I tried to watch the Unbraided preview- I couldn't make it three minutes. The new guy just rubbed me the wrong way while having a hissy about how you have to kill a snake or it will follow you and crawl in your sleeping bag. Please...

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt Joe is a very capable operator, and I respect him as a shooter. But I've known a a lot of people in that community, I grew up around it, so it doesn't make me into a perky and squirmy fanboy when they start talking about units. And I suspect that was part of why they brought him in.

A word from Dave about DS


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDmRrJ-GdUA

Snakes follow you in order to deliberately crawl into your sleeping bag? - Please.... Stuff like this reinforces my opinion that these shows are just rarefied BS that misleads the public (how about cauterizing wounds with burning gunpowder?) into a very bizarre and unrealistic view of the outdoors.

A total waste of time and resources - entertainment uber alles.....

[/quote] I think most people who spend time outdoors watch it to laugh. [/quote]

I am sure you are correct about folks with a fair amount of experience, but what about the rest of the population who have little outdoors exposure? What about the young, inexperienced kids who will watch this slop and actually think it is good technique?

Indeed, you don't have to kill the snake, SAS Survival Skills seems to have a different survival doctrine to US SOCOM survival techniques. Punching the snakes lights out is the preferred British technique. The snake will become so disorientated that it won't be able to follow you to snuggle up in the sleeping bag later in the evening.

There are also significant differences in the consumption of ones own bodily waste products. Distillation of the Urine prior to consumption is the preferred SAS method to the Dual Survival demonstration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCJFpwb2Opc

Peeling a rotten cow carcase to make a Cowboy hat, however does demonstrate some rather advanced millinery survival techniques beyond anything the SAS can muster though

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNkvW1N0QNA

As a retired veteran, a graduate of several survival schools, someone who teaches it for a job (occasionally), and a scoutmaster who teaches this stuff to the kids, I have to tell them constantly to not take what they see on TV seriously. They do look at these shows as if they impart knowledge. The kids, and their parents in many cases, need to be told how bad some of the techniques are that they have seen. In the best case, they are not seeing all of the components of a skill that is demonstrated. These shows do not teach survival techniques. Emulating any of them will likely get you in trouble in a real life situation.

My son and I watched "Mars on Earth" on the weekend. Gotta say that I didn't like it as much as the first two seasons. I like Cody but this felt like more entertainment than education. (Moreso than the first two seasons.)

I missed the snake part but my 9 year old pointed out that:

-splitting up (and going different directions) isn't smart
-he wondered why Cody did leave signals for Joe when he changed location. Relying on the yellow helmet worked, but "wouldn't it have been smarter to make some arrows or something?"
-drinking your pee isn't smart
-running across the desert in bare feet isn't smart
-running down a sandy slope isn't smart
-leaving the rope/parachute behind when they climbed down into the canyon wasn't smart. (I pointed out that it was anchored at the top, and he countered that they could have cut it and at least brought some of it with them.)
-not gathering resources (i.e. firewood) when you can isn't smart
-collecting those bean/seed pods to eat was smart. He wondered if there weren't more that they could have taken with them
-he wondered by Cody didn't make a hand drill, instead of fretting over only having one match


We'll watch it again, but keeping entertainment vs education in mind the entire time.

Well said. That sums it up for me.

Blake

It's designed for entertainment. There is good information presented, and some bogus information. It is up to the viewer to recognize and understand the difference. But to say everything that is presented is nonsense, is in itself nonsense. You can certainly pick out some useful information.

This reminds me of a scene in a show a few years back. The show was "The Unit", about a specialized military ops team that would go into bad situations and do, well, special military ops type of stuff.

In one episode one of the guys and a female sidekick were stranded in the outdoors after their helicopter crashed. There in the forground of the scene was the guy making and using a firebow to start his fire. And right behind him was his still-flaming helicopter. I always wondered why he didn't just go poke that flaming helicopter with his firebow to get the silly thing lit to start a fire. Seems like he did it "the hard way" for the show.

Undoubtedly, some good stuff is presented, but if it up to the viewer to select and discriminate, to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, what is the point? Some of us are concerned about the effect of this stuff on those who will suck up everything, not being able to tell the good from the bogus.

I love your example of the flaming helicopter....

Some of this stuff can be deadly, not just minor differences of opinion about the best kind of firestarter.