Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Cave Men only "Oooga Booga" => Topic started by: Mickey on December 08, 2013, 07:59:41 pm
-
Flipping channels tonight ( Sunday Dec 8) and came across Naked and Afraid and the guy in the show was named Billy Berger. Is he our Billy Berger?
Show features a gal and a gal dropped off in Wilderness ( this time it was Louisianna) naked to fend for them selves for a week. Edit...not a week.. 21 days... Yiiiiii
-
Yep it was him..check out episode 6 and the bios
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/naked-and-afraid/episode-guide.htm
Very cool Billy!
-
Well apparently this was first aired back in July so if y'all have already discussed it I missed it. Sorry.
-
Yep, I saw it. Haha. Kind of funny show. I think "loin-clothed and afraid" would be just as interesting, and think of all the money they would save in censoring! :)
-
I watched the show the other night and there were two coupes on an island but setout of opposite sides of the island. They did meet up about halfway through the show and rom there had to cross shark infested waters on a raft they made. I got bored and switched the channel. ;D
-
I really hope the show doesnt morph into one of those fake drama game show types, like Survivor....
-
Dang, I was a little bit embarrassed at all the belly aching goin on. I'm sure it's tuff out there, but dang, use some of your primitive skills. How about a grass shaw or maybe a grass skirt. :o Sorry, but stop whinnin and start winnin, that chick is hot and seems pretty tuff too. Maybe that's how the network wants us to see it though, I wasn't there. I'm gonna keep watching though. dp
-
Caught the episode when it first aired. Realize that they edit these shows to get ratings. I have been in those swamps, and even with the best of equipment, it is no picnic. Traveling through all that snake infested country can test even the most stout of hearts. Good on You Billy for even trying that..Enjoyed the Article in this months magazine on Your first buck with Primitive Gear
-
Not to cast asparagus on the whole shindig, but why naked? Not a prude, but humanity has always worn clothes. Not always out of modesty, but for protection against the elements. Stinging Nettle and Poison Oak are great plant teachers in that aspect. I think the show is driving for a wee bit of sensationalism and sex appeal in the naked shtick.
On the other hand, I evicted the TV a long time ago so have not seen the show. So I can't really make an in formed judgement on it. But I tend to think there would be more seriousness if the people were at least clothed in the traditional grab of some distant time period of the region they're in for the show. That would be more authentic.
-
Agreed, dharma. It also kind of eliminates any winter/northern area - you'd be hard pressed toake it 21 hours in northern Manitoba in winter if you got dropped off naked.
-
They should call it "If we aren't naked I am afraid this won't air very long"
-
I think the point of being naked is to throw another monkey wrench into the survival scenario. In a plane crash or other catastrophic event, clothes may get burned or torn off. Not a big fan of the naked aspect, but if You were suddenly to find Yourself stranded buck naked and with another individual, what would Your priorities be? Food, Shelter, Water, Clothes??? I think a cold wether show would be great, as I live in a very cold climate, and would like to see how someone reacted....
-
Well, if your clothes were burned off, you'd have second to third degree burns and be in shock pretty quickly. Plus burns to get infected if you survived the burns and the shock. In a cold climate, you'd get hypothermia and frostbite pretty quickly if you were naked. Even the wrong clothes can get you killed in cold climates.
These "survival" shows are not realistic, for a number of reasons. First off, the people in them are not going to die. If the producers of these shows allowed people on them to die, they could be charged with crimes. Negligent homicide, manslaughter, etc. Someone could die in an accident, but the producers could not stand by and let these people die if they failed to perform correct survival skills. People react differently when they know it's do or die as opposed to having a back-up where their survival is ensured. Law enforcement agencies won't allow a show where people would be allowed to die. And they probably take a peek at them from time to time just to see. Back to the do or die issues, I saw a guy who passed a three day Red Cross first aid course with flying colors. But when we had an industrial accident, he froze up and stood there watching an injured man bleed. So, actual reality differs from staged "reality" when it comes to human reactions.
