I thought the point of all this was to tell us if the different groups would collect enough food and firewood to survive the winter. Would'nt you know it, the end of the show comes and goes with absolutely no information on who would survive. Please mr. producer-------- Who passed the the test?
My understanding of the series was not so much a "test" of who would or would not survive the Wilderness. I was under the impression it was more of an experiement.
An experiement in that would these people would be able to gather enough wood, capture or hunt enough protein rich food to maintain health, and to watch them as they coped with the psychological forces that being placed in this environment would have exposed them too. Cabin fever, remember the bad dreams, ghost and voices Greg experienced. Think of the constant fear Elizabeth and Jeff must have experienced, living in a tent on a beach infested with bear.
I did not view this as a win or loose test, but simply a look into the manner people cope with a new and somewhat hostile environment.
Carolyn and Jennifer Wise, because of their sniveling and whining, moaning and graoning, loud bawling and squalling, and general disrespect for everything except their own appetites.
Dennis Wise, because he is the father of Carolyn and Jennifer Wise.
Allan Aujero, because of his impatience with, and attitude toward both Tim and Jasmine when they didn't get or agree with his "superior" evaluation of certain situations, e.g., Tim wasn't apllying the proper pressure to the saw blade that Allan thought should be applied, so he stomps off and sulks. He then says that he doesn't know how he feels about their 7 year friendship. What...because they had a problem sawing a log?!!? e.g., Allan's idea of how to sight in their rifle was far superior to that of Jasmine's; when she didn't agree, he made a sarcastic remark to her, stomped off and sulked. He's not really a team player; more of a "lone wolf", (his own words) He is, however, very good at delegating blame.
IMHO none of them passed the test. If they would have been left there the whole winter by themself they would have all either died or walked out in spring very, very thin and very cold.
nagwithnotag, the Wises were pretty consistent throughout so no argument there but to base an assumption about Allan based on 2 clips is a bit tough. He is independent and admitted it. Is that a character flaw? Anyone with that type of personality would be challenged. I think that was the point being made. Also, it seemed he felt he wasn't being heard by his team. I didn't get the sense that he was blaming anyone. So should he have stayed and argued? No offense to Tim but it seemed to me he was bending the blade with one hand on the handle and one hand on top? Besides, none of us were there and there is so much more footage we didn't see. It is surprising to see how many critics are out here though. To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, 'it is not the critic that counts but the man in the arena'...just my opinion. All the volunteers deserve credit.
Allan boasting that he's independent doesn't absolve him of his bad behavior. No, being independent isn't a character flaw; however, Jasmine and Tim were forced to make allowances for the quirky aspects of Allan's personality, to preserve the peace. Jasmine and Tim confide in one another that both walked on egg shells, trying not to piss him off. Causing his fellow team members to constantly feel like they're walking on egg shells around him, is evidence of a character flaw.
Being independent means that one is creative, and can provide for one's self. It also means that one can be depended upon by team members to step up and do one's part when the situation requires it. I saw little evidence of that demonstated by Allan. When the three came upon the Bison carcass, both Jasmine and Tim were hands on, cutting away the meat that was salvageable; Allan stood and watched. When the Goat hunt was being discussed it was obvious that all three would rather not be designated as the hunter. At this point one would think that Mr. Independent would step up and put his independent claim on the line, and volunteer; instead, Allan all but states that he wasn't going to be the hunter. After arriving at Greg's and Bernice's cabin, Greg and Tim went out, twice, to hunt Ptarmigan; Allan was not with them on either occasion. Greg and Tim went out to collect fire wood. Greg makes a comment that it is nice to have another man around to help out with the heavy lifting of some of the fire wood. Once again, Allan is nowhere to be found. Even after Greg and Bernice have welcome him to spend the rest of his time with them at their cabin on Hawkins Galcier, Allan is still full of himself. He wanders off, and is shown gathering a handfull of shrivled berries. His comment is, "I'm independent, and require alone time. I'm more of a lone wolf than a team player".... Then take your indedendent, lone wolf, butt, and hike back to Flower Lake BY YOURSELF. You'll have plenty of "alone time".
Yes, I am a critic here. I don't think this site was meant for comments only on the beauty of the Alaskan wilderness.
Yes nykayaker, I agree: "all the volunteers deserve credit". It's just that some were much more gracious, and graceful than others...just my opinion.
I have all but the last episode with Bear Gryls saved on DVR.
Allan's idea of how to sight in their rifle was far superior to that of Jasmine's
Just curious, do you think Allan's idea of how to sight the rifle in was superior? Or are you stating that Allan believed his idea was superior?
Chucksteak,
I don't believe that either Allan's of Jasmine's idea for sighting in the rifle was correct, but to answer your question, I believe that Allan's idea was better, relative to that of Jasmine's, and I believe that he thought that his idea was superior. Jasmine's idea, that the three take two shots, each, was all wrong. If I remember correctly, none of the three had ever shot a fifle before, let alone sighted one in. The problem with Allan is the way he dealt with the situation. He makes a sarcastic and belittling remark to Jasmine, then walks off and pouts.
In my opinion, one person should have been designated to sight in the rifle. How do you see it?
Allan's idea of how to sight in their rifle was far superior to that of Jasmine's
Just curious, do you think Allan's idea of how to sight the rifle in was superior? Or are you stating that Allan believed his idea was superior?
Chucksteak,
I don't believe that either Allan's of Jasmine's idea for sighting in the rifle was correct, but to answer your question, I believe that Allan's idea was better, relative to that of Jasmine's, and I believe that he thought that his idea was superior. Jasmine's idea, that the three take two shots, each, was all wrong. If I remember correctly, none of the three had ever shot a fifle before, let alone sighted one in. The problem with Allan is the way he dealt with the situation. He makes a sarcastic and belittling remark to Jasmine, then walks off and pouts.
In my opinion, one person should have been designated to sight in the rifle. How do you see it?
Having each person take 2 shots (Jasmine's idea) isn't bad because it reduces the amount of human error. What if all 3 shoot one shot each (Allan's plan) and one shot is 1" to the left, one shot is 1" to the right and the last is 1" high? How do you adjust the sights for that? If each shoots at least twice it reduces the human error, this giving you a better idea of where the sights are at. Out of the 2 plans I feel Jasmine's was the better.
I was taught to sight in a rifle by shooting a target at least 3 times. Just taking 1 shot leads to shooter error. Example: if you shoot one time and it to the left how do you know it wasn't just you shooting to the left? If you take 2 shots and one is to the left and one is to the right which way do you adjust? Shooter error right there. If you take 3 shots you get a better idea of where the shots are and reduce the mount of human error.
If you take 3 shots you get a better idea of where the shots are and reduce the mount of human error.
Exactly correct.
You shoot 3 shots maintaining the same sight alignment and sight picture. Check your target to see what kind of grouping you have.
You make your adjustments off of the center of the 3 round grouping and then fire 3 more rounds. Again maintining the same sight alignment and sight picture.
Check your grouping again and make adjustments from the center of the grouping. Continue as needed, though 3 groups of 3 should be sufficient as long as you don't over or under adjust.
Finally verify with a 2 shot group which should be where you want it.
Typically though one person should do the sighting in with the weapon as proper sight alignment and sight picture will vary between shooters, so they could end up "chasing" the groupings around the target.
After one person has it sighted in it should shoot resonably accurately with anyone as when sighting in you are aligning the sight to the bore of the weapon and thus bullets flight path from the bore, not to the individual shooter.
A correctly sighted weapon should be accurate for anyone who uses correct sight alignment/picture and who is holding the weapon correctly. (i.e not canted to one side, etc.)
