2

Recently on Survivorman, Les Stroud went on a Bigfoot expedition. Towards the end of the episode he showed footage provided by Todd Standing with a very clear picture of what appears to be a juvenile Sasquatch.

Todd Standing with Sasquatch

enter image description here

Is this good evidence of the existence of the sasquatch?

http://lesstroud.ca/news/survivorman-bigfoot

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
UhlBelk
  • 53
  • 8
  • "If fake, this footage is top quality special effects" - not really. Just type "realistic mask" on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8EBRlTJIAs – sashkello Apr 22 '14 at 07:38
  • Yeah I mentioned that in my original post but the context of my question was change when Oddthinking edited it. I am not questioning if this is good evidence because it is GREAT evidence, the only thing in question Is the reputation of the person claiming it to be real which give credence to the evidence. – UhlBelk Apr 22 '14 at 07:56
  • Recently on Survivorman Les Stroud went on a Bigfoot expedition and toward the end of the episode had shown footage provided by Todd Standing with a very clear picture of what appears to be a juvenile Sasquatch. In the video footage the Sasquatch is seen to blink once in a very realistic way. – UhlBelk Apr 22 '14 at 07:59
  • If fake, this footage is top quality special effects if not it is a wonderful addition to the mounting evidence in favor for the existence of the species. I would like to hear from anyone who has seen the film but more specifically from anyone with knowledge of the guide who showed Les this location and provided the footage. What is the reputation if any in the Sasquatch believers community of Todd Standing? – UhlBelk Apr 22 '14 at 08:00
  • Is there any reason Not to give this footage credence? I used to be skeptical about the existence of this species but with mounting evidence I am becoming skeptical about the non existence of the Sasquatch / other bipedal apes. That was the original context of my post. – UhlBelk Apr 22 '14 at 08:01
  • When we need to make decisions on empirical evidence, it is important to know the source. Take for insistence the Patterson film. We are finding out from other first hand witnesses that it was faked. (I'll try to cite that documentary asap). I simply want to see if anyone knew any history of this brave fellow who stared a bigfoot in the eyes. – UhlBelk Apr 22 '14 at 08:06
  • The only real way I can see to disprove this would be to show proof that Mr. Standing is or was involved in a book deal, or hired a makeup artist, or other evidence showing he had the means to fake such an encounter. – UhlBelk Apr 22 '14 at 08:48
  • 4
    1. My very first comment shows that anyone can fake such a video. 2. Reputation of the person who filmed it has nothing to do with Les Stroud, it is irrelevant. 3. It doesn't matter how good the picture is. The claim is extraordinary, and as such it requires extraordinary evidence (support of several *independent* witnesses, for start). 4. The burden of proof is on Mr Standing, as this is him who makes the claim. One can do this in the privacy of his house and make very believable footage and there is no way to disprove it without breaking in and conducting a search. – sashkello Apr 22 '14 at 08:56
  • Yeah, that was a good link thank you. I'm not questioning Mr. Stroud, not at all. His reputation is the reason I even consider this finding a finding at all. Mr. Strouds video shows other compelling evidence to support Mr. Standing. It is by that measure I want to know more about Mr. Standing. Short of seeing a receipt or local whistle blower for evidence of a conspiracy for fame, I would say this is another win for evolutionists? :) – UhlBelk Apr 22 '14 at 09:16
  • My usage of "other bipedal apes" is important here. There is a stigma around finding a man beast opposed to a species of bipedal apes. Tell some one they found a new species of monkey and people will believe you with out demanding you produce a picture. Call it Sasquatch and your a kook. – UhlBelk Apr 22 '14 at 09:22
  • And If I am to believe the information that man kind has found unknown primate dna samples then It is time to turn the skepticism the other way. Especially since science is finding hidden species all the time. So I digress, If anyone has any evidence to why I should be skeptical with this turn of events shown to us by Mr. Stroud, a man with a good reputation of being knowledgeable of nature in such professional ways, And with his own experiences. I hope they make a part 3 asap. – UhlBelk Apr 22 '14 at 09:29
  • 2
    I am always stunned by how these people can identify something as an entirely new species just by looking at some blurry image half hidden behind plants... They must have some futuristic *wireless genotyping* technology with them. – nico Apr 22 '14 at 11:29
  • Parabreakdown on youtube posted a photo comparing Todd Standings face with the filmed Saquatch face. It is pretty obvious that is Todd face under the makeup. –  Apr 22 '14 at 11:30
  • @user18858 It does look to me like a copypaste of a still picture - he probably didn't want to involve anyone else, and so filmed a mask on white background in a room and then pasted it into nature piece video. The head looks unnaturally still. – sashkello Apr 22 '14 at 12:07
  • 1
    I don't really see how this could be proven wrong or right. There is probably exactly one person who was there when this was filmed (or produced). Short of him admitting that he faked it, there is no way of saying it's false and short of someone else going there and documenting more and clearer evidence, there's no way of saying it's real. But given the nature of the claim, I agree with the sashkello that the burden of proof lies with Mr. standing – drat Apr 22 '14 at 12:41
  • 1
    @Uhlbelk: I simplified the question because your side-statements are both irrelevant and incorrect. There isn't mounting evidence; there is a mounting absence of expected quality evidence to support the conjecture. This can't be considered "great" evidence as it is too easy to fake. (We don't need a "receipt" to conclude that it isn't persuasive enough to overthrow the absence of expected evidence.) Relying on the reputation of Standing is an ad hominem fallacy. Evolution doesn't predict not preclude a sasquatch, so it isn't a win nor loss. – Oddthinking Apr 22 '14 at 13:35
  • 3
    What makes evidence "good" is subjective. This is evidenced in [SGU Episode 26](http://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/26). In that case, both sides agreed about the facts and what the evidence *was*, but disagreed as to how compelling it was. This is not solvable by scientific skepticism. Voting to close as opinion-based. –  Apr 22 '14 at 15:02
  • 1
    Let's be realistic. Put yourself in these people's shoes. If you're serious about proving the existence of bigfoot, you're going to go out with a gun and shoot the first one you see. You're going to keep shooting until it stops moving, and then you'll shoot some more. Once you're 100% sure it's dead, maybe you'll shoot a few more times, then you'll drag it back to your truck and drive it to CNN. Does this thought experiment prove the video isn't legitimate? Of course not. But, as already stated, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. – Patrick87 Apr 22 '14 at 16:46
  • 1
    @Patrick87 Actually, depending upon where you are, [shooting a Sasquatch would be illegal](http://www.skamaniacounty.org/commissioners/homepage/ordinances-2/). – rjzii Apr 22 '14 at 17:21
  • @rob Hilarious. I concede that, despite the obvious tourist appeal of Skamania county, Washington, you'd probably want to hunt the elusive wood-ape elsewhere. Really, I just checked the Wikipedia entry for Skamania county - its history is, literally, "Skamania County was formed on March 9, 1854.[4] On May 18, 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted." It has a population of roughly 11,000 people. In general, I'd recommend you avoid going there at all, unless you make sure that "somebody seen yer comin". – Patrick87 Apr 22 '14 at 17:36
  • 1
    Articuno has provided a convincing argument as to why this question should be put on hold. I'm adding my (binding) vote. – Sklivvz Apr 22 '14 at 20:44

0 Answers0