I'm watching this on Discovery right now. My opinion of Les Stroud is pretty high so I'm wondering what will be said.
He says that he is near the town of Klemtu, BC, Canada. This is on the west coast of Canada, about 200 miles north of Seattle. He easily found bear scat. He innocently remarked that native Americans consider the territory of bigfoot and bear to be the same. I would tend to assume a similar territory for a large omnivore too but that does seem rather convenient. Basically, it is being suggested that you only see bigfoot within the territory of animals most likely to be confused with bigfoot.
There are a lot of anecdotes. They keep playing recordings of native Americans recounting stories of bigfoot encounters. I'm guessing this would be convincing to some. However, I immediately notice the extreme rarity of these sightings. If you actually lived in bigfoot territory I would imagine at least half the population would have a sighting every year. There are 500 natives just in Klemtu. Over 20 years that would be 5,000 sightings and an average of ten per person just in one generation. Instead, a handful of people over multiple generations seem to have one dramatic story that happened once in their lifetime. Statistically, this doesn't seem to fit. And, Klemtu isn't the only native reservation. If we counted the others and three generations then we should be talking several hundred thousand sightings.
Les noted the lack of trails that any large animal like bear, moose, deer, boar, and wolves make. Les noted a broken branch that he suggested that a bigfoot enthusiast would claim as evidence of bigfoot. In his opinion, it fell over because the wood rotted. He is keeping with all the bigfoot rituals. He has done coyote howls which apparently some claim attract bigfoot. He has used a camera facing behind him because some claim that bigfoot like to follow people. He has urinated in the same spot because apparently others claim that bigfoot will be attracted to this. He has done wood knocks. I'm 40 minutes into the show and not only has he not seen a bigfoot, he has yet to come across any evidence of bigfoot in a location that natives claim is crawling with them. Les mentioned that he has seen bigfoot tracks going up a hill that were six feet apart. He noted that this would be impossible unless you put the bigfoot shoes on backwards and leaped down the hill. This is probably something that an experienced tracker could tell but there aren't usually skilled trackers handy.
Les paddled his canoe for 2 hours. When he got back he noticed that the two apples he left were missing. He looked for tracks and found two that looked interesting to cast. He noted that the location, date, time of day, and material the print was created in had to be recorded. He stated that it would not be accepted as scientific evidence without this information. This is true. However, I'm reminded of two things. The first is that when Alfred Kinsey began studying human sexuality, he was aghast that no information had ever been recorded. So, taking surveys and recording information was the very first thing he did. The other thing that comes to mind is the behavior of Angelina Jolie's character, Amelia Donaghy, when she came across evidence in the movie, The Bone Collector. If you want to be an amateur researcher, watch the scene from the movie to see how she improvises to record evidence without any equipment by buying a disposable camera and putting an object in-frame that has a known size. If you had a video camera, all you would have to do is state the time, date, and location on the video. If you had a camera, you could just write down the time, date, and location.
Les took his casts to a wildlife biologist. On his return to his site he said a big tree fell nearby. I wonder if he is going to check it out. As a precaution, he is doing a wood knock. Nothing knocked back. Apparently Les either didn't search for or couldn't find the tree that fell. And, apparently there is no statement about whether or not these tracks were identified. Les counted five toes and the tracks did not appear to be even as long as a human foot. So, my guess would be bear tracks. And recall that Les already found bear scat.
It appears that there will be more in this series. My first impression is two things: First, this show is nothing like the pathetic joke from last year where Todd Standing sounded like a six year old explaining how his stuffed dinosaur has magic powers. Standing saw evidence everywhere but there wasn't even a hint of genuine science. Secondly, Les has found no evidence of bigfoot even in an area claimed to be full of them. Now, Standing had no evidence either but Les doesn't seem to be going out of his way to make up evidence.
He says that he is near the town of Klemtu, BC, Canada. This is on the west coast of Canada, about 200 miles north of Seattle. He easily found bear scat. He innocently remarked that native Americans consider the territory of bigfoot and bear to be the same. I would tend to assume a similar territory for a large omnivore too but that does seem rather convenient. Basically, it is being suggested that you only see bigfoot within the territory of animals most likely to be confused with bigfoot.
There are a lot of anecdotes. They keep playing recordings of native Americans recounting stories of bigfoot encounters. I'm guessing this would be convincing to some. However, I immediately notice the extreme rarity of these sightings. If you actually lived in bigfoot territory I would imagine at least half the population would have a sighting every year. There are 500 natives just in Klemtu. Over 20 years that would be 5,000 sightings and an average of ten per person just in one generation. Instead, a handful of people over multiple generations seem to have one dramatic story that happened once in their lifetime. Statistically, this doesn't seem to fit. And, Klemtu isn't the only native reservation. If we counted the others and three generations then we should be talking several hundred thousand sightings.
Les noted the lack of trails that any large animal like bear, moose, deer, boar, and wolves make. Les noted a broken branch that he suggested that a bigfoot enthusiast would claim as evidence of bigfoot. In his opinion, it fell over because the wood rotted. He is keeping with all the bigfoot rituals. He has done coyote howls which apparently some claim attract bigfoot. He has used a camera facing behind him because some claim that bigfoot like to follow people. He has urinated in the same spot because apparently others claim that bigfoot will be attracted to this. He has done wood knocks. I'm 40 minutes into the show and not only has he not seen a bigfoot, he has yet to come across any evidence of bigfoot in a location that natives claim is crawling with them. Les mentioned that he has seen bigfoot tracks going up a hill that were six feet apart. He noted that this would be impossible unless you put the bigfoot shoes on backwards and leaped down the hill. This is probably something that an experienced tracker could tell but there aren't usually skilled trackers handy.
Les paddled his canoe for 2 hours. When he got back he noticed that the two apples he left were missing. He looked for tracks and found two that looked interesting to cast. He noted that the location, date, time of day, and material the print was created in had to be recorded. He stated that it would not be accepted as scientific evidence without this information. This is true. However, I'm reminded of two things. The first is that when Alfred Kinsey began studying human sexuality, he was aghast that no information had ever been recorded. So, taking surveys and recording information was the very first thing he did. The other thing that comes to mind is the behavior of Angelina Jolie's character, Amelia Donaghy, when she came across evidence in the movie, The Bone Collector. If you want to be an amateur researcher, watch the scene from the movie to see how she improvises to record evidence without any equipment by buying a disposable camera and putting an object in-frame that has a known size. If you had a video camera, all you would have to do is state the time, date, and location on the video. If you had a camera, you could just write down the time, date, and location.
Les took his casts to a wildlife biologist. On his return to his site he said a big tree fell nearby. I wonder if he is going to check it out. As a precaution, he is doing a wood knock. Nothing knocked back. Apparently Les either didn't search for or couldn't find the tree that fell. And, apparently there is no statement about whether or not these tracks were identified. Les counted five toes and the tracks did not appear to be even as long as a human foot. So, my guess would be bear tracks. And recall that Les already found bear scat.
It appears that there will be more in this series. My first impression is two things: First, this show is nothing like the pathetic joke from last year where Todd Standing sounded like a six year old explaining how his stuffed dinosaur has magic powers. Standing saw evidence everywhere but there wasn't even a hint of genuine science. Secondly, Les has found no evidence of bigfoot even in an area claimed to be full of them. Now, Standing had no evidence either but Les doesn't seem to be going out of his way to make up evidence.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1yDCh81
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire