• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot Follies: part trois

Matt Moneymaker tweets out the rapiest Bigfoot tweet in history.
https://x.com/MattMoneymaker1/status/1749832782057226494?s=20


Matt Moneymaker said:
ATTN BIRMINGHAM ALABAMA

On Saturday January 20, 2024 a property owner on the wooded hilly perimeter of Heuytown AL, spotted a bigfoot near his barn for the second time in two days.

On this second occasion he saw it run into his large (long) empty barn. He went to his trailer to get his gun. Right after he came out he heard it break out through the rear corner of the barn.

This happen when the temperature was 25 degrees and there were 20 mph gusting winds in the area: lethal conditions for exposure.

It almost never gets that cold and that windy at the same time around Birmingham Alabama. Any animals in the area would not be accustomed to that.

The property owner is not adept with his phone camera. Initial vids showing the site are sideways … He is willing to let a videographer come over to document what happened.

The volunteer may be inclined to climb up the hill behind the barn. Therefore, the videographer should be a female, in case the Bigfoot is still around.
If you are merely decent with your phone cam, then you can do this. Let me know via the contact info on http://BFRO.net
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What are we to make of "the videographer should be a female, in case the Bigfoot is still around"? Is this some sort of backwoods barroom pickup line? A la, "Come back to my place and see my big feet?"

:pythonfoot:
 
When the bigfoot broke out the back corner of the barn, did it leave any hair on rough bits of wood?

You might think that would happen in such a instance.
Shame no video again, how does that always seem to be the case.
 
I have been thinking of what would be a need for a female, at least as best possible from the believer pov.

The alleged creature is threatened by males
Thus a female wouldn't make it run away as quickly.

Dog owners know aggressive male dogs will kill another male while possibly sparing a female. So a female Bigfoot on the camera could probably do an interview?

Or the farmer/investigator prefers a female to volunteer to attract a certain type of attention to the show they are putting on. Whether she can get video or not they have something to cash in on.

But nobody thought of placing trail cams on his farm so nobody could be behind a camera and capture whatever happens. They could put Vaseline on the lens to ensure blurry pictures and strategically set the date/time stamp to whatever fits the narrative better.
 
William Parcher said:
Moneymaker was a member here back in the JREF days.
Click to expand...


The good ole daze back when there was 3 good BF forums pumping and everyday there was some new news ~

Bigfoot was in everyone's back yard and he even was spotted running over the Sagamore bridge heading towards Cape Cod.

If you wanted to see a BF just hang some CD's from a tree and he will be attracted.

Man I had a lot of fun back then :)

RRS
 
AmyStrange said:
I'd have to have more evidence than just Heironimus' word.

-
Click to expand...

Typical disingenuous framing.

We have a LOT more then Heironimus' word. In the Making of Bigfoot the author interviewed people who saw the suit in the trunk when he came back. His story was corroborated in all the important details beginning with leaving in his car to do the trip and returning to tell the story, by family members and friends.

All of the surrounding circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and has to be studiously ignored in order to make these kinds of minimizing statements.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
AmyStrange said:
I'd have to have more evidence than just Heironimus' word.
Click to expand...

Typical disingenuous framing.

We have a LOT more then Heironimus' word. In the Making of Bigfoot the author interviewed people who saw the suit in the trunk when he came back. His story was corroborated in all the important details beginning with leaving in his car to do the trip and returning to tell the story, by family members and friends.

All of the surrounding circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and has to be studiously ignored in order to make these kinds of minimizing statements.
Click to expand...


Typical cut and paste from someone pretending to be a skeptic.

A real skeptic certainly wouldn't let a believer get away with that kind of evidence.

I don't doubt that Heironimus is telling the truth, but being a REAL skeptic, it's still suspicious to me that he would wait until both Patterson and Gimlin were dead before he made this BIG reveal.

Here's my original post that AlaskaBushPilot cut and pasted to prove their dubious point:


AmyStrange said:
I'd have to have more evidence than just Heironimus' word. I'd like to see a film of him putting on the suit, and even than, I'd need proof it was the same suit.

As a matter of fact, I have doubts that the film itself shows a real Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

-
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
So you say, but nothing you have said on this forum shows you to be a 'hardline skeptic'. Also, most of the 'research' on your website is simply a credulous retelling of European interpretations of Native American myths, many of which do not actually talk about huge intelligent apes. It is not first-hand research, nor is it remotely skeptical. I found nothing on that page to suggest skepticism about the existence of Bigfoot: on the contrary, it looked like a long rehashing of all the previous positive claims, without any significant effort to examine the validity of those claims.

If you sign off on research claiming Bigfoot exists, then it looks for all the world like you believe Bigfoot exists.
Do you think the presentation of evidence on your website is balanced and sufficiently sceptical (in the sense of scientific scepticism)?
Click to expand...


Or maybe... just maybe, I'm open-minded enough to understand that my skepticism of Bigfoot may be wrong, but of course, pretend skeptics would NEVER entertain that notion.

-
 
AmyStrange said:
Typical cut and paste from someone pretending to be a skeptic.

I don't doubt that Heironimus is telling the truth, but being a REAL skeptic, it's still suspicious to me that he would wait until both Patterson and Gimlin were dead before he made this BIG reveal.

-
Click to expand...

1. Gimlin is not dead.
2. Someone pointing out that you are strangely (And very much like a salivating Bigfooter) demanding evidence of someone claiming to wear a suit, but are perfectly fine with Patterson's story.

Does this sound open minded, or does it sound like a believer trying to act like a skeptic? (Both of the following quotes are from the same person)

Amy Strange said:
I don't doubt that Heironimus is telling the truth...
Click to expand...
Amy Strange said:
I'd have to have more evidence than just Heironimus' word. I'd like to see a film of him putting on the suit, and even than, I'd need proof it was the same suit.
Click to expand...
 
Drewbot said:
1. Gimlin is not dead.
Click to expand...

My mistake, sorry.


Drewbot said:
2. Someone pointing out that you are strangely (And very much like a salivating Bigfooter) demanding evidence of someone claiming to wear a suit, but are perfectly fine with Patterson's story.
Click to expand...


Sigh, where did I say I was perfectly fine with Patterson's story? Personally, I think Patterson believed it was Bigfoot, while Gimlin expressed doubts about it later in life.

To me, the film just looks fake, but if you want to believe Heironimus' story, that's fine with me, and I tend to believe him too, but I still have as much doubt about it as any REAL skeptic would have if someone said they saw Bigfoot and even had photos.


Drewbot said:
Does this sound open minded, or does it sound like a believer trying to act like a skeptic? (Both of the following quotes are from the same person)
Click to expand...


Actually, I'm someone who wishes Bigfoot were real (which I've stated before), but after all my research, the chances of that being true are so infinitely small that they're virtually zero.

-
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom