|
Post by buddharat on Aug 10, 2007 19:26:25 GMT -5
I wanted to write this because this is something that has been bothering me. It may be pointless, it may not even accomplish anything, but I just want to say this.
I came to this board to debate the topic of whether Todd has the proof he says he has or that it's a big hoax. (I'm leaving out my opinion of that in this post, it's not relevant.)
There are a lot of different views on this board, and that is wonderful. There are true believers of Todd, there are people who don't believe him at all, and there are people inbetween. As well, there are bigfoot believers (and even sighters), there are people who don't believe at all, and yet again, everything inbetween.
I think the problem with how much infighting there is in this site comes from the debate of whether bigfoot exists. If people want to do that, that is fine, but there are other people here too, like me. I am not debating whether bigfoot exists or not. I am debating whether Todd has the proof he says he has. It keeps getting more and more frustrating when I try to ask poignant, intellectual questions about the proof and then get bashed for not believing in bigfoot. I do believe but that doesn't matter.
If Todd had just said, "I saw a bigfoot" and left it at that, this forum wouldn't be here. But he didn't do that. He is fighting for Bigfoot protection, something I am fully behind. But with that fight, he claims to have proof, which hasn't fully been shown yet. If you say you have scientific proof that you are using to prove a point, then it has to be shown. Any scientist will tell you that. You can't make a claim without backing it up. I know a lot of people are waiting to see this proof. That is why I'm on this forum, to find the truth about this proof.
I just so sick that despite leaving my emotions out of it, asking questions without being insulting, and still get responses that are ment to belittle me and anyone else who ask these questions, but yet they DON'T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. Insulting someone is not an answer to a question.
That said, I want to thank Ken for answering all the questions we ask him. That is wonderful and what I came here for. Also, Todd has started asking questions too, and hopefully that will continue.
That's all I have to say. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by malyss on Aug 10, 2007 20:10:35 GMT -5
Your posts are some of the ones I have enjoyed most. I am just wondering if you understand the forum is to discuss Todd's work and BF in general and it has threads that are dedicated to the proof issues. Many many many many many many threads...sigh. I think you and I are on the same wave-length, although I don't think I can rush progress because I want it and I don't believe anyone owes me anything. It is Todd's prerogative when and if he shares his work with us. He is not on my or your time clock, unless of course you are paying him. Are you paying him?
|
|
|
Post by buddharat on Aug 10, 2007 20:36:24 GMT -5
No I am not paying him. The thing is this: I am posting on the threads about proof, not about whether or not bigfoot exists. If I was posting on the threads about personal bigfoot encounters, trying to start discussions with them, then yes, your point would be right, but I am posting on the threads about proof and still getting answers that are just trying to be insulting and not bringing anything to the discussion.
That said, if Todd does not want to show his proof, okay, that's fine with me. He has never said "I have proof but I'm not going to show it." Instead, he goes on radio interviews saying he has proof but either it gets held up or it people drop their names from. Even on the website, he says he was going to show new evidence and that a new video would be up but I haven't seen it yet. I just want to see the proof that he says he has and that he says is available.
That's all.
|
|
|
Post by malyss on Aug 10, 2007 20:46:49 GMT -5
Why don't you go on the ask Kenneth thread and say, "Hey Kenneth, where's the video?" Why do you need bring Todd's integrity into play?
|
|
|
Post by buddharat on Aug 10, 2007 20:48:43 GMT -5
Thank you by the way for the compliment about my posts. Unfortnately I should have expressed my gratitude in the last one, my thoughts just got ahead of me. I apologize.
When all is said and done, I love discussions even if everyone doesn't agree and I wouldn't trade a good intellectual conversation with a person who opposes my ideas for ten stupid conversations with people who agree with me. I enjoy your posts as well and see your points. :-)
|
|
|
Post by buddharat on Aug 10, 2007 20:50:02 GMT -5
I will actually take your advice and ask Ken.
|
|
Paul
Full Member
Posts: 111
|
Post by Paul on Aug 10, 2007 22:24:36 GMT -5
No he absolutely does not have absolute proof. He has two videos, one on the website and one that is part of his documentory. He has stated that someone has analyzed the video in his documentory and stated that it could NOT be a human.
Besides that he has gathered stories and such. If he does have anything else I am not aware of it (Please correct me if I'm wrong).
If he did have that proof there would be no need for him to go back out on additional expeditions as he could have presented the absolute proof to lawmakers and gotten protection. At one point I do remember him saying that there was a video (maybe the Hamilton incident) that had some stuff on it, but the families wouldn't allow it to be released. What I have gathered is that incident was completely independent of him and his group and he was trying to get the permission of the families to release the story and maybe even a video, but they denied.