This is just entertainment, such as it is. I'd be leery of anything "as seen on TV". TV exists to sell products, no more, no less. They'll do whatever it takes to get ratings that they can show advertisers, regardless of whether or not what is shown is factually correct. In an actual survival situation, the best and worst comes out in people and you can't film that at all when it happens. Take that plane that crashed in the Andes, for example. They had to resort to cannibalism to survive. Can you put people into that kind of situation and film that? Of course not. That was an anomaly where human flesh was the only food available to them and so they had to resort to that. But first, they had to be desperate enough to break a major human taboo about cannibalism. That is something that cannot be staged. Therefore, a TV show can't show you how far someone will go to survive or what they might have to do in order to accomplish that.
Another example. The Donner Party. Again, they had to resort to cannibalism. But you had to have "the perfect storm", so to speak, for that to happen. Wagon train tried to beat the snows, they didn't listen to experienced guides, they tried a questionable shortcut, they didn't want to wait, and so they got trapped. And the rest is what they ended up having to do to live. If a TV show tried to create this scenario, they'd all be carted off into federal custody and be looking at 20 to life prison sentences. But the Andes plane crash and the Donner Party are two prime examples of what happened in survival situations where people were dropped into them without proper gear and supplies.
Another thing. When you KNOW you are lost, that is far different from being "lost" with a film crew hovering nearby. The fear factor just isn't present when you can get "unlost" quickly by crying uncle and throwing in the towel. In a real survival situation, throwing in the towel means you lay down and die and every turkey vulture and raven in the neighbourhood show up for a free meal. Putting cash as a reward for success isn't realistic, either. It's far different from your own life being the door prize.
And as far as the nudity, need it even be said? It's typical Hollywood. Sex sells. They're trying to evoke something primal, but what they're evoking are the more unpleasant attributes of man's primal nature. Obviously, this is so. Or there would be two 55 year old men with potbellies naked as opposed to a man and a woman. It also involves some rather tiresome fantasies that go along the lines of, "If you were naked in the woods with (insert name of woman you think most attractive here), what would you do?" Indeed, need it even be said?
We are truly at an impasse with television, such as it is.
-
One more thing while I'm on a roll. An interesting thing I observed about survival was about three weeks ago. It involved this feral dog I saw on Highway 160 here in Arizona between Kayenta and Tuba City early one morning up on the Navajo Nation. There's a lot of feral dogs out there and food is hard to come by. If you've been on the Rez here, you know what the terrain is like. High desert. There was a road-killed coyote in the middle of the road straddling the center line. This dog stood in the middle of this road eating that coyote as tractor trailers and pickup trucks whizzed by only inches away. That is how hungry that dog was. It was willing to risk its life for food. There's a survival situation there for you. Risk your life to eat. The traffic isn't going to stop. Not on Highway 160 it won't.
-
I will first say I enjoy watching the show because of the mental break downs and mental challenge only. Why 21 days, because you can starve to death around 21 days or more. You have to have water, but food you can get along without...at least that is what they say. I'm starving after one day. As it has been said they can not allow someone to die, unless it is an accident. So how do you create the drama needed. I believe they read the applications and pick average knowledgable survivalists. I know some people could excell in some of the situations presented in the shows. The naked part appeals to viewers and mentally destroys some participants that lose that security blanket of protective clothing. If they wore clothes would it be as interesting, I don't think so. Just imagine yourself in the show given the choice to wear clothes or not, I know what I would pick and be glad. Several of the participants have had complete shut down and laid around in camp doing nothing. If you only had a little water you could lay there for 21 days and survive. To improve your situation and make it better is mental challenge and some do great. As far as learning survival tricks or knowledge I really haven't seen much that impressed me....I can take it or leave it, but it is sometimes interesting at least for a little longer...Attitude is what wins!
On the last show did anyone think it was crazy luck that all those big bamboo poles floated up to the bank, which just happened to be enough for them to make a raft...was that lucky or what?
-
Obviously, the bamboo poles were launched by the film crew upriver.
