the hoaxers.

 

I look at this video pic for instance and I think it is nowhere near convincing.  If I am right, then consider it is being offered as real.   If so, then that either is likely an honest mistake or outright premediated hoax.

 

 

[norseman]

2 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

^^^

 

Fair points.  

 

 

I realize my hope is more of an aspiration than anything realistic.  

 

If Standing or others put this stuff out, we need to be prepared for the fact they could be right.  Here are 3 considerations:

 

1- They strongly believe they have an authentic picture/ video but are honestly mistaken.

2- They were hoaxed by someone else.

3_ They were the hoaxers.

 

I look at this video pic for instance and I think it is nowhere near convincing.  If I am right, then consider it is being offered as real.   If so, then that either is likely an honest mistake or outright premediated hoax.

 

 

It’s not convincing? Or it’s suspect because Todd Standing shot the video?

 

Because as a life long outdoorsman? If that head peered around a tree at me 5 miles up the trail? I would swallow my tongue first. Lay lead second and clean my shorts third. Yah it’s pretty convincing. And if it was attached to a 8 foot body? Holy smokes!🫣

 

 

[Backdoc]

59 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

a life long outdoorsman

 

 

 

As a city slicker, I don't think people generally give enough weight to the experience and knowledge of someone who is a hunter, outdoorsmen and so on.   

I tend to trust experts in their area of expertise and knowledge.   

 

 

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

As a city slicker, I don't think people generally give enough weight to the experience and knowledge of someone who is a hunter, outdoorsmen and so on.   

I tend to trust experts in their area of expertise and knowledge.   

 

 

I guess what I am trying to say is context is everything. 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

On 10/3/2022 at 3:50 PM, Eastern Slopes said:

I got a third of the way through this link from above before tapping out.

https://thesasquatchvoice.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-todd-standing-operates-expose.html

 

I'm not a Standing fan, but what I read was not an "expose", it was a rant. The author claims without source that a bunch of forum posters were TS. The author gives "examples" of what apparently is TS speaking on different topics, which is supposed to mean something.

 

The final "exposure" before I closed the window was the revelation that TS "stole" a research site. Not sure you can "steal" a site, but even if TS somehow managed this, how does that invalidate anything he claims?

 

I'm not claiming Standing is trustworthy, just that if that is the case against him it needs more work.

Exactly.  
 

Whether or not Standing’s footage is a hoax is (obviously) a matter of debate.  For me, many of the debunking attempts that people like to trot out are clumsy and laughable and don’t really do anything to disprove the images.  The morphing face… the image where a tree branch was photoshopped out…  I am sorry, but the attempts at debunking seem less believable than Standing’s images.  

Thinker Thunker video analysis is pretty arbitrary… and the way that he got his panties in a bunch over a comment by Stroud told me all that I needed to know.  Thinker is too emotionally involved to be a neutral judge of the images.

 

 

At the end of the day, people often  jump upon the ‘he’s a hoaxer’ bandwagon because that’s what everyone else says. Or, they find Standing personally distasteful.  Or, he ‘stole my area’…which is silly unless he broke into someone’s house, stole a deed to private land, and then took legal possession of said land.  
 

Personally, I am on the fence about Standing’s images.  But, I will evolve my opinion on the merits of the images themselves, not because someone told me to think that they were fake.

 

And honestly… Standing is actually getting out there into the backcountry and doing the work, not sitting around preaching from his keyboard.  That alone is worth some kudos 

[Twist]

The Standing pictures, the PGF, the Freeman Footage, etc.. I’m sure some are real, some are fake.  If or when BF is proven real, my guess is some of What I was sure was fake will end up being real.   And some of what I believed real will be fake.   I’ll most likely learn that I was wrong about more than I had right.   🤷🤷

Edited October 5, 2022 by Twist

[BlackRockBigfoot]

2 hours ago, Twist said:

I’ll most likely learn that I was wrong about more than I had right.   🤷🤷

Truer words were never spoken 

[norseman]

13 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Truer words were never spoken 

Me!? I’m never wrong! Pffsssttt! 😉

[Dave]

On 10/3/2022 at 12:01 PM, Backdoc said:

Whom do you trust?

 

I wish we could have a trust profile on various experts and people who claim a bigfoot event.   I know this is not easy- if not impossible.  On top of that, it would be tough to know if one could trust the person or organization doing the grading.  

 

It's difficult to know if some of the people/video/book/story is even worth the trouble.  I remember a TV show where one of the anthropologists had some forced but legitimate compliments of Jeff Meldrum.  He seemed reluctantly open- minded to the concept Bigfoot might exist but just wants proof.   He was fair in that he complemented Meldrum on his knowledge, scientific approach and so on and what Meldrum was bringing to the topic in a much-needed way.   

 

We might grade someone like Meldrum as a high grade where someone else might get a low grade.   Roger Patterson would fairly get a lower grade for some reputation score unrelated to bigfoot (paying bills, not returning a camera) but his encounter and the film would both get a very high grades.

 

We need some grading system or weeding out of the bad stuff if the Bigfoot topic will ever move forward.  There are just too many kooks and nuts and too many who are just as unreasonable as the unreasonable skeptic hardliners.

 

I have not followed Standing beyond a video that I watched.  It felt very weak in my opinion.  If I am right, then what does that say about the person putting it out there as real?

 

Who are those who we should rate highly?   Who are those who are the best case or best evidence?  If one is to go to the Supreme Court of Public Opinion, I would much rather have Bill Munns, Meldrum, and others than I would Survivorman or some guy who claims he shot bigfoot and buried him in the woods.  I realize the BFFs is a great place to have that discussion and sort that out.  We must find a way to call balls and strikes.   Believers need to be a bit more skeptical.  We cannot expect Skeptics to be more openminded, however.   For that to happen, it will only come for top-grade experts, witnesses, stories which check out, film, and so on.  I still doubt we can make that happen.  When we are given an opportunity for a TV show, documentary and so on we must put the best case forward.

 

This Who-do-you-trust issue must be resolved if we are ever going to know how to move forward.    

 

 

 

These are some great points.  It would be interesting to have a rating system like that, no doubt, but I wonder how we'd score them.  I would give a little more weighting to someone in academia simply for the fact they are swimming against the current and risking their precious tenured career, where it's a lose-lose.  Standing wants to be famous on this topic, but I don't consider that a knock against him, but maybe I don't give more weighting for that.

 

Someone like Isdahl I give a little more weighting to because of his outdoor game experience, just like I would the experienced hunters I see on this forum.  I don't think the "you just saw a bear" works on someone like that, especially coming from someone like myself who's closest wildlife activity is a raccoon looking for food on the porch at 1am.  Serious hunters know the sounds, the behaviors of the animals, and know when something is off, or if something is perfectly normal even though it may look really strange to someone like myself.

 

I give experienced hunters or those that have spent most of their adult lives outdoors, like natives in Alaska, the most credibility.  If any of them are liars, then I'd just consider that a small error rate that's baked into the cake.

 

Some people you just listen to and know if they're truthful.  If they're psychic or "remote viewers", I'd just ignore them.  Law enforcement and such occupations I'd give weight.  Ex-special forces/ops, etc., I don't know because if you follow some of the stolen valor channels, it's insane how many of those guys lie, so unless proven to have such a military past, I ignore those.  Engineers and such specialties I give some more weight because they can get into the weeds of the various aspects of this topic, e.g. Bruce Maccabee for camera stuff.  Government wildlife eco guys, not as much because it's unreal how little they know when compared to hunters and serious outdoors guys.  Some mother who runs across one with her kid, who's now scarred for life, I give weight.

 

I rambled, but it would indeed be a cool project to design and implement a rating system of some sort based on various factors.

 

One area where I disagree with most is the point of "we're going to need a body."  I think people really don't understand how brainwashed some people are (not just on this topic), even when the data and facts are in front of their face.  Until one is smashing their dog against a tree, or in front of them letting of one of their lovely screams, there's absolutely no way to convince them, and we shouldn't care about doing so.  To put it another way, how many things do we know for a fact are real, but a segment of the population doesn't believe it?  Why would this be any different?

[Dave]

On 10/4/2022 at 11:56 AM, Backdoc said:

^^^

 

Fair points.  

 

 

I realize my hope is more of an aspiration than anything realistic.  

 

If Standing or others put this stuff out, we need to be prepared for the fact they could be right.  Here are 3 considerations:

 

1- They strongly believe they have an authentic picture/ video but are honestly mistaken.

2- They were hoaxed by someone else.

3_ They were the hoaxers.

