Do You Trust Les Stroud?

[Dunbaraj]

I have always wondered this.

Where does he put his integrity as a researcher compared to his desire to maintain his bank account with a reality show? Let me explain.

I first heard about his Bigfoot encounters on the Joe Rogan podcast way back when. Who's to say that Les didn't actually make up these stories so that the world and the production company (big channels) couldn't resist creating a show about Bigfoot with him in the lead. I mean, honestly, he has a crystal clear reputation. He might have known that NO ONE was going to doubt him. So he goes on Joe Rogan, drops a little hint before the show starts, and Joe starts asking him about it: I'm fascinated, the world is fascinated, we all want MORE.

Hence, Survivorman Bigfoot.

Les gets another season of his show. He gets higher ratings because he knew Bigfoot was hot. He gets paid.

Do you think he made up those stories to get his foot in the door on more Survivorman seasons??

 

[stu neville]

I trust him. Stroud has, as you say a very good reputation, which I am sure he wouldn't seek to jeopardise easily. Having listened to him (and seen some of the series) he comes over as utterly sincere.

As to whether he's looking at how lucrative it would be, he himself said that they're treating the series as another Survivorman strand, so presumably he's on the same terms and conditions he was for the mainstream series, which is treated as an ongoing concern (there were further series planned regardless.) He has also said that he's always wanted to get to the bottom of the Bigfoot issue, so you can argue that rather than him chasing the money it's more a case of the money being behind him.

Perhaps it's confirmation bias on my part (before someone else mentions it ) but Stroud clearly thinks there's something more than a myth out there. And, as I've said a gazillion times, when people who know what they're seeing and talking about say they saw something unusual, I listen. Anecdotal evidence may not be definitive proof, but it can't be dismissed. Damned data.

 

[Coal]

Hm, it's all a bit "Bear Grylls" isn't it?

Leaving aside

confirmation bias on my part (before someone else mentions it )

In the first case, Mr. Stroud has a living to make - and whatever one might think, the 'wild man thing' is his day-job - it's far to say he's a vested interest in a couple of series of TV programmes about Bigfoot.

In the second, despite all that ploughing about the woods, nothing you might call definitive proof has emerged - I accept good anecdotal evidence adds weight to any inferences drawn, but it like any circumstantial case, you need at least one piece of irrefutably physical evidence to make it work. Which we don't have. Mind, this chap could be collecting DNA evidence with a stream of evidence baggies and setting trail cameras up all over toward that end for all I know.

Thirdly, just because he believes it (and might really want to), doesn't necessarily make Bigfoot any more real.

Lastly, one's gut instinct on whether folk are telling the truth is only a shade over 50%* accurate for the most part - we all think we can spot a fibber, but we are for the most part terrible bad! So if you say "he seems believable to me" I'm not swayed (no offense and I don't say he's spinning a yarn either) it's just that I know were're all quite rubbish at spotting fibs.




* In lie detection you must be able to tell truth from lie. So in a sample with a 50/50 distribution of lies and truth, you can of course say everyone is lying, but you'd be wrong 50% of the time. If you or I try to tell truth from lies with no other information on the subject matter, we generally get a shade over 50%. It's not like the TV programmes tell us...

 

[dreeness .]

In lie detection you must be able to tell truth from lie.

When you put it like that, suddenly it just all somehow seems so obvious.

 

[DNA]

I have always wondered this.

Where does he put his integrity as a researcher compared to his desire to maintain his bank account with a reality show? Let me explain.

I first heard about his Bigfoot encounters on the Joe Rogan podcast way back when. Who's to say that Les didn't actually make up these stories so that the world and the production company (big channels) couldn't resist creating a show about Bigfoot with him in the lead. I mean, honestly, he has a crystal clear reputation. He might have known that NO ONE was going to doubt him. So he goes on Joe Rogan, drops a little hint before the show starts, and Joe starts asking him about it: I'm fascinated, the world is fascinated, we all want MORE.

