Has SurvivorMan Lost His Damn Mind?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on May 26th, 2015

Atheist comedian, actor, and author, Dusty Smith aka CultOfDusty posts the following compilation of Survivorman Bigfoot episode snippets…


See all of the Survivorman posts on Cryptomundo here.

#LesStroud #SurvivormanBigfoot #DiscoveryChannel #ScienceChannel #Nephilim

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.

14 Responses to “Has SurvivorMan Lost His Damn Mind?”

  1. SirWilhelm responds:

    The irony is that an atheist doesn’t consider the possibility that there were flesh and blood entities in ancient times that used advanced technology to pass themselves off as gods to primitive humans. Which is harder to believe in? A spiritual god, or aliens from another planet with space travel, who not only visited Earth, but colonized it, when the only native inhabitants were primitive humanoids? If they had space travel, could they also have had genetic engineering? If they had genetic engineering, could they not have engineered a hybrid, using their own DNA and that of the primitive humanoid? What if they decided they needed a hybrid to do their heavy lifting, to labor for them, particularly in their dirty, dangerous, gold mines? What if they engineered so well, that they found the hybrids attractive enough to mate with them, and the results were “giants”, who lived then, as in Goliath, and their descendants survive today, in various isolated localities around the world? What if the rest of the hybrids, who they engineered to be fertile, bred so well that they, eventually, populated the rest of the Earth, becoming so numerous, that the aliens could no longer control them, and had to retreat, and leave the Earth? Could that explain why both UFOs and hairy humanoid giants, are so elusive? Because they fear their own creation? Their relatives?

  2. eyeofstrm responds:

    An Athiest wonders if Les has lost his mind? Priceless. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

  3. Goodfoot responds:

    WTF is an “atheist comedian”? Is it something funny? I sorta doubt it.

    Like the posters above, I immediately wondered if it was Les who’d “lost his damn mind”. I’m a confirmed agnostic who’s not opposed to prayer, and have found myself praying on occasion, I confess. I can believe in prayer without being sure there’s a God. After all, agnostics maintain there may indeed be a God, but there’s no way of actually KNOWING if there is one.

    When it comes to atheists, you’ll find me standing will Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists – who simply don’t deal in the concept of God or a Creator – (I’m a Bön Buddhist myself, a more animist form of Buddhism which is said to predate the Buddha by about 10,000 years in Asia). After all, how can they possibly know there’s no God? Where is their PROOF?

    Most atheists I’ve read or known are flaming a-holes, much more so than people of faith or agnostics.


  4. Goodfoot responds:

    I think Les sounds like a man who’s spent large swaths of time in silence and solitude in the wild. Something “CultofDusty” will never be accused of!

  5. PoeticsOfBigfoot responds:

    That’s it, I’m done. I’ve been following this site for nine years, but the newer members, with so much vitriol, hate, and pure bad manners have ruined what Cryptomundo was about in the beginning. You won’t be hearing from poeticsofbigfoot anymore. Enjoy yourselves.

  6. dconstrukt responds:

    i unfortunately watched all 6 episodes.

    and they sucked.

    really bad.

    i kept waiting and waiting and waiting for something…

    anything to happen…

    for him to discover something…

    or see something…

    or hear something….

    or even learn some really good stuff for the next episode…

    but he didn’t see or hear anything, at least nothing that i could hear watching it on tv.

    very disappointing.

    but i guess that goes to show you… even the so called “experts” have virtually no clue wtf they’re doing…

    seeing one of these things, if they are real, could be purely random chance.

    even if you are in a “hot spot”.

  7. Wee Falorie Man responds:

    I agree with Dusty Smith. Survivorman sounds like an utter crackpot. Survivorman’s theory that Bigfoot has psychic powers and is descended from “fallen angels” sounds ridiculous to me.

    Goodfoot – There is no evidence that any invisible supernatural gods or goddesses exist. Most atheists don’t claim that “they know” there are no gods; they just don’t believe in gods because they have not seen evidence that convinces them that any gods or goddesses exist.

    Atheists aren’t actually making a claim so the burden of proof is not on them. For example, if I told you that an invisible supernatural dragon (to paraphrase Carl Sagan) lives in my back yard, you would probably not believe me unless I show you evidence that it actually exists; you don’t need to prove that my invisible dragon DOES NOT exist. The person who is making the claim has the burden of proof. Do you see how that works?

  8. chewbaccalacca responds:

    Settle down, folks. Les’s comments have been taken out of context in this video. It was obvious to me in the shows that Les was trying to be even-handed in presenting the full spectrum of views about the creature–I thought he did a great job (even if he didn’t come up with definitive proof, as some hoped). Les is a respectable character, and brought some much-needed attention to the subject. Over and out.

  9. Goodfoot responds:

    Wee Falorie Man:


  10. Wee Falorie Man responds:

    Goodfoot – Here’s the very first sentence from the link that you posted:
    “Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.”

    And the 3rd sentence:
    “Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.”

    Saying that you don’t believe in something without sufficient evidence is not the same as declaring that something does not exist. Do you understand the difference?

    This should explain things nicely:

  11. Mundocrypto responds:

    Wee Falorie Man, according to the world’s authority on the English language, the OED, Atheism is “The belief that there is no God.” This appears to be restricted to the traditional monotheistic God, and not other “gods,” as you claim.

    Atheism, as you see, is a belief.

    Atheism does not have an “opinion” on the Afterlife, ghosts, or an immortal soul. Atheism is absolutely strictly the belief that there is no God. Atheism does not touch these other subjects. An Atheist can believe in the Afterlife, ghosts, the immortal soul, while believing that there is no God. They are not mutually dependent, or mutually exclusive.

    You mis-stepped here: “Most atheists don’t claim that “they know” there are no gods”. Again, God singular, not gods. But your misstep is that your statement just quoted contradicts your statement immediately preceding it: “There is no evidence that any invisible supernatural gods or goddesses exist.” This is basically a flat statement which translates to “There is no God,” which is what you say in the next breath you do not claim.

    Look at your words: “There is no evidence that any invisible supernatural gods or goddesses exist.” You don’t know this to be true. You do not have this knowledge. Evidence of God or a god, when given to an individual, is experienced privately. The evidence is not public, but private, personal, and intimate. If such evidence is given to you through an experience, it would also likely be intimate and personal, something you would not tell others. It would be evidence to you personally, you would have your evidence, but you couldn’t present the evidence, and the evidence is not public for thousands to witness at once. Nevertheless, for you, it will be evidence. If you ever experience this, you will have your evidence, and you will know you erred in saying there is no evidence.

    Your words: “”There is no evidence that any invisible supernatural gods or goddesses exist.” You would be closer to accurate if you exchanged “evidence” for “proof.” Still, you can’t speak for the experiences of individuals, if they have had evidence or proof demonstrated to them intimately, you can have no opinion of this; they aren’t your experiences; you have no power to declaim anything about their experiences.

    Your words: “Most atheists don’t claim that “they know” there are no gods” and “Atheists aren’t actually making a claim” . . . So far all of those I’ve encountered who’ve eventually revealed they are Atheists or whom I discover are Atheists because of the telltale regurgitated remarks out of the standard rulebook, do indeed say “There is no God.” None of them ever say “I believe there is no God.” They all tell me “There is no God.” They erroneously throw in anything supernatural, unaware that Atheism only applies to God, and nothing else.

  12. Mundocrypto responds:

    Wee Falorie Man, an Atheist saying “There is no God” has reached the pinnacle of human hypocrisy. This is because to know there is no God, requires the powers of a god. It requires that the possessor of that knowledge to be all-seeing, all-knowing, as would be a god. It’s ludicrous that while declaring there is no God, they are self-appropriating the powers of a god. There is no greater height of hypocrisy of which a human being is capable. (This basically shakes out to, “There is no God, but me.”)

    This is the classic flaw of such an Atheist: it is a God complex. Atheists with God complexes are common. All Atheists who declare “There is no God,” which requires godlike powers and knowledge in order to declare accurately, have a God complex.

    These Atheists are of a type. They consistently quote or paraphrase Hitchens and Rose and Sagan, as you have done, and equate Jesus with the Easter Bunny. These are all out of the standard playbook and demonstrate an inability to generate original thought. These Atheists are restricted to, and only utilize, groupthink. They are a stereotype.

    The Atheist and Agnostic beliefs are inapplicable to faith-based religions. A faith-based religion is supposed to offer no proof. That is the point! The requirement is faith. The supposed reward is based on the person’s faith in the face of negative events. The Atheist is on surer ground than the Agnostic in relation to Christianity, because the Agnostic’s “I’ll believe it when I see it” is inapplicable to faith-based religions. In the faith-based religion, you are supposed to not see it. That is the point. You are supposed to see no evidence. There is supposed to be no proof; instead, there is to be faith. Proof eliminates faith. “Some” evidence could lessen or eliminate faith. The religion asks for faith; that is anathema to evidence and proof. Faith is the exercise, the gauntlet, the challenge, the crucible. That is the point of the faith-based religion. If someone does personally find that there is some evidence, that person is lucky and has something to add to his/her faith.

    Atheists and Agnostics who think they’ve made a miraculous discovery by saying Christianity, for instance, has no proof, have made no discovery at all, or have “discovered” the obvious. The churchman will tell these two, There is supposed to be no proof; that is why faith is demanded. Faith is the path.

    One other catastrophic error Atheists make is claiming that science proves there is no God. They also of course go hog wild and attempt to apply science to everything supernatural. Look at this massive error, which eradicates all of their efforts:

    Science, by definition, is the study and observation of the natural world, and is restricted to natural laws.

    Hold the above clearly in your mind while you consider this truth:

    The supernatural is, by definition, outside the natural world, and operates outside the laws of nature.

    As you see, science is inapplicable to the supernatural.

    Science, by definition, cannot see, observe, or measure the supernatural.

    When trying to apply science to the supernatural, every experiment and claim thenceforth, is faulty and false. Every experiment and claim is based on a bedrock of falsehood. Everything is wrong and false after that point, after you initially set out to “disprove” or do anything with the supernatural, with science as your tool.

    Since science is restricted to the natural world, of course science is the wrong tool to attempt to observe anything outside the natural world. It couldn’t be more inapplicable. Everything that Atheists have deduced based on science measuring what is outside science, is invalid. Science has no power to see what is outside of science/nature.

  13. Mundocrypto responds:

    Wee Falorie Man, such Atheists persist in failing to realize these:

    **Atheism is a belief

    **Atheism is the belief that there is no God (see the OED).

    **That declaring “There is no God” demands the knowledge and/or power of a god to know, reveals the claimant is suffering from a God complex, and is exercising the highest form of hypocrisy.

    **That the correct declamation is “I believe there is no God.”

    **That science is restricted to the natural world.

    **That the supernatural is by definition outside the natural world and laws of nature.

    **That science by definition is unable to observe or measure the supernatural.

    **That in a faith-based religion there is supposed to be no proof, that is the point; proof would eliminate faith.

    Your clichéd paraphrasing of Sagan and condescending lecturing of Goodfoot reveal that you are part of or influenced by the usual skepto-Atheist groups. It’s tired and stereotypical to quote Sagan, Hitchens, and the usual crowd; and to drag out unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, the Easter Bunny, all also clichés out of the skepto-Atheist playbook. (You trot out Sagan’s dragon.) It would do you good to relinquish the stereotype and to attempt original thought. Drop the hive-mind. Think for yourself.

    It’s interesting the snorting dismissal of such Atheists, in equating Jesus with the Easter Bunny. None of them have considered the concept of triangulation, a method to give accurate geo-location. The four Gospels are an attempt to give you quadrangulation to conduce to veracity. Atheists should take that aspect into account. The attempt is there, the offering is there. There was no camera equipment in those days; the story told from four perspectives is the attempt to offer you veracity. You should be aware of that, so that you understand what it is you are rejecting, possibly in kneejerk fashion.

    I don’t blame Atheists for their belief. Many have good reason for their belief. But they should be aware, at the very least, of the definitions of Atheist and Atheism, before identifying themselves as Atheists. What a small thing to ask!

    It’s so refreshing to hear an Atheist accurately say, “I believe there is no God.” After hearing the relentless God-complex brigade of Atheists pontificate “There is no God,” the former accurate statement by the correct Atheist is music to the ears.

    They should be aware too that saying “There is no God” is the mirror image of that which they despise: the Bible thumping born-againer who judges and pushes and also claims certain knowledge, which only God or a god could have. They are two sides of the same coin.

    Since they despise the Bible-thumper, Atheists should take care to not be the mirror image of the Bible-thumper, and remember the definition of Atheism, remember it is only a belief, restricted to the belief that there is no God, full stop.

  14. Wee Falorie Man responds:

    Mundocrypto – First of all, you have misquoted the Oxford English dictionary. I have one sitting right in front of me and it actually says that atheism is “Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God”. Also, the Oxford English Dictionary gives the definition of an atheist as “One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God”. The Oxford English Dictionary neither states nor implies that they are referring to your “traditional monotheistic God, and not other gods”, as you claim. In fact, their use of “a God” implies exactly the opposite, thus your claim that “This appears to be restricted to the traditional monotheistic God, and not other gods” is demonstrably false.

    Your next misstatement: “Atheism, as you see, is a belief”. Once again, you are mistaken. Atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF in the existence of any invisible gods or goddesses. You are saying that a lack of belief is a belief. Do you see how silly that sounds?

    On to your next point: “Evidence of God or a god, when given to an individual, is experienced privately.” “The evidence is not public, but private, personal, and intimate.” “Still, you can’t speak for the experiences of individuals, if they have had evidence or proof demonstrated to them intimately, you can have no opinion of this”, etc. We obviously disagree on the definition of the word “evidence”. I will quote the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary: Evidence is “The quaility or condition of being evident; clearness, evidentness.” The private experiences that you refer to, are not evident in the very real sense that they can’t be demonstrated to be true – the person who is making these claims could be mistaken, lying, delusional, etc. I could claim to “privately” sense the presence of an invisible supernatural dragon in my back yard, but that would not be actual evidence of its existence because the existence of the invisible supernatural dragon would not be EVIDENT. Your argument is a logical fallacy known as “The Argument From Personal Experience”.

    As for your next point: “So far all of those I’ve encountered … do indeed say “There is no God.” Well, all of the atheists who I have encountered do not say “There is no god”. I have had exactly the opposite experience; they usually say that they don’t believe in any gods. Sadly, you then go on to use your personal anecdote to create a Straw Man Fallacy in your following post – lame …

    You then descend into a ridiculous rant about paraphrasing Carl Sagan and Hitchens that is far too silly to merit a serious response. *facepalm*

    In fact, the only valid point you have made is that your belief in your invisible “god” is based on faith. Of course, things that are real can be demonstrated to exist and do not require “faith”. Your god, for example, can’t be seen, heard nor detected in any way. In other words, your god has exactly the same attributes as things that do not exist.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.