A Bigfoot Was Shaking Trees Behind Les Stroud And He Didn't Even Noticed
In 2012, Les Stroud had a special feature on the Discovery channel where he talked about his "great ape" experience in Alaska. He ranked the possible Bigfoot encounter as #6 on his top 10 list of unforgettable experiences while filming Survivorman. The encounter is one of Les Stroud's most talked about Bigfoot sightings, and little did he know that he actually caught some activity on tape. Bigfoot Evidence reader, Bryan N. pointed this out to us:
I can't believe no one has ever noticed this. In the Les Stroud Alaskan Bigfoot Encounter video. At 2:20 left of the screen 2 of those big trees in the background start VIOLENTLY shaking back and forth! Les gets up and looks in that direction so I assume that's right where all the sounds he was hearing were coming from. What animal other than a Sasquatch could shake 2 of those trees like that? This is a pretty amazing discovery!
Here's the clip from Discovery Channel. Watch the trees move at the 2:20 mark:
Thanks, Bryan N.
Peace!
ReplyDelete^chuck's bi-tch. Yup,, at least he shares it with Mike boogerson,,!
DeleteJust imagine your tutting parents.
Delete("tut, tut")
Amazing that this is only being notice now! I'd love to hear what Les thinks of this!
Your so dumb the super idiot friends don't even believe in bigfoot!! They just lead you on because it's funny when you make a idiot of yourself!!
DeleteMan, you're so boring...
DeleteTrue story,, dummy!
DeleteZZZZZZZZZZZZ
DeleteHow we,, supposed to take you serious when you like lady sovereign? Wierdo dork!
DeleteZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Delete^likes lady sovereign
DeleteWhere's your super dork friends joey? Even they don't stick up for you any more!
Delete^^nice. And,, yes you like lady sovereign!!!!
DeleteMan... Seriously now, when I was about ten I used to say kids in class used to like Kylie Minogue and stuff, grow up you silly sod! Ha ha ha ha!!!
DeleteGuys, grow up... If you want my attention after this, post a relevant comment, I'm cringing here.
Just another day passing with you freak nerds spending all day feverishly poking each other and ruining every comment.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI just googled that lady chick and laughed my ass off!
DeleteWHAT KIND OF PHAG WOULD LISTEN TO THAT CRAP?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOh yeah...^THAT KIND!
DeleteHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!11
^ rattled.
DeleteNo GVMT troll Joe. Just a monkey in the peanut gallery
DeleteOoo ooo ooo aaa aaa aaa
It has been totaled since the first daily taunts and instigations by you children. Once it's gone you cannot reclaim it.
DeleteNo doubt joe will believe this garbage!
ReplyDelete^^^^^^
DeleteOoo ooo ooo aaa aaa aaa monkey boy
That's not trees that are shaking; that's bulrushes; which are moving because Les is putting something down on the ground.
ReplyDeleteThey LOOK like trees because they are the same colour, but in reality they're much closer to the camera than the treeline. Also, you can actually see the top of them!
I can't disagree more, it's plainly trees.
DeleteMorning Joe!
DeleteI agree with anon, it looks like Les is shaking this bush himself but I will check it out again.
Hello there!!
DeleteTo me.. If you look at the tree to the left of what's moving, it looks like it's in front with the moving timber to the rear of it. Also, when he places the long grass to the ground, it doesn't look right to me.
Hmmmmmmm????? I'm now very, very curious to hear what everyone thinks of this?????????
Definitely bulrushes. Better google it, Joe, because what you see is smaller and closer, not tall and far away.
DeleteThey start in motion exactly as less throws down his armload and rustles them. They even go get pushed left at first motion, indicatin further that Les caused it.
What gets me is that the supposed trees move at the exact same time Les touches the ground with the brush he is handling.
DeleteAlso, Les glances in that direction. Which may indicate that he hears or saw something.
DeleteIf he suspected any kind of Bigfoot activity he would have caught it on film
No, I still respectfully disagree, the timber does not appear to be in the foreground to the tree to the left. It would be interesting to see longer footage to see if these alleged bulrushes to move independent of Les placing these to the ground.