Hence, Survivorman Bigfoot.

Les gets another season of his show. He gets higher ratings because he knew Bigfoot was hot. He gets paid.

Do you think he made up those stories to get his foot in the door on more Survivorman seasons??

First off let me state that there is no money in Bigfoot.
Les's "survivor man" did far better than any of the "finding Bigfoot" shows.
So let us get that out of the way.
For all of the nay-sayers out there claiming people are faking/forging/acting to make a million bucks I will reiterate, unless you have an actual bigfoot body there is no money to be made.
And if you did have a bigfoot body there would still be no money to be made because the Government is an active participant in suppressing public knowledge where it is concerned with Bigfoot and the Government would come in and take that body from you, they have done it before.

Anyone who has spent as much time in the wilderness as Les is bound to run into bigfoot, especially considering that he is always out there alone and unarmed.
What you should be basing your story on and what your questions should be with concerns to Les is his actual retelling of his stories.
Does he sound like he is lying?
Ask yourself that, "does he sound like he is lying".
We all have built in lie detectors that work quite well, expecially in use for someone spending so much time telling a story. Much easier to spot lies during a 20 minute story retelling than someone who simply answered a one word lie to you when asked a question.
And to answer your question here, no, Less does not appear to be lying to me.

 

[DNA]

Hm, it's all a bit "Bear Grylls" isn't it?

No it isn't. Bear Grylls is an idiot, Les has always been a realistic source of survivor information.

Mind, this chap could be collecting DNA evidence with a stream of evidence baggies and setting trail cameras up all over toward that end for all I know.

Why would this matter? DNA evidence has already been collected in connection to Sasquatch, and a full working genome has already been completed on Sasquatch.
A full genome.
Did you know about it?
Probably not.
Why?
Because the information has been successfully suppressed and the success is in part because lazy researchers out there are always looking for a reason to dismiss things so they don't have to get off of their fat asses and do any reading.
The evidence has been peer reviewed by several different labs all coming up with the same information, but mainstream won't give them the professional journal time to publish.
Such is how our world and science is controlled right now.
This along with character assassination have been on full display here.
There is a reason so many partial DNA tests have come back inconclusive. It is because geneticists have always insisted that the samples were contaminated with human DNA.
Now we find out the reason for this after the full genome has been completed.
It is because Sasquatch is far more related to human beings than we could have ever thought.

Lastly, one's gut instinct on whether folk are telling the truth is only a shade over 50%* accurate for the most part - we all think we can spot a fibber, but we are for the most part terrible bad! So if you say "he seems believable to me" I'm not swayed (no offense and I don't say he's spinning a yarn either) it's just that I know were're all quite rubbish at spotting fibs.

Maybe when exposed to very little data, like a person answering in short sentences or one word answers.
The ability to spot lies is increased exponentially when you are exposed to someone telling a long story and you are exposed to voice intonation, body language, facial muscles and word choice. This is exponentially increased when you are familiar with human pantomimes. Add in a working knowledge of neurolinguistic programming and it is pretty hard not to see the truth. I do not see any lies in Stroud's story.

Sasquatch is 100% a real phenomenon.

 

[Yithian]

When you put it like that, suddenly it just all somehow seems so obvious.

I am a fish - Lie
I am not a fish - The Truth

In lie detection you must be able to tell truth from lie.

To tell you the truth, I never knew my parents, but there were always so many brothers and sisters around that I never really felt that I'd missed out. We grew up near the coast, which was cool, and it wasn't really long before I felt that the sea was my natural environment--spent more time in it that out, in fact. Anyway, you know how it is, I just kinda drifted along until I got older, then I was taken onboard by a local fishing firm that supplied some of the restaurants along the bay. I remember it well, it was the first time I'd seen a real-working boat up close like that and it wasn't long before I was hooked. I guess I was lucky, some of the others my age got caught up in some nasty business and didn't make it through, but those guys on the boat thought I could go a long way...

I am...

 

[Coal]

Add in a working knowledge of neurolinguistic programming and it is pretty hard not to see the truth. I do not see any lies in Stroud's story.

There is no evidence that NLP works at all. The idea that acting in a certain way re-programs the brain to change you as a person is not only tenuous theoretically, no one (that is actual psychologists) has ever been able to show it works in controlled conditions.

And as I said, even if Mr. Stroud believes it, it doesn't make it true.

 

[Coal]

When you put it like that, suddenly it just all somehow seems so obvious.

My point was that anyone can detect all lies. One simply assumes everything said to you is a lie. You measure the capability to spot lies by how well you can see (1) lies and (2) truth. In the situation where you have ten storytellers, half lying, labelling them all liars means you only get 50% of your calls correct...

 

[Coal]

Sasquatch is 100% a real phenomenon.

We agree on that. Whether it's a real animal or not is unproven.

 

[oldrover]

I'd trust Les Stroud to present a programme, and to give survival advice probably*, I know who he is but not his background. But I don't trust his opinion on bigfoot anymore than he should trust mine.

*I'd prefer Ray Mears.

 

[DNA]

There is no evidence that NLP works at all. The idea that acting in a certain way re-programs the brainto change you as a person is not only tenuous theoretically, no one (that is actual psychologists) has ever been able to show it works in controlled conditions.

And as I said, even if Mr. Stroud believes it, it doesn't make it true.

Wow, I thought that Charles Forte was about pointing out a reality that couldn't or wouldn't be acknowledged by the general public.
This site seems to be a haven for self proclaimed skeptics.
Apparently this is not the place for me.
I passed kindergarten long ago and I simply do not have the patience for this.

 

[stu neville]

Wow, I thought that Charles Forte was about pointing out a reality that couldn't or wouldn't be acknowledged by the general public.

That would be "Fort".

This site seems to be a haven for self proclaimed skeptics.
Apparently this is not the place for me.
I passed kindergarten long ago and I simply do not have the patience for this.

Here we go again..

It's not a site populated by skeptics. Read some more threads - there's a huge variety, and by no means are they all dismissive, and certainly not condescending or abusive as you'll get with genuinely Skeptical sites. We have scepticism, yes, but that tempers any blind belief that you get with other sites, that regard every blurry photo as unshakeable proof of ghosts, or UFOs, or indeed Bigfoot.

You need to see the context in which we have these discussions. With respect, you've been on this site for less than a week - I've been here fifteen years: and, if this were a genuinely skeptical site, would the overall site administrator be someone who has happily acknowledged that he 99% believes in the objective reality of Bigfoot?

We discuss things rigorously. We have a broad spectrum of attitudes to phenomena, from absolute belief to absolute disbelief. We have a strong tradition of forensic examination - not to dismiss, but to evaluate. Above all we're all interested in the unproven, the weird, the bizarre, and we discuss it with civility. That in mind, please don't accuse others of being blinkered. When dealing with the unproven (caveats apply, I have read what you say) all opinions are valid until a definitive answer is available for all to see.

 

[GNC]

Fort didn't believe nothing just as he didn't believe everything, he liked to question, and find reasons to question, be that the accepted wisdom or the downright strange. That's what we do here.

 

[Yithian]

I passed kindergarten long ago and I simply do not have the patience for this.

By chance I have just been reading and article about the American kindergarten system. The patience to overcome everyday frustrations was listed as a key trait, the lack of which could be grounds for holding the child back.

 

[Druk]

I am attending an evening with Les Stroud this weekend,very small venue with 100 seats,I am sure there will be an audience Q&A as it’s a 3 hour slot,I think the talk will turn to Bigfoot as the evening progresses.

 

[Druk]

Interesting evening with Les Stroud,interesting guy,great entertainer and natural raconteur.