-
Yeah..They still had the Home Depot labels on them... :laugh:
Hey Dharma...Spent 22 Years as a PA in the Army. Craziest thing I ever saw was in Iraq in 2005. Hummer 2 vehicles up gets nailed by an IED. The one guy who walks(well crawled) away from the blast and fire...Buck naked except for boots..Everything else burned and blown off him..oddly enough...even with the blast and fire..Not a mark on him..Hair was burned off and He was deaf for a few weeks....Just an observation about survival in extreme conditions...
-
Damn...
-
I'll grant you that, Mohawk. But in a plane crash, we're talking about burning JP4. You can see what happened to the few people that survived those two 747s crashing at Tenerife back in the 70s.
-
Im coming to the conclusion that being naked is a decent stand in for the stresses of what real life would be like in an actual survival situation. I can not think of anything else the crew could do to the subjects to stress them more....
Well one thing actually that would be brilliant. Not give them any idea how long they have to survive. Just drop them off for an unspecified number of days, then leave it up to them how long they want to last. Without having an end goal to count down to, they have no light at the end of the tunnel, nothing to look forward to other than another cold night, trying to keep the fire up and bugs off. That would make the show complete in my eyes. Wish I knew how to make that suggestion to the writers.
-
Wish I knew how to make that suggestion to the writers.
Id suggest,that they put some damn clothes on.LOL
-
Hey everyone!
Yeah that was me on the show. Glad you caught it, and I really hope those who saw it enjoyed it. Ya'll have some questions and so I thought I'd address some of them here.
First off, I believe the naked aspect is two-fold. Being naked strips you of all protection and takes you back to our pre-human era before we had or needed clothes. When you're naked you're certainly exposed to whatever Mother Nature wants to throw at you (ants, wasps, poison ivy, biting insects, thorns, sharp twigs, chiggers, cold rain, etc.). It's a back to basics type of show where they want to take the most experienced survivalists they can find, strip them of everything, and see if they can REALLY do it. Like the Naked into the Wilderness books, only they wanted to do it for real. I've watched them all and I really like them.
However, being naked is also a draw for viewers and advertisers. The fact that people are naked certainly gets people's attention. Unfortunately that's what advertisers and networks need in this world, because we're constantly hammered by advertisements and movie reviews. Nobody believes it anymore, and the fact that people are trying to survive with absolutely no protection certainly sets the bar even higher. In that respect, the naked aspect really works. Naked and Afraid has been a smash hit, and is in the top 3 most watched series in Discovery Channel's history. Whether or not being naked is necessary is up for debate. But the fact that it's done as well as it has certainly means that being naked really is necessary. We're talking about it, aren't we? And that's what they want!
But I want you all to know that what you see is REAL. We were not given a script, or told to act things out, or told to do certain things. The struggles, the insect bites, the leeches chewing holes in my skin to suck my blood, it was all real and I still have leech bites on my ankles to prove it. It's no joke. And we did what we would do in that situation if we really were naked and trying to survive. And they just filmed it. There is so much that happens in 3 weeks that a tremendous amount of good material never makes it on the show. The mental challenge of being isolated and trying to survive is the most challenging part of the show. You guys have no idea how hard that was, even though we knew our time there was limited. Three weeks might as well have been three months. Yes, it felt that long and was a real test of what you've got deep down. Anyone here think they can do it? Go ahead and apply on Discovery Channel's website because they're trying to get people to take on the challenge for season 2!!!!
Of course the fact that anyone would end up naked in a survival situation like this is rather unrealistic. But people still die in the wilderness every year, even with clothes on. When I was living in Oregon I remember a guy from Pennsylvania climbed South Sister in central Oregon in early November. He had on jeans and a light vest. The day started out nice and he made it to the summit, but on his way down a snowstorm blew in and he never made it off the mountain. They searched for weeks but never could locate his body. He was eventually found (or what was left of him) the following August by another hiker who happened to stumble upon him. Hell, look at what happened with Hurricane Katrina, or Superstorm Sandy, or those mountain climbers who got snowed in on Mount Hood several years ago and froze to death when a blizzard blew in. Stories like that make shows like Naked and Afraid very real and they captivate viewers. The survival movement is growing by leaps and bounds, and there is opportunity for unknown survivalists to have their 15 mins of fame. Where that may lead you never know, but the I, Caveman show I did 2 years ago led to Naked and Afraid. Where Naked and Afraid will take me I have no idea. But I'm gonna enjoy this ride as long as I can and just embrace where it takes me. That's one lesson I learned from being on Naked and Afraid! By the way, I attached some pics from Naked and Afraid for ya. don't worry, it doesn't show anything inappropriate!
-
Hi Billy,
I dig what you're saying and appreciate your response. But I'm afraid I have a quibble with the part about taking us back to our pre-human era where we didn't have or need clothes. This is not the same thing. We're comparing apples to rutabagas here. Here's why.
If we're referring to Australopithecus or Homo Erectus, we know from fossil and artifact records that they did not have the same technology as we do. Point being, as far as clothes, the thought didn't occur to them and they accepted the insect bites just as an elk would. In other words, they didn't know any better. We do and that makes all the difference. Be that as it may, we don't know for certain that they didn't wear clothes. They wouldn't have survived as artifacts. So we can't really see what it was like for them because we weren't there and there is no way to quantify that history. Naked and Afraid cannot establish the experience because we don't know what their daily life was really like. However, humanity invented clothing for a reason and we do know it is beyond written record and, thus, is a well-established custom among humans. We might think we can see what it was like but we'll be no more successful than World War Two re-enactors are at re-creating the landing at Omaha Beach during D-Day. They can wear the uniforms and carry the weapons, but they cannot re-create the dismembered bodies and ordnance flying about. And that was in fairly recent history compared to early hominids.
It isn't really possible to take a modern human who has knowledge of science, medicine, and even mathematics and think they can know what, say Homo Erectus may have done in thus-and-so a situation. We know, for example, that if we do not take care of a wound, it gets infected. We know it requires antibiotics if it gets infected. But a Paleolithic person might have assumed evil spirits got a hold of that person and that is why he died. They may not have cleaned or dressed the wound at all, unlike us. Even people in the Medieval Period had little knowledge of medicine, often using relics and water from a holy well to "heal" wounds. We also know a lack of Vitamin C causes Scurvy, something even sailors as late as the 1700s didn't understand. So, we also understand dietary requirements which, perhaps, Australopithecus may not have known. Early hominids may have pushed scavenger animals off of animal carcasses over a week old and eaten the meat. Would we do that today? Probably not because we know you can get food poisoning. But early hominids wouldn't have known that, done it anyway, gotten sick, and not known why.
As far as the "sex sells" sensationalism, I'm afraid I still must find it deeply regrettable that this is what we've come to as a society, speaking of evolution. Or, perhaps, a lack of. I'm not interested in a return to the social values of the Victorian Era, but the fact that people are interested more in sex than what is supposed to be the key that travels with it (that being love and respect for the person you share that intimacy with) is somewhat sad. But that's just me. However, humanity developed the institutions of marriage and relationships for a reason and that is societal cohesiveness and an expression of an emotion we somehow happen to have, that being love. Sex became attached to it also as something reserved solely for your partner. That includes nudity, to be clear. Humanity learned that sex being unrestrained led to violence because we're a monogamous species by nature. So are many other animals, such as ravens, doves, and many others. This is where sexual values originate. Something needed to be done because Torg slept with Trug's wife and Trug ran his spear through Torg in retaliation and each one's clan fought a clan war over it and the tribe split apart. So, really, "sex selling" in our society is dangerous to our societal cohesiveness in the long-term.
Anyway, this is how I see it. Not trying to argue, but just wanted to offer the flip side of the coin.
-
I think that this 21 day survival situation is harder for the people on the show than say, someone living there several hundred years ago. With the inventions of flushing toilets, refrigerators, climate controlled buildings and other modern day advancements it makes for a real psychological an physical challenge for the individual. In my time spent in the Marine Corps we did not encounter many of the challenges these people faced. My hat is off to any that tried this challenge even if they didn't finish the 3 week challenge.
-
As stated before, it is the mental challenge that I enjoy in the show. BUT, I do believe they manipulate the show as it progresses, even if the involved "survivalists" are aware of it or not. Just like the bamboo luckily floating up onto the island. I believe Billy found a metal pot deep in a swamp that was needed for boiling water. Drinking that swamp water without cleaning it would not have gone well. It is a TV show....Live Action!
-
I guess if they are going to be Naked then so be it. Then again with all those creepy crawlers around some scant protection is better than nothing..... ;D It is a rather interesting show, very primitive unlike some shows. Saw one episode and liked it. I bet it will be around for sometime.
-
I don't really watch T.V. but somehow seen a part of this. I am a person who thinks all of T.V. is pretty much bull. I have seen some good movies or documentaries but then again their on a television and aren't specifically T.v. reality shows are such mind washing lately. No not all have hidden conspiracy methods. But their blatantly stupid. No offense to Billy but that show is mind numbingly dumb. What is a main eye grabbing basis of reality shows-drama
-
Well, if you turn the sound off a TV, turn the lights out, and stand to the side to see how the light changes spectrum and flashes as commercials and so forth come on, you will be seeing a light-device used by a certain totalitarian regime in brainwashing.
But my main point is the whole "naked" thing is sensationalism and, in my opinion, negates any genuineness of the whole show. It's an appeal to the baser instincts of mankind, ones which early societies had to learn to discipline in order to have any cohesiveness. It wasn't all religious and/or cultural taboos. It had a firm basis in pragmatism that if Grod desired Tork's wife, eventually this would lead to violence and clan warfare within the tribe. Clothing doesn't merely protect against the elements, but it provides a shield, so to speak, against someone desiring someone else in a committed relationship. It isn't a perfect shield, but there's a valid reason why people wear wedding rings and so forth. It's not just a symbol to them, but a symbol to others that that person is off limits and, thus, should not be approached as a prospective partner. Clothing also is worn as such that, obviously, one in a relationship doesn't dress to attract partners. No clothing obviously again, shoots this in the foot. One without shoes on, I should add.
-
The nudity may have had some "shock value" for some viewers, but I think that anyone that watches any amount of TV or movies these days is pretty much desensitized to it.
Being fair-skinned myself, I sure felt bad for that to that poor red-headed guy that turned purple from sunburn and had his skin sloughing off of him. As much as the nudity aspect may have seemed gimmicky, you can't say that it didn't increase the difficulty of what they were doing.
-
I think we should combine a survival show with some more comedic aspects. Hmmm...how about "Donner Party Dynasty"?
-
Saw the episode last night. The bayou is a hard place to survive for 21 days, with or without clothes. Moral of this whole thing I learned that if your in the swamp, and your camp floods, don't wait a week and hope it gets better while you get trench foot. Seek higher ground where your life will be easier. I understand that the little bit of dry land y'all suffered on for a couple weeks seemed appealing because it was the only land you could see, but once its clear that this tiny patch of mud will not sustain you, move somewhere else. Once significant dry land was found, ya'll came across that tasty looking nutria. If that had been found a week or two earlier, there probably would have been chances at several nutria. Nutria guts are probably good for crawfish bait, and even baiting more nutria, life would have been so much less miserable for the two of you.
The whole naked thing doesn't really shock me, I don't find it that sensational. Just makes "the game" harder. The producers probably felt like it would draw more attention to the show, I would have watched the show with the people wearing clothes, it's hard enough to survive with so little for 21 days with clothes on, without you are simply more exposed to the elements and bugs.
-
I like your "style" Dharma. I'm guessing you don't partake in this American fad of television either? I find it makes peoples zombies. Obviously we both are using a computer. But my argument with a computer is you can use it for so much and that you have control on the actually usable information that you take in. This advertisement thing on television to convince people to buy buy buy and rush rush rush money money money is sickening. I think if more people turned off that plastic idiot box we'd have more poets and creators and true artists and way more people not stuck to a single lane.
