Message to everyone

[buddharat]

Thank you very much. You know, despite being skeptical (I've stated my reasons in other threads so I'm not going to restate them) I think if Todd can do what he says he can, he is the best shot at getting good footage.

I guess my questioning can seem like I'm trying to disprove Todd and I understand why it would seem that way. I'm really just trying to find out the truth because I know that another hoax to this field will set it back years, especially a big hoax. That's why I'm asking probing questions, but if Todd can do what he says he can do, I fully support him. It's hard for me to believe that with so many sightings, Bigfoot doesn't exist. I just don't believe that. I don't know for sure he exists, but I've always believed he has.

I'm just hoping my questions will also help Todd to understand why some people don't believe him. I try not to attack him in a mean way and if it comes off that way, I'm sorry. I said before, I want Todd to be real. If he can get great footage, that would be amazing. I'm hoping he answers some of my questions in the other thread so I can know how to help too.

Thank you Paul for answering my questions and not just baiting me. :-) Kudos!

[Paul]

buddharat said:

You know, despite being skeptical (I've stated my reasons in other threads so I'm not going to restate them) I think if Todd can do what he says he can, he is the best shot at getting good footage.

I guess my questioning can seem like I'm trying to disprove Todd and I understand why it would seem that way.

I have heard Todd say many times that he welcomes skeptics. Not mindless insults, but intelligent questions. From his last post:

toddstanding said:

I have spent over 6000 hours hiking OFF trails in Canada and the US. I have free climbed waterfalls that are not on any maps and snow shoed into caves with sleeping grizzlys. I have to date never met anyone( Other then first nations people) that has spent more time in the wilds, off trail, then i have. That is why i started out as a total non believer and i expect most other people to be as ignorant as i was.

He states that he understands what it is to be a skeptic as he was one until he had his first encounter (he has said that before as well). He EXPECTS people to be skeptical as they are ignorant to the fact that BF exists. (The term FACT is used from his perspective as he has no doubt that they exist)

So he seems to be a pretty straight forward guy who had spent a bunch of time in the woods never seeing BF and being skeptical of the idea. One day he gets interested in the idea of BF and hikes waaaay back into the bush (where a friend had a dog killed) and low and behold he finds BF and even takes some video. It would seem that these experiences inspired him so much that he figured that he should try and get the animal protection and raise awareness. It doesn't seem that he trys to profit from BF, it only seems as though he trys to raise awareness and get protection.

One good thing (IMHO) is that he starts showing his documentory and does NOT keep the proceeds to profit from, but donates them to a worthy cause. He uses the film showings to try and raise awareness and get his petition signed. Now why in the hell would some hoaxer donate the profits to charity? Score one for the credibility of Todd.

Now during his attempt to raise awareness he made some statements that were very self assured, like "My results are scientifically repeatable" and "I am the worlds authority on BF". These types of statements are going to bring criticism from other BF researchers and skeptics (who think the idea of BF is BS) alike.


Blah, Blah, Blah.....In the end I hope that he can find BF and get more video. It seems like he is familiar with the wilderness and feels that he has a pretty good understanding of the animals habits. If these two things prove true, he probably can find BF again and get some more video. There are many, many, many people that have chased BF for years and years. We'll just have to wait and see what Todd can get as far as evidence.

[toddstanding]

paul said:

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.

Wow you have been listening. Everything Paul say is pretty much bang on. But to elaborate... Two videos shot on two different days show repeatability. If the species is not extinct ( Which i strongly believe) in time i will be able to find a new domicile and continue our research.
Finding a new domicile is going to be an incredibly difficult task, like finding a needle in a hay stack. My advantage is i know what the needle looks like.
Tracks, hair, and videos are not going to be my priority. They have all been done to death and they will never be evidence enough. Likely my next major advancement will be from the still imaging cameras we have placed in various places. A full frontal view of one of these animals would allow us to get a phenotypical analysis that we will compare to other know primates and deduce as much as we can from it. But finding a body is priority 1. Does anyone have suggestions. What happens to one of these animals when they die. Do they go off on their own. Do they bury their dead? What do you think?

[darrenbonk]

Todd-You say that finding Bigfoots domicle would be like finding a needle in a haystack but in another posting you say that their groups could be as high as 40 individuals. Come on now! In this day and age it would be impossible to hide 40 six hundred pound animals. Imagine the sign these creatures would leave. And what about in the winter. If they do hibernate where would that take place? And if they do not surely the prints in the snow would give them away. I have seen moose yards with 6 moose and you would not believe the signs.

[Paul]

toddstanding said:

If the species is not extinct ( Which i strongly believe) in time i will be able to find a new domicile and continue our research.
Finding a new domicile is going to be an incredibly difficult task, like finding a needle in a hay stack. My advantage is i know what the needle looks like.
Tracks, hair, and videos are not going to be my priority. They have all been done to death and they will never be evidence enough. Likely my next major advancement will be from the still imaging cameras we have placed in various places. A full frontal view of one of these animals would allow us to get a phenotypical analysis that we will compare to other know primates and deduce as much as we can from it. But finding a body is priority 1. Does anyone have suggestions. What happens to one of these animals when they die. Do they go off on their own. Do they bury their dead? What do you think?

Hmmmmm, well I was hoping that you had a little better idea of where to look Todd. If you are starting from scratch trying to find another "domicile", I think we may be in for a long wait. The track record of others trying to find BF has not been very successful. I stated my opinion on whether or not they bury their dead in two other threads.

[whiskey6]

Wow, I know this is an old thread but hey, I just joined... let me catch up. Just my opinion, Bigfoot does not stay in such large groups as 40. I think they live just like families. One family maybe two, that's it. I do however think they have a much larger social system. Possibly family’s meet, or at least they live within "calling" distance. My theory is that when a young Bigfoot is "ready' for mating he ventures out and calls for a young female. (Those are some of the vocalizations heard sometimes, very loud) I even read one story where someone heard two calling to each other and they continued to get closer together. (He could have witnessed an initial meeting between two) "A Bigfoot blind date"... "Sorry" bad joke, but I do think the vocalizations help families communicate, so they don't have to stay in large groups. I think they would know a large group would not be beneficial to them. Also it is natures way... no (other than Elephants) "Top of the chain" animals live in large groups. There is no need; it's easier to survive in a small one. You've heard the "Human saying" "I gotz to take care of me and my own" That just didn't come about, it was past down through our genetics over hundreds of thousands of years. One last thing, No one has ever seen a "Troop" of Bigfoots foraging for food or stampeeding across the valley. Only one or two and once or twice, Because someone pissed them off, several (after hearing lots of vocalizations of course..... Hhmmm?

"call the posse together papa Bigfoot, the humans done shot at us again"
Then get ready for the rock rain.