He has stated that he can go out and find BF again. Hopefully on his next expedition he gets more footage.
|
|
|
Post by buddharat on Aug 10, 2007 23:12:47 GMT -5
I would just love to see the footage he talks about on radio shows where he says that a kinesiologist says that the figure on the screen cannot be a human because it is moving faster than I human can. I believe it is video 3. I understand that Todd is under constrants of money and time and that is probably why he hasn't traveled anywhere near where I live, and I by no means believe that he should go out of his way to travel to where I live, that would just be stuck up to think that. If he does come within driving distance, I will jump at the opportunity to see Sylvanic.
Till then, I'm hoping at some point he'll make that video available.
(wow, this post is mostly run on sentences, I'm sorry, haha)
|
|
|
Post by taffy341 on Aug 11, 2007 2:03:17 GMT -5
Buddharat, it is redundantly obvious from your postings that your sole intent on this forum is to 'stop the petition' for the protection of Bigfoot AND to undermine any of Todd's attempts to establish grounds for the petition. What logging company and/or other corporate interests are you supporting??? After patching all your postings together it is 'redundantly obvious'.
|
|
|
Post by buddharat on Aug 11, 2007 2:16:56 GMT -5
I'm sorry but if you believe that you've got to be one of the dumbest people around and for once I am trying to be insulting. If I sound redundant it's because I have to explain over and over again to people like you the same things. If you could bring anything intellectual to the conversation instead of just insults then maybe we could talk. If not, please, stop posting. The questions I've asked are only half as tough as the ones that Todd is going to be asked by the people he has to convince to get protection (at least I believe in bigfoot).
And what corporation would benefit from bigfoot not existing? Huh? Tell me what corporation I could work for that would benefit in putting someone on a board where there is less then fifty members just to convince them that bigfoot doesn't exist. I came to this board to find out more information about Todd and his proof. I've already found out some interesting info from people who INTELLIGENTLY ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS, namely Ken.
I enjoy the discussions on here but if you don't like what I have to say then don't read them.
|
|
|
Post by taffy341 on Aug 11, 2007 2:35:16 GMT -5
Tut, Tut, hit a sore spot did we? "Me thinks you protesth too much..... hummm?" LOL
|
|
|
Post by buddharat on Aug 11, 2007 2:46:45 GMT -5
I didn't join this forum to get into personal mudslinging matches. Sadly, looking at your track record that's what it seems like you can only bring. So, if you want to think I work for some mythical evil corporation bent on derailing Todds action, just go ahead and do that. I'm still trying to figure out what company it could be. Now if you have a serious question for me to answer that doesn't involve an insult, I'd be glad to answer it, but if you're just going to hurl acquisations with no bases behind them at me, I think that means I am the one who hit a sore spot. Insults only lowers the level of intellegence in a conversation. It's a tactic taken when someone can't think of something reasonable or even poignent to say.
|
|
Paul
Full Member
Posts: 111
|
Post by Paul on Aug 11, 2007 10:24:05 GMT -5
I would just love to see the footage he talks about on radio shows where he says that a kinesiologist says that the figure on the screen cannot be a human because it is moving faster than I human can. I believe it is video 3. I have heard some feedback on the documentory and it was my impression that although interesting there was no absolute proof offered in the video. The "video 3" shows something running for a few seconds, but does not come close to the Patterson film of 67. So, in the future hopefully Todd will get close eought to get some better footage. It would be great to top the old PG film of 67.
|
|
|
Post by buddharat on Aug 11, 2007 12:39:07 GMT -5
Do you know what is the footage that he's talking about on Radio interviews? I believe it was C2C that he talked about the footage he had a kinesiologist analys. Is that the same footage that you're talking about?
|
|
Paul
Full Member
Posts: 111
|
Post by Paul on Aug 11, 2007 14:30:32 GMT -5
Do you know what is the footage that he's talking about on Radio interviews? I believe it was C2C that he talked about the footage he had a kinesiologist analys. Is that the same footage that you're talking about? Yes. But even though someone has stated that it cannot be a person that still doesn't qualify it as absolute proof. The reason that I am here and signed up is that I think that Todd has a good shot at getting some good footage. There are other organizations and message boards, but my gut says that Todd may have that extra something special to come through and provide some better footage. I may be proven wrong, but so far I'm liking the way he is going about things. My motivation for even being interested in the subject is based on some experiences in the woods. I'm getting tired of thinking that I was imagining things and would like to see slightly longer and clearer footage than he has now. I'm not looking for a two hour video, just a little better footage and I'm good. Now the rest of the skeptics may require more, but not me. In the end I would like to see some real money sponsored official expeditions that net some good quality research. I would like to know as much as possible about this animal as I'm fairly certain that I have been close to them multiple times. I want to know more about the animal so as to have a better understanding on how they behave so I know how to behave in their areas. Not any different than understanding bears, cougars or other predators.
|
|