-
Huntertrapper, yes, I got rid of the TV 16 years ago and haven't missed it. You are correct that our society has devolved as a result of it. Instead of true artists, we now have "celebrities" whose often tragic antics and pratfalls are allegedly something we're supposed to follow with earnestness. This is why several magazines are devoted to covering these peoples' lives. Which, to be sure, is a complex form of societal voyeurism that also appears in "reality" TV. Though, also, many "reality" TV shows are nothing more than the Roman gladiatorials dusted off and made all shiny and new again.
I heard of a reality TV show called "Temptation Island" and investigated this unwholesome parade of societal flotsam. The theme of this show was committed couples were sent to an island where each mate would be separated and tempted to cheat by members of the opposite sex. It should be remembered that if the people hired to "tempt" these people know they must do so for the show, they are nothing more than courtesans. When cheating happened, it was filmed and shown to the person's mate who then would be emboldened to cheat in retaliation. Well, firstly, anyone who would appear on such a show does not value their relationship. This show alleges it will strengthen the relationship and test their commitment. However, this is like saying world peace can be strengthened by giving every country in the world access to several nuclear weapons plus delivery vehicles. But the truth is, this is a sickness where the viewers are enjoying watching the suffering and heartache of the people on the show as the basis of human emotional experience---loving relationships---is dragged through the mud on national television to entertain others. How is this "entertainment"? These are things that people should not wish to see. Infidelity, in heavily traditional cultures, is not something taken so lightly. It is a serious offense and, in some cultures, punishable by death. But here is our culture saying this is something to not only promote, but entertain ourselves with. It's a modern form of dogfighting or bear-bull baiting. This is sad beyond belief. And they call it "reality" TV. This goes entirely too far and TV has gone well the acceptable limits of what belongs in a morally healthy society.
We do not have to travel to Saudi Arabia to see that shows such as "Temptation Island" have no place in a society that wishes to preserve the cornerstone of societal cohesiveness. Even here, infidelity often results in violence. California has a waiting period on firearms purchases to allegedly curtail such "crimes of passion". Yet, here is a show that encourages the very act that can result in violence. It would be like having a show where people go steal just to see if they get caught or how they get away with it. Excuse me and call me a sentimentalist, but what happened to shows like "The Waltons" that reinforced family values at least to some extent? And people that watch shows such as Temptation Island need to question their own desire to watch this pabulum. Truly, if one wishes to see if their relationship is strong, then live that relationship and work on it together. Turning off the TV and talking is a start.
-
It should also be remembered that the idea behind Roman gladiatorials was to pit two or more armed men against each other to see who would win. TV reality shows are using this same formula where the threat of death or injury supposedly exists. People will say they want to see the resourcefulness of the people on the show, but this is the same as what the Romans did. They would pit a secutor against a retarii and so forth to see if the guy with the net and trident was resourceful enough to overcome the armored guy with the shield and sword. How would he do it? If we are to say we are better than the Romans, then we need to call reality TV what it really is. But we're not feeding people to the lions? Really? We do, we just label it something else or do it figuratively and call it "entertainment". And, actually, this is what the Romans called it, too. The Roman arena where these combats took place was their television. And history tells us what happened to their society over time.
-
Well stated Dharma..I Myself ditched the TV last year. Have more time to worry about My life and Live reality, as opposed to viewing someone else s...And I miss the Walton's!!!!
-
If I remember right I saw Billy with a spear with a glass arrowhead on the end of it. There was no mention of it during the show and that is something you have thought that would have been of some interest. You know finding a piece of glass in the swamp, making a point for a weapon to harvest food. I Pm'ed Billy and asked him where the glass came from but got no response. I imagine the 2 x 4 burning in the fire in one of the photo's he posted was found floating in the swamp somewhere.
-
The more I watch the show, the more I like it over other survival shows, because they let the people make mistakes, and quite often, they don't make it the full time. Seen a lot of contestants end up in the hospital for drinking contaminated water, eating unidentified mushrooms, or getting various tropical diseases. Its definitely a bit sensationalized, but goes to show that its really hard to survive 21 days like that.