Paul
Full Member
Posts: 111
|
Post by Paul on Aug 27, 2007 21:02:15 GMT -5
I'm still not sure why your opinion is so important in the grand scheme of things. Who is it you are representing here? Darrenbonks not too bad, he seems like a decent guy. He's just outspoken about being skeptical. Given the available BF evidence I think that he shares the opinion of the majority of the planet. Now how interesting would this board be if everyone here was in complete agreement about the existence of BF? Now as far as being banned or not, well that's between Kova/The Truth/Darrenbonk and Todd/Ken....I don't need to get in the middle of that mess, but the opinons from the afore mentioned skeptics are cool by me, they never directed anything towards me that I felt was out of line or rude. Hey lets be honest, it's a much easier path to say that BF is BS than BF exists. We just don't have the evidence to prove didley squat. We can speculate and theorize but until we have a body it's all just bunk anyway. Personally if it weren't for my personal experiences in the woods I would think that the whole BF thing is complete crap too, although the Patterson film is interesting. Which ironically seems to be the same opinion that Darrenbonk has.
|
|
|
Post by malyss on Aug 28, 2007 14:03:20 GMT -5
I'm not so sure my asking who he is representing here qualifies me as a sheep... I understand that most people are skeptical, they just aren't all on here calling people names and acting like the right hand of God. We are ALL entitled to our beliefs for whatever reason. I just don't like being bullied by someone who has absolutely no credentials. If he was standing in front of me I'd show him who the sheep is with the bottom of my boot.
|
|
Paul
Full Member
Posts: 111
|
Post by Paul on Aug 28, 2007 14:14:08 GMT -5
I'm not so sure my asking who he is representing here qualifies me as a sheep... I understand that most people are skeptical, they just aren't all on here calling people names and acting like the right hand of God. We are ALL entitled to our beliefs for whatever reason. I just don't like being bullied by someone who has absolutely no credentials. If he was standing in front of me I'd show him who the sheep is with the bottom of my boot. I hear ya.....just trying to keep the peace a little I guess.
|
|
|
Post by malyss on Aug 30, 2007 19:25:07 GMT -5
Let's hope he tries that after banning #2? The Patterson film has always been a source of amazement for me. It has kept me enraptured for years. Apparently I am far from the only one. They emulated it for 'Blair Witch' (grainy, shaky hand held which produced horror in the filmmakers as kids), and again in the most frightening scene in 'Signs' (at the birthday party where the alien walks by the window and glances over it's shoulder). People think "Pattie" is a female now, a recent development in her lengthy existence. They see her breasts, some see her carrying an infant, some see gathers up her side or shoes on her feet. She is the BF Rorschach, we see what we want or need to see. The jury is completely out for me on this one. I doubt anyone will ever know. However, I do love that footage. Real or not it's delightful. And utterly brilliant for the early 70s!!! Was that a diabolically masterminded fraud or was it real? I just don't know...
|
|
|
Post by kova on Sept 10, 2007 14:00:56 GMT -5
I'm still not sure why your opinion is so important in the grand scheme of things. Who is it you are representing here? Darrenbonks not too bad, he seems like a decent guy. He's just outspoken about being skeptical. Given the available BF evidence I think that he shares the opinion of the majority of the planet. Now how interesting would this board be if everyone here was in complete agreement about the existence of BF? Now as far as being banned or not, well that's between Kova/The Truth/Darrenbonk and Todd/Ken....I don't need to get in the middle of that mess, but the opinons from the afore mentioned skeptics are cool by me, they never directed anything towards me that I felt was out of line or rude. Hey lets be honest, it's a much easier path to say that BF is BS than BF exists. We just don't have the evidence to prove didley squat. We can speculate and theorize but until we have a body it's all just bunk anyway. Personally if it weren't for my personal experiences in the woods I would think that the whole BF thing is complete crap too, although the Patterson film is interesting. Which ironically seems to be the same opinion that Darrenbonk has. This is a common tactic by many hoaxers. I have never threatened anyone, or even called anyone a foul name. We ask for proof and we get banned... Were is the honour in that???
|
|
|
Post by kova on Sept 10, 2007 14:06:08 GMT -5
The reason why that film has been around so long is because of the era in which it was filmed... No chance of CGI... Is it a costume or is it real... That's it. Most people don't even know like some of you have posted that they were trying to capture on on film... which adds even more fuel to the opinion that it is a fake. The film looks fake to me... You ask why know more films like this have been caught? Doesn;t todd claim to have one? doesn't tom biscardi have one? See... there are plenty of more fakes out there.
|
|
Paul
Full Member
Posts: 111
|
Post by Paul on Sept 10, 2007 14:50:10 GMT -5
The film looks fake to me... You ask why know more films like this have been caught? Doesn;t todd claim to have one? doesn't tom biscardi have one? See... there are plenty of more fakes out there. From 1967? I'm just not seeing the possibility that anyone could have created a suit like that (in 1967) AND have a person walk in the suit and look so realistic. Anywho....Welcome back Kova! What's new (besides your disdain for Ken/Todd)?
|
|
|
Post by darrenbonk on Sept 10, 2007 15:47:25 GMT -5
Boy, when Kova comes back he really comes back!!!!Slow down there big guy. Paul-As you know I am a huge skeptic but I must say that Patterson film is truly amazing. I have watched it hundreds of times and it does look legit. I wish I could call it a hoax but I cannot. As for Todds film.....VIdoe 2 is obviously staged. As I have mentioned before he says the footage was caught accidently when the camera was being moved. Well, its a huge coincidence that the camera pans to a point where the creature is dead in the centre of the picture. And what happens that very moment.....not 2 seconds later........that very moment? The animal, which of course has its back to the camera, ducks. Wow, what timing. I think he is reluctant to release video 3 because he saw how one tv station enhanced video 2 and he is scared they will do the same to video 3 and expose him.
|
|
Paul
Full Member
Posts: 111
|
Post by Paul on Sept 10, 2007 15:59:14 GMT -5
Do we really need to even waste any more time discussing video 2? I don't think that a single person has ever posted and said "Wow, that's proof of BF for sure!!!".
So, until Todd releases a new video we can categorize all of his videos as "Not Proof". Now I don't personally want to go so far as to say "hoaxed" as "Not Proof" devalues it but does not slander Ken/Todd.
|
|
|
Post by darrenbonk on Sept 10, 2007 16:42:18 GMT -5
Well, the only person on this forum who has said he has scientific proof has been Todd. Like I said before, I have seen plenty of sizzle and no steak. And I still think the video is fabricated.
|
|
Paul
Full Member
Posts: 111
|
Post by Paul on Sept 10, 2007 17:12:12 GMT -5
Well, the only person on this forum who has said he has scientific proof has been Todd. No, I don't think that he said that. He said that finding BF was scientifically repeatable. He has no absolute or scientific proof, just some blurry footage.
|
|
Paul
Full Member
Posts: 111
|
Post by Paul on Sept 10, 2007 19:44:23 GMT -5
scientifically repeatable has been the statement that bothered me the most... It is a very arrogant statement since he can't proof he has done it once. Agreed! back to the patterson film... I always thought it was a great shot when I was a kid. I stll don't get why you say that costume could have never been designed in 1967. Rhetoric question... Have you ever watched The Wizard of Oz (1939) We can do anything we put time and effort into... I don't think they created the outfit in s few hours, but I do feel it is man-made. I haven't seen another "man in a costume" from that era that looked realistic and natural. Like I said in previous posts, if they could have done that it would have been repeated in movies, etc but the fact is that it wasn't repeated. Men in costumes from that era and for much later looked cheesy and fake. But, what does it matter anyway? Unless someone finds a body or some other absolute proof, it's all speculation and bunk.
|
|
Paul
Full Member
Posts: 111
|
Post by Paul on Sept 11, 2007 11:36:11 GMT -5
Personally, calling todd a hoaxer isn't all bad. He could flip not only my opinion, but the world. This would have happened by now if he was telling us the truth. I don't think that he will be able to "flip" anyone's opinion unless he gets some seriously compelling footage or a body. Until then he is just talking like the rest of the BF experts and researchers.
|
|
|
Post by darrenbonk on Sept 11, 2007 18:02:46 GMT -5
By sheepal I mean all you BF believers who are ready to hop on any BF train that pulls into the station. Just because you believe that BF exists, hope that it exists, prays that it exists does not mean that it exists. You should be just as skeptical of all these experts as I am because when they are exposed they make you look foolish also. Save your chest pounding until someone comes up with a body and not 2 seconds of shaky out of focus video.
|
|
|
Post by darrenbonk on Sept 11, 2007 20:22:07 GMT -5
I agree Kova, I agree. Todd has not proven a darn thing. He is just playing on peoples emotions......a mysterious land(Sylvanic)...........a mysterious creature (Big Foot)....a brave expert(himself). And so many of his statements are so vague "The area was compromised" What does that mean? And the explaination of the Dan Hamilton incident left more questions than answers. What exactly happened? Who knows. I think that one is a hoax too or it would of reached the regular press. I mean we can find out what happened between a president and an intern in the Whitehouse so there is no way any one could of kept that incident quiet.
|
|