Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2007 7:28:53 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2007 4:11:45 GMT -5
Thats great,but who are the 500 signatures???Did he walk down a busy street and say ''hey want to protect bigfoot''.I dont think so.Any of the local researchers hear a thing from this guy?You would think he would approach believers first,or maybe he is busy protecting ''his'' area.Todd if you read this,please dont feel you cant share your stories with us,I dont want the location personally just some insight that has not been already herd.Afterall we all in this together right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2007 22:47:59 GMT -5
After looking over the website I am not so enthused about this purported evidence. The film offered is worthless. There is no way to get any knowledge from what the foggy video shows. I wonder why the camera quickly zooms away from the subject soon after disappearing behind a few rocks? If I were filming something that I thought was Bigfoot I would have my camera locked on the position that I last saw it. The argument that people will shoot the creature and the clan of Bigfoot will come a racing down to kill everyone is extremely dubious. That is projecting a whole lot of ideas on how researchers might behave. Not to mention a Bigfoot. Almost seems like a silly stunt to raise money. Maybe?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2007 9:36:39 GMT -5
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on May 3, 2007 13:28:37 GMT -5
I don't believe video will prove the existence of bigfoot. It is too easy to fake, mess around with, and falsify. Even the best of video's, with the clearest shots, can be faked with skillful actors and animators.
You need something solid as proof, and then you need a lot of supporting evidence too. Bones plus concurring pollen analysis, plus film, preferably documentary, or a dead body that doesn't subsequently disappear but is preserved for display by a reputable museum or university, plus hair samples, makes proof. Then maybe a nature preserve where people can (if they dare) go see them.
Unfortunately the burden of proof rests on bigfoot researchers because they have an uphill battle--there have been so many fakers out there. You'll need to pound people over the head with the truth with this one before people will admit it is out there.
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on May 3, 2007 14:25:21 GMT -5
That is that bunch from Sylvania?
I got a letter from one of their promoters the other day wanting to talk! I think Sylvania (if these are the same people?) is poorly documented nonsence.
|
|
sebastian
Really into this!
Detective Gadget & Moderator
Posts: 512
|
Post by sebastian on May 4, 2007 0:42:04 GMT -5
Take a good look at the ogopogo case, change anything?
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on May 5, 2007 14:19:58 GMT -5
I can only see this as another opportunity supplied to the media to deride half cocked sasquatch researchers who negate a positive public opinion, by making extraordinary claims without anything to back it up!! Aren't the average Mary or Joe tired of hearing the same half baked bull from those who claim to be researchers? And now..this is the latest! The cart is before the horse in this matter..but all the public is going to notice is the smell of horse 'crap' permeating the whole affair! Show me the monkey...and you will get your grants! Not you researchers..but government appointed agencies! I am just sick of coming across another character who is claiming to have the proof, but does not want to share it! It is all just grandstanding for promotional purposes..and people who are serious researchers should be pissed! Not hoping for the miracle validation by way of public acknowledgement as to the seriousness of sasqautch research! It ain't gonna happen without the monkey on a table!
|
|