DeleteDoes this look the same?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrKXQv-z6oY
The alleged bulrushes look heavy and laboured in their movement? Also, Les has addressed the situation in that at the time he thought it was a bear until the subject crashed through the trees and out of his audible range.
I do acknowledge there's a chance I could indeed be wrong...
DeleteNobody's perfect Joe. He sets his grass down and it pushes against the bullrush. That's all. Good eye on the discoverers part though
DeleteI'm not in agreement. When Les withdraws from placing the grass to the ground, you can still see one of the trees being moved in the direction of the right of Les.
DeleteAgain... I could be wrong.
DeleteIf you watch the episode, when he is around his campsite there is bulrushes plentiful edging the tree line.
DeleteNatural flora.
It's irrelevant when I don';t agree with you that the trees are bulrushes. We know that there are bulrushes there form the foreground, but the birch trees look exactly the same as them, and appear to be in the background.
DeleteAgain... I could be wrong.
Deletewatch it on TV it is the bulrushes, it is clearly seen on the TVO recording, it looks like the trees on youtube so much more clear on HD TV.
Deleteits the bulrushes i agree
DeleteI just watched this episode and used the DVR to watch and rewatch in HD. It is the grass in the foreground as les is moving a stack of debris from the area. Not trees. The top of the grass (flower) is the same color as the trees trunk in the background. optical illusion. It looks way more convincing on the clip above b/c the quality is poor
DeleteI totally agree with you anon...it's not trees moving. All one has to do is watch how the movement in the bullrushes is at exactly the same time as les putting something down. Whatever he put down hit the bushes, resulting in the movement. That Bryan guy must be related to Scott carpenter....and see bigfoot activity everywhere..whether they are there or not.
DeleteThis is not evidence of bigfoot.
ReplyDeleteOK some good points guys and I can see both. Someone just pass it on to Les and let him figure it out for us. Nice catch by Bryan N.
ReplyDeleteChuck
Did you get my email??
DeleteSent you a reply. Thanks a bunch
DeleteChuck
Got it!
Delete; )
I think it is the birch trees moving after looking several times.
ReplyDeleteCould be wrong.
Chuck
To me... When Les withdraws from placing the grass to the ground, you can still see one of the trees being moved in the direction of the right of Les.
DeleteWe really need two things... Longer footage and an opinion from Les.
We don't. You do.
DeleteIt doesn't matter in the long run. Not even a blobsquatch.
Is that the royal "we"?
DeleteNo, it does matter because the footage is attached to an experience Les, had.
Like I said, I'm open to being wrong, but it doesn't look like bulrushes moving to me.
Same we as you referenced.
DeleteNo, I referenced you as stating it... Which you clearly did in reference of some alleged wider opinion in conjunction with yours.
DeleteThe "we" I used was in fact stating a fact that "we" would benefit from longer footage and an opinion from Les.
All very irrelevant of course, and I still acknowledge I could be wrong, it's just that I don't think so.
DeleteHi Joe
Deletewhat's troubling me is the fact that the "tree trunks" seems to be moving wildly, but the canopy above them doesn't move at all. They're definitely bulrushes or some tall grass type vegetation.
I did take this into consideration... Good point. Is it fair to assume that the canopy of said trees could be higher than that of those in the foreground to it?
DeleteOk... In the interview with Les up top, on 30 seconds and 55 seconds, you can see the bulrushes around the area of focus and they don't appear to have any colour contrast like we see in the snippet in question???
DeleteThose tree that appear to be moving are Birch trees without the tops, maybe caused by salt environment, or some other white tree. However it could be the cattails moving against the birch tree backdrop that give the illusion that JOE and I are seeing that the birch are moving. Time to get the enhancement folks on here that may be able to determine what is actually happening.
DeleteChuck
Agreed, I'm at a dead end.
DeleteActually Joe is correct. Those are dead trees that have remained standing and are white from being weathered in the Alaskan climate. They are in the background and away from the shoreline.
