• 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.

The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Status
Not open for further replies.
makaya325 said:
Astro, what is it that a bear hunter sees thats 8ft 800 lbs up close? Obviously not their imagination. Astro, unlike most cryptids, not alot of things resemble a monstrous 8ft 800 lbs primate, unless its a freak of nature human with some disorder
Click to expand...

People who hunt bears never lie. They just don't... ever!
 
makaya325 said:
Astro, what is it that a bear hunter sees thats 8ft 800 lbs up close? Obviously not their imagination. Astro, unlike most cryptids, not alot of things resemble a monstrous 8ft 800 lbs primate, unless its a freak of nature human with some disorder
Click to expand...

A fisherman once told me that there were catfish as big as 25 feet in a lake once. I was taken aback and then I pointed out that catfish can't get that big even in asia. The point of this story is you can't believe everything somebody tells you. I am sure there were big catfish there but the size was too much to accept as being accurate.

We are back to what is acceptable in the way of testimony again. Once again, I point out that the more extraordinary the story, the less likely I am going to accept it as being reliable without some good evidence to back it up.
 
Astro, eyewitnesses can be wrong, but they also can be right, which you fail to bring up.

Horrible analogy. An up close sighting of an 8ft hominid btwn a 100 meter sightings of SOMETHING in the water is bad.
 
makaya325 said:
Astro, eyewitnesses can be wrong, but they also can be right, which you fail to bring up.
Click to expand...

How do you determine an eyewitness to be right? Because you want to believe them? This is what you are stating. You accept the testimony of something extraordinary because it is what you want to believe is true. I will not accept the testimony of something extraordinary because there is no evidence it is true.

BTW, my analogy, which you seemed to miss, was that some people tell tall stories just for the sake of telling tall stories.

This is beginning to be pointless. I will leave you with the words of Carl Sagan. He was talking about UFOs but it can easily apply here:

On so important a question, the evidence must be airtight. The more we want it to be true, the more careful we have to be. No witness’s say-so is good enough. People make mistakes. People play practical jokes. People stretch the truth for money or attention or fame. People occasionally misunderstand what they are seeing. People sometimes even see things that aren’t there. (Sagan "The demon haunted world" 69)
 
Last edited:
Astrophotographer said:
But we haven't found such a mutation. As for the mistaken identity, can't the same be said for Bigfoot sightings? Could a bear from a distance look like bigfoot if it stands on it's hind legs?
Click to expand...

You mean Something like this "Big Bugger" Supposed to be a picture here but I can no longer upload them I guess. :confused:
 
Last edited:
How do you determine theyre wrong?

I find the fact that an omnipotent hoaxer has never been caught extrodinary as the opposite case: A small population of prehistoric survivors
 
makaya325 said:
Exactly. I dont accept his testimony because of the contradictions. However, my gut feeling is that Janos Prohaska had something to do with the film.
Click to expand...


Makaya, have you ever thought about joining the BFF to let them know about and explain your gut feeling? :D
 
William, has there ever been a sighting in the wild of a hoaxer in its habitat? Nope! But there have been sightings of bf
 
makaya325 said:
How do you determine theyre wrong?
Click to expand...

You don't. You simply put the testimony aside as possible but unlikely. As I continuously state, when evidence surfaces to back up the story, then I am more apt to believe them. Until that happens, I will not accept it as right simply based on a will to believe.
 
makaya325 said:
William, has there ever been a sighting in the wild of a hoaxer in its habitat? Nope! But there have been sightings of bf
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Yet, you continue to reach up inside your ass and pull this stuff out.

William, im guessing you think the bff members are ALL dumb?
Click to expand...

Not all, but many of them are gullible. They got this new guy called blue bear.
 
Last edited:
....so were stuck with an incredible, miracle suit,
Click to expand...

Do you realize only a relatively, very small number of people believe that ?

Did I miss where you confessed you could not see the similarity of the Fur Diaper twins ?

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
makaya325 said:
so were stuck with an incredible, miracle suit, or a miracle group of relict animals
Click to expand...

No we are stuck with a suit that BF proponents claim is a miracle suit and others suggest is not a miracle suit. There have been some special effects artists who are on record as stating it looks and acts like a suit. Obviously, if it were a miracle suit they would not be so convinced.

What we actually are "stuck with" are:

1) A film of a guy in a suit. The suit may be good enough to prevent serious flaws from being exposed or the resolution of the film prevents obvious flaws from being seen. The film is not exactly the best for resolving the issue. It's time duration is brief, there is evidence of editing (or at least that is the impression I got from this forum), the original is not available, the camera is unstable in many sections, etc. etc. It is hard to draw a conclusion that it is a miracle suit based on these factors.

2) It is a film of a real live bigfoot. This is a creature, which has never been found or filmed with such clarity for the forty years that have elapsed since this film was made.

Again, #1 continues to be the most likely scenario UNTIL you can provide good evidence that supports #2. Of course this thread is about BH and Patty/Aunt Bunny. We have gotten beyond this.

IMO, Bob may or may not be the guy in the suit. However, he has come forward with that claim. I see no reason to reject that possibility to date. Your previous posting comparing his and Morris's recollections is a non-starter because if you admit that one of the accounts is factual to disprove the other, you are admitting that there is a suit.
 
Dio, that is a still, not a moving image. Show me a moving image that matches patty, and then ill believe you
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom