Because you ignore all evidence that proves otherwise. You will not even answer a very simple question about a couple pictures you posted. I assume that's because those pictures you posted clearly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we are looking at a suit.
Which question have I refused to answer?
If you're refering to the supposed "wrist bands"....I did respond concerning them. I posted (after
scouring around 
) a higher-quality image of the PG film, which shows absolutely no hint of "wrist bands" on Patty's arms.
If she does have wrist bands, why can't you, or I, find them on the high-quality Cibachrome image of Frame 352? Did they magically disappear???
I happen to think that, given a choice, a higher-quality image is better for determining something about the subject of the film than a lower-quality image.
Would you agree with that basic principle?
Damn, that's gotta be faith-busting for someone who so needs to believe.
How did you determine that I "
need to believe" in Bigfoot?
If I do in fact have a "need"....what will happen to me if Bigfoot is never proven to exist?
So instead of dealing with the facts you scour around looking for a picture that does not show a wrist band and post it as proof of no suit!!!
When and where did I state that it
proves Patty is a real Bigfoot?
Sweaty, you're behaving like the bigfoot believer's defense attorney; always changing the subject, avoiding questions,
You've confused me with kitakaze.
I described the challenge, (for skeptics to create a video as realistic as the PG film) more specifically....and stated that the subject should be out in the open so that the subject's body proportions could be measured....and kitty promptly
changed the subject by asking me what Patty's body proportions were.
Also, kitty refuses to answer a simple "Yes" or "No" type question.....repeatedly. He
will not answer it, period. (He does have some really good excuses for his refusal, though.)
arguing about the meanings of words,
I like to refer to it as
"debating"...and
"discussing". It's what discussion boards are all about.
Are you aware of that, GT?
We're not the idiot jury on the OJ trial,
That's debatable.
and we can't be tricked with smoke and mirrors.
Maybe, maybe not...but you skeptics can't even see Patty's fingers bending...
So I wouldn't feel
too proud, there, chumpsky.
(BTW...there is something in that 2-frame animation which shows beyond all doubt that it's not a doll-hand illusion. I'll demonstrate it someday....for now I'll let the skeptics here scratch their heads over it. You boys will never find it on your own!)
Either step up and provide evidence or play on an easier league.
There is plenty of
evidence of Bigfoot's existence available to be analysed and discussed, GT. It's there ANYTIME you want to step-up and analyse it.
What you actually want is
proof of Bigfoot's existence.
Apparantly you don't have the smarts to realize the difference between the two concepts.
Hey...maybe you should apply for O.J.'s new jury.....you're so "just right" for the job! No brains required!