DeleteI retract the above statement. With further review there are a combination of dead bleached trees, but those do not move as far as I can tell. Instead it would appear to be grass moving when Les puts down his bundle. The white are actually the seed heads of the grass stalks moving. The illusion of trees is simply the white seed heads of the grass stalks looking like the dead trees that are in the background.
DeleteWhy no bigfoot bodies?
ReplyDeleteAre you confident you would hear about one should one be located anyway?
DeleteJoe, if Eva took a big dump on your bed, would you still respect the dump in the morning?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat is a weird way to say you ate it!
Delete3:35,enough of your nonsense youngster,bigfoots real and you might as well just accept it xx
DeleteBigfoot Eva, not Bigfoots. Thank you from the spelling police :)..........
DeleteEva, did Joe ask for a second helping?
DeleteSorry spelling police :) xx
DeleteA researcher here in Pennsylvania has a body. Big news around these parts.
DeleteAs it stands noone, including Joe, can prove bigfoot even exists.
ReplyDeleteBut we can prove the evidence for an unknown primate exists.
DeleteOccam's Razor.
Actually you can't do that.
DeleteEvidence for an unknown primate would actually be the same evidence to prove that bigfoot is real. That evidence is just not there.
No... It wouldn't because to prove Bigfoot to be real to a dogmatic regime such as modern mainstream science, you require a body to classify and hang up in a museum... But that doesn't mean the evidence is not there, you are blurring research evidence accumulation and type specimen, quite deliberately I might add.
DeleteThe evidence in fact accounts for every source short of modern type specimen.
Occam's Razor.
Huge amounts of claimed evidence yet zero bodies proves that the huge amount of claimed evidence is not infact evidence.
DeleteYou couldn't be further from the truth. Evidence has been verified by the same consistent methods that has excelled professional careers and even whole scientific fields, and has been transitioned into this field successfully to show that the evidence is most certainly there. To deny such would be to deny the methods that have been tried and tested for decades.
DeleteThe evidence for the mountain gorilla did not stop being a reality until they were successfully tracked 60 years later... And science does not start at type specimen.
It's more obvious in the original video that the movement is the plant material in the foreground that is moving in response to Les pushing another object onto it.
ReplyDeleteWrong. There is actually a 9 foot ape shaking those trees. Prove me wrong.
Delete"Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere"
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteEye witness #1 – “I saw a Bigfoot”.
DeleteSkeptic – “Though I wasn’t there, no you didn’t”.
Eye witness #2 – “I saw a Bigfoot”.
Skeptic – “Though I wasn’t there, no you didn’t”.
Eye witness #3 – “I saw a Bigfoot”.
Skeptic – “Though I wasn’t there, no you didn’t”.
Eye witness #4 – “I saw a Bigfoot”.
Skeptic – “Though I wasn’t there, no you didn’t”.
Eye witness #5 – “I saw a Bigfoot”.
Skeptic – “Though I wasn’t there, no you didn’t”.
Eye witness #6 – “I saw a Bigfoot”.
Skeptic – “Though I wasn’t there, no you didn’t”.
Eye witness #7 – “I saw a Bigfoot”.
Skeptic – “Though I wasn’t there, no you didn’t”.
Eye witness #8 – “I saw a Bigfoot”.
Skeptic – “Though I wasn’t there, no you didn’t”.
Eye witness #9 – “I saw a Bigfoot”.
Skeptic – “Though I wasn’t there, no you didn’t”.
Eye witness #10 – “I saw a Bigfoot”.
Skeptic – “Though I wasn’t there, no you didn’t”.
… Skeptic – “If these creatures were real, people would be seeing them all the time!”
Joe – (Sigh)
Indeed people would be actually seeing them and we would have evidence of these encounters in the form of unambiguous video, biological sign etc etc.
DeleteYet we don't.
Eye witness 1 - 10 did not see a bigfoot.
You are embarrassingly wrong. The evidence in fact accounts for every source of evidence short of modern type specimen. You also have hair verified by multiple primatologists, and crystal clear footage presented as scientific evidence showing organic tissue.
DeleteEye witness #1 - #10 contributed to blowing your pasted comment up top out of the water... And there are in fact tend of thousands of them that have transitioned ten thousand years of cultural acknowledgement.
The skeptic does not need to be there to know that the eye witness did not see the bigfoot. Bigfoot does not exist so its obvious when someone says they saw one, then they really didn't.
Delete"hair verified by multiple primatologists"
DeleteLol. What.
Please link to the paper for this.
"Crystal clear footage"
Again. Lol. What.
You would have to go some way to testing the evidence sufficiently should you have a means of confirming that stance first, and you don't. Even in the face of the very best conservationists, primatologists, wildlife biologists in the world telling you at the very least there is something to the reports.
DeleteSomeone could quite easily claim you have an agenda in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your statement.
I've posted one example twice in the last two days regarding hair, and you are well aware of this. If you want the details go back and look on previous comment sections. The Oregon Regional Primate Research Center for one and Dr Henner Fahrenbach being this two sources. Here is the morphological traits of various samples;
Deletehttp://www.texlaresearch.com/okhair4.jpg
http://www.texlaresearch.com/okhairroot.jpg
http://www.texlaresearch.com/unknown-chimp-bear.jpg
... Also, for a paper on hair, you need medulla to classify which is lacking in any known sample except for one that was sequenced to have modern human DNA (even deliberately contaminated and yielded the same results).
Crystal clear footage;
http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf
... You will of course request all this and then no doubt complain I am repeating the same subject matter every day.
So you failed to provide the paper and say that the hair hasn't actually been classified. Oh boy.
DeleteThen you give us the pgf as "crystal clear". I mean. Come on now Joe.
No... You failed to grasp simple scientific logic and the requirements of publishing in your rhetorical baiting.
DeleteNot being classified does not cease morphology to be a reality, especially when such hairs are uniform and when such hairs are found in conjunction with tracks and a sighting from professional stock; game changer. You know all this of course, you've been bringing up the exact same topic at least three times weekly for the past year.
"I mean. Come on now Joe."
Got monkey suit?
Joe doesnt post on the BFF because he simply can't hold his own against kit/dmaker. His as hominem attacks would have him banned within a week.
ReplyDeleteI deal with Dmaker pretty well around here thanks.... That's why the only time he chimes in to to throw insults my way these days.
DeleteBig night for History Channel buffs. First at 9 00, the new season of The Curse of Oak Island Returns. At 10 00 the long awaited series premier of Search for the Lost Giants airs. There is another show I have caught a few reruns of on History 2 the past couple of weeks that originally aired last winter I think on A & E, called America Unearthed. This details the search by a forensic geologist named Scott Wolter to try and figure out the real story of America's past. He started a new science called Archaeopetrography in which he tries to date ancient stone ruins and sites. In one great show I recently watched involving a site in the Treasure Coast area of Florida called the Windover bog where a people they call the Windover buried there dead in a bog. His evidence and others points to a people called the Salutrians who came here maybe up to 25k years ago and not from Asia like the Clovis people, but from Europe. Fascinating. His new series starts Nov. 8 on History 2.
ReplyDeleteChuck
Old news there buddy.
DeleteChuck that sounds awesome my friend, you know how to make a Welshman envious of American TV!!
DeleteIt's not the trees in the background. Perfectly coincides with his movement. He touches some reeds or something when he places that bunch of grass down.
ReplyDeleteHow does a 9 foot ape that approaches campsites remain unconfirmed?
ReplyDeleteBecause it would require someone brave enough to run towards it and either kill it or film it.
DeleteWould you do the same if a bear was encroaching a camp site in the dark? Now imagine something twice as big, strong and intelligent.
What are these footers doing then? Are they actually looking for bigfoot or what? Why do they bother looking if they won't try to film it?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt's not that they won't try... There's all sorts of emotional responses attached to something so big that people largely don't expect to be there. I must remind you that every time something of this sort is documented, it's merely labelled a man in a suit... Or the people who are in fact confident enough to actually take such images are then labelled untrustworthy because of their reactions;
Deletehttp://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/mk-davis-stabilizes-calgary-bigfoot.html
They have special skills we don't, and we refuse to accept this and adjust our techniques to discover or prove. Just a wood ape wouldn't be able to, you are right. Guess they aren't wood apes.
DeleteVery much agreed.
DeleteNot by any means. Never has a creature been so adapted to take advantage of the forest and all the bountiful resources it offers.
DeleteChuck
Here is a link to watch the movie "Letters from the Big Man"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/letters_from_the_big_man
Chuck
Watched it on OVGuide over a month ago, not sure if it's still there to stream, my opinion, 31/2 out of five stars. Showed some realistic traits of a Sasquatch that we assume they do, it's worth a watch.......
DeleteThanks much 6 37. OV guide. Will give this a try little later. Your review is about the same as some others I have read. Much appreciated.
DeleteChuck
"Didn't even noticed"?
ReplyDeletechuck scott did one on isle royal about the mining of copper pre-viking very interesting
ReplyDeleteThanks for that 5 53. I have not watched this one and will for sure look for it. Pre Viking, now that is very interesting. Did the natives use copper ore?
DeleteI like the the one about the Rune stone found in Kennsington, MN in the late 1800's that seemed to be a territorial land claim with writing that may have been put there in the 1300s due to markings on the stone that were used in that time period. May have been the work of Henry Sinclair and his Knight Templar voyageours.
Chuck
i will get you the link chuck
DeleteWatched the first 12 minutes of Letters from the Big Man, then it closed up. Maybe have to create an account. Anyway at the 9 40 mark of the movie the lady comes into an area where a fire had occurred. Had the same type of Birch trees with no tops just like is seen in this clip with Les Stroud. If you pause Les's Clip at the 2 27 mark it sure looks like the trees are in the background and the swaying could have been created some 50 yards in the rear as Les estimated. Put out the bat signal to Les and get some clarification.
ReplyDeleteChuck
chuck here is a link to pt 1
Deletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=t5JTC0qZW0Q
ALL in ALL, it's aaaaaaaaaaanother darn blurry out of focus video,plain annnnnnnnn simple. As usual we can analyze/speculate this one till the cows come home with no definitive outcome.........
ReplyDeleteJohn W. Jones, was right! They're in the Trees. makes sense. Hardly any hunter looks up. We're trained to look ahead at ground level. Unless we're Squirrel or Racoon hunting, we never look up.
ReplyDeleteMakes perfect sense, that hunters can pass right under Big foots up in the Pine trees. Even if we looked up, we wouldn't be able to see them! They're in the Trees. I never read from other researchers about this?
Sasquatch are 100% using trees.
Delete100%? Are you sure? Perhaps using 2nd hand info passed from other should at least knock a couple % off.
DeleteLearn a bit about the subject son, let me know if you need some help.
DeleteCan someone please tell me this? Does Les Stroud have an opinion on record as to whether he believes in the existence of Bigfoot? Thanks.
ReplyDeletespoke to a hunter that has hunted all over the US, told me a story of how something one night shook their RV like it was a toy and the smell of rotten meat and garbage was overwhelming . when the shaking stopped so did the smell.
ReplyDeleteCool story 7 50. Something moved our rv ( actually it was a pop up camper a friend, Sams ) last week of Feb. 2012 at Salt Fork Lake, OH). Were well the only ones there. Sam and the dogs were asleep, I was the only one that felt it, it was right behind me. Kept looking for a shadow to go past windows and other noise but did not hear anything. So I can only say I do not know what it was. Same kept his parabolic recorder going all night outside and did catch some very interesting sounds. A bigfoot that could shake an rv like a toy could have overturned Sam's camper with ease. Again thanks for the story. Love em.
DeleteChuck
Anyone who seriously cares about evidence should see that Les Stroud worked with Todd Standing and Jeffrey Meldrum and subsequently move on. The Joe stamp on this should be your final piece of evidence that this is just another bunch of blabbering to distract you from the fact that no specimen has been caught yet. The Patterson film is a bunch of images and colors, set in motion in a sequence that depicts a bigfoot walking. It doesnt contain any skin folds, any fatty tissue. Its a damn movie. Thats just some experts opinions on what they think they see in the movie. Experts I might add who have been wrong and misleading multiple times. Experts who are in fact a joke among thier colleages. If you are looking for solid evidence of Sasquatch it wont be found anywhere on this blog and its group of psuedo-science wackos.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely brilliant disinformation there bro. Where do I get a job like what you got there? The timber industry maybe? Are you a subcontractor to the NSA? I just luv the crap that you spew out. Where to I apply?
DeleteHe's not clever enough to be a dissinformationist. Poor guy's been obliterated every day he's posted.
DeleteI'm starting to feel a bit sorry for him.
Oh... And just to tip him over the edge a little more;
Deletehttp://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/309-north-american-wood-ape-conservancy/
http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf
@joe fitzgerald, Question: Has Les Stroud come out publicly as a Bigfoot believer? Thanks.
DeleteJoe, Has Les Stroud come out publicly as a Bigfoot believer? Thanks.
DeleteHello pal.
DeleteWell not outright to be honest, but in my opinion it couldn't be more obvious. As for a direct quote I'm not so sure it exists. He's stated he finds the term 'Bigfoot' derogatory and prefers Sasquatch, he's been very clear about the evidence he's seen first hand, and has been very clear about his experiences, whilst hanging with people like Meldrun and Standing on radio shows being very enthusiastic... I think it's a no brainer.
What's probably the reality is he's a believer but won't be a knower until he's seen one, not just heard one. I'll do a little digging for you.
Thanks Joe. I appreciate it. I was a "Bigfoot Enthusiast" for a long time, but kind of stepped away for a while for personal reasons.Trying to catch up now. I appreciate your help and enjoy your contributions on this blog.
DeleteYou have a friend in me sir!
DeleteDoes matter what Stroud thinks? He's not seen one. His opinion is based purelyon what everyone else knows or thinks.
DeleteAnonymous 11:08...Mine was merely a curiosity question. Still, seeing as how I asked it, it apparently matters to me.
Delete11:08... Someone with his ourdoors knowledge & experience is open to, and had an experience attributed to Sasquatch... And is door research on it.
DeleteDoes matter.
joe fitzgerald...thank you for your kindness, sir.
Deleteyou know this is a troll joe^^^^
DeleteWho is a troll?
DeleteJoe, I believe that Anonymous 12:36 was calling me a troll. Please be assured I am not a troll. My name is Joe Murray, I live in Lansdale, PA and have had a strong interest in the Bigfoot phenomenon for years. I even once contributed an article to this blog.
Deletehttp://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/07/if-gorillas-can-do-this-imagine-what.html
I am certainly not trolling.
Nice to meet you Joe. Thank you very much for the link. You should post more often.
DeleteOh... And I knew you weren't a troll.
DeleteThanks Joe.
DeleteDefinitely a bigfoot. It could never be a deer, or a bear, or a member of the film crew. Only bigfoot. No other explanation.
ReplyDeleteLes during the Alaskan episode always went out alone as he has for on the Survivorman shows for over 10 years. When deer and bear start making primate sounds and shaking the hell out of the forest and then stomp on out then you will be on to something.
DeleteChuck
not true chuck insurance regs would not allow him to be alone there is always a crew in the area
DeleteNo "could be". You are.
ReplyDeleteYou fukin idiot. There is no crew in the immediate area. There is a base camp with a crew miles and miles from where Les is. They are not in the trees shaking them.
ReplyDeleteHow is this a bigfoot?
ReplyDeleteScience must be falsifiable, testable and objective.
Piepants not necessarily so.
Uhhhh.. those are not giant trees moving in the background by the way. Les is causing the movement as he pulls (or sets down) the stuff he has in his hands. They look like they are just some small vegetation (sticks) which move directly across from him (other side of the log in the foreground). The motion of the sticks are perfectly in time with Les' movements. Its very easy to see this after watching the gif cycle through for a few seconds.
ReplyDeleteYah agreed
ReplyDeletetook me a while to understand because I couldnt see trees moving. Then I realized that they believe the long grass that Les is disturbing is what the are saying is trees moving.
Fuckin' skeptic Assholes !
ReplyDeleteJust watched this on a HDTV 43"-sci channel-and it's clearly Les making the bushes move
Delete