 

I look at this video pic for instance and I think it is nowhere near convincing.  If I am right, then consider it is being offered as real.   If so, then that either is likely an honest mistake or outright premediated hoax.

 

 

 

I don't think so. I think it's viable.  For example, there's girls some of us find extremely attractive, and others who'd find the same girl just OK.  Back in the day, there was that "Hot or Not" site, where they'd put two girls side-by-side, and you pick the hotter one.  The girls who rose to the top were hotter, as agreed upon by the majority.  Not apples-to-apples, but I think the conception of a creative solution could happen.

Edited October 14, 2022 by Dave

[Marty]

3 hours ago, Dave said:

 

These are some great points.  It would be interesting to have a rating system like that, no doubt, but I wonder how we'd score them.  I would give a little more weighting to someone in academia simply for the fact they are swimming against the current and risking their precious tenured career, where it's a lose-lose.  Standing wants to be famous on this topic, but I don't consider that a knock against him, but maybe I don't give more weighting for that.

 

Someone like Isdahl I give a little more weighting to because of his outdoor game experience, just like I would the experienced hunters I see on this forum.  I don't think the "you just saw a bear" works on someone like that, especially coming from someone like myself who's closest wildlife activity is a raccoon looking for food on the porch at 1am.  Serious hunters know the sounds, the behaviors of the animals, and know when something is off, or if something is perfectly normal even though it may look really strange to someone like myself.

 

I give experienced hunters or those that have spent most of their adult lives outdoors, like natives in Alaska, the most credibility.  If any of them are liars, then I'd just consider that a small error rate that's baked into the cake.

 

Some people you just listen to and know if they're truthful.  If they're psychic or "remote viewers", I'd just ignore them.  Law enforcement and such occupations I'd give weight.  Ex-special forces/ops, etc., I don't know because if you follow some of the stolen valor channels, it's insane how many of those guys lie, so unless proven to have such a military past, I ignore those.  Engineers and such specialties I give some more weight because they can get into the weeds of the various aspects of this topic, e.g. Bruce Maccabee for camera stuff.  Government wildlife eco guys, not as much because it's unreal how little they know when compared to hunters and serious outdoors guys.  Some mother who runs across one with her kid, who's now scarred for life, I give weight.

 

I rambled, but it would indeed be a cool project to design and implement a rating system of some sort based on various factors.

 

One area where I disagree with most is the point of "we're going to need a body."  I think people really don't understand how brainwashed some people are (not just on this topic), even when the data and facts are in front of their face.  Until one is smashing their dog against a tree, or in front of them letting of one of their lovely screams, there's absolutely no way to convince them, and we shouldn't care about doing so.  To put it another way, how many things do we know for a fact are real, but a segment of the population doesn't believe it?  Why would this be any different?

Couldn't have said it any better!

[norseman]

6 hours ago, Dave said:

 

These are some great points.  It would be interesting to have a rating system like that, no doubt, but I wonder how we'd score them.  I would give a little more weighting to someone in academia simply for the fact they are swimming against the current and risking their precious tenured career, where it's a lose-lose.  Standing wants to be famous on this topic, but I don't consider that a knock against him, but maybe I don't give more weighting for that.

 

Someone like Isdahl I give a little more weighting to because of his outdoor game experience, just like I would the experienced hunters I see on this forum.  I don't think the "you just saw a bear" works on someone like that, especially coming from someone like myself who's closest wildlife activity is a raccoon looking for food on the porch at 1am.  Serious hunters know the sounds, the behaviors of the animals, and know when something is off, or if something is perfectly normal even though it may look really strange to someone like myself.

 

I give experienced hunters or those that have spent most of their adult lives outdoors, like natives in Alaska, the most credibility.  If any of them are liars, then I'd just consider that a small error rate that's baked into the cake.

 

Some people you just listen to and know if they're truthful.  If they're psychic or "remote viewers", I'd just ignore them.  Law enforcement and such occupations I'd give weight.  Ex-special forces/ops, etc., I don't know because if you follow some of the stolen valor channels, it's insane how many of those guys lie, so unless proven to have such a military past, I ignore those.  Engineers and such specialties I give some more weight because they can get into the weeds of the various aspects of this topic, e.g. Bruce Maccabee for camera stuff.  Government wildlife eco guys, not as much because it's unreal how little they know when compared to hunters and serious outdoors guys.  Some mother who runs across one with her kid, who's now scarred for life, I give weight.

 

I rambled, but it would indeed be a cool project to design and implement a rating system of some sort based on various factors.

 

One area where I disagree with most is the point of "we're going to need a body."  I think people really don't understand how brainwashed some people are (not just on this topic), even when the data and facts are in front of their face.  Until one is smashing their dog against a tree, or in front of them letting of one of their lovely screams, there's absolutely no way to convince them, and we shouldn't care about doing so.  To put it another way, how many things do we know for a fact are real, but a segment of the population doesn't believe it?  Why would this be any different?

Then why implement a rating system if the goal isn’t to convince anyone?

 

 

[Backdoc]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

Then why implement a rating system if the goal isn’t to convince anyone?

 

 

 

 

Rating System:   

 

I would say this rating system thing I threw out there is just about making the best case.  

 

The things which would make the cut would be things which are the most convincing points by the most credentialed experts.   I also think too many believers are too close to the story, facts, videos and so on.   They have lost a bit of their objectivity or at least the societal 'social awareness' to understand how weak some points they make might be.   

 

A 'rating system' is really about putting forward the best most impressive case.   

 

The PGF > Memorial Day footage

Jeff Meldrum > Finding bigfoot

Stanford walking study >  Blevins Patty suit replication attempt.

Lack of a good Patty suit replication > suit expert opinion 'it's a guy in a suit' without showing us

 

 

When the late Sam Winston was on a show and said, "It's a man in a bad fur suit, Sorry"   That's fine.  I would hope the person on the other side could make the case, "I know some skeptics will say it's a man in a fur suit.  Fine.  But ask yourself if this is what is it, why haven't they been able to make one and show how it was done"    That's a more convincing point worth discussion.    In this way it doesn't let the skeptic off the hook.   I remember a nice grey-haired scientist who on a show said the Forrest was a wasteland and bigfoots brain is too big and required high calorie needs.   She was later shown the PGF and did admit the walk was odd and very non-human and non-ape.    There was a tone where you almost sensed she was saying, "hmmmm  That's interesting" vs just dismissing the thing outright.   <--- sometimes you can't hit a home run but a couple of singles or a double is fine and the best the situation allows.

 

Bigfoot as a topic benefits from hard scientific study.  If bigfoot is real, more tough study or attack by well credentialled individuals can only help it.  The truth is the truth whatever that may be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2022 by Backdoc

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

Rating System:   

 

I would say this rating system thing I threw out there is just about making the best case.  

 

The things which would make the cut would be things which are the most convincing points by the most credentialed experts.   I also think too many believers are too close to the story, facts, videos and so on.   They have lost a bit of their objectivity or at least the societal 'social awareness' to understand how weak some points they make might be.   

 

A 'rating system' is really about putting forward the best most impressive case.   

 

The PGF > Memorial Day footage

Jeff Meldrum > Finding bigfoot

Stanford walking study >  Blevins Patty suit replication attempt.

Lack of a good Patty suit replication > suit expert opinion 'it's a guy in a suit' without showing us

 

 

When the late Sam Winston was on a show and said, "It's a man in a bad fur suit, Sorry"   That's fine.  I would hope the person on the other side could make the case, "I know some skeptics will say it's a man in a fur suit.  Fine.  But ask yourself if this is what is it, why haven't they been able to make one and show how it was done"    That's a more convincing point worth discussion.    In this way it doesn't let the skeptic off the hook.   I remember a nice grey-haired scientist who on a show said the Forrest was a wasteland and bigfoots brain is too big and required high calorie needs.   She was later shown the PGF and did admit the walk was odd and very non-human and non-ape.    There was a tone where you almost sensed she was saying, "hmmmm  That's interesting" vs just dismissing the thing outright.   <--- sometimes you can't hit a home run but a couple of singles or a double is fine and the best the situation allows.

 

Bigfoot as a topic benefits from hard scientific study.  If bigfoot is real, more tough study or attack by well credentialled individuals can only help it.  The truth is the truth whatever that may be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im taking exception to Dave’s post.

 

If a body wont convince people so why bother? What is a rating system gonna do!?🤷🏻‍♂️
 

If people are not convinced with a body? Who cares? They become flat earthers at that point. This is how biology works. Sorry.