kitakaze wrote:
Have you made those statements factual as if I were to say that a six inch pencil could not fit a 3 inch pencil case? Yes or no? (And no, a broken pencil does not count)
The answer to
some points I've made is
yes, and to some of the points I've made is
no.
Again....I'm not playing your games, kitty....
this one being "Answer to the Judge....kitakaze...."
Tell me what you have proven".
What a weird little "maybe yes, maybe no" answer. Were you confused about what I was specifically asking about or were you intentionally trying to obfuscate it. But please continue...
I don't have the time to debate with you, or anybody else, what the strength of every little point that I've made, is.
What an interesting choice of words you've made there, Sweaty. Makes it sound like I've made an unfulfillable and unreasonable request. Asking you to assess the strength of
every little point you've made. No, see, I asked you in that post only to give an intellectually honest answer about the veracity and factual nature of
two,
only two, statements. Let me show them to you again to jog your memory:
1) All of the comparisons between Bob and Patty, which show differences in their body proportions that can't be accounted for by a 'padded suit'.
(snip)
2) The fact that Bob has described the alleged suit in a way that makes absolutely no sense......saying the suit had 'shoulder pads' and a 'helmet', when it couldn't have had either one in it.
All I asked you was a question intended to show whether or not you are capable of even the simplest intellectual honesty. The answer, of course as we can see, is that you are not. You could not even provide a simple, straight answer and had to obfuscate it with non sequiturs and straw men.
All one needs to do to check whether or not those
two statements you made have been established as fact is to check the last couple pages. Any moron with an ounce of honesty could easily admit that no, they haven't been established as fact or the key arguments addressed.
The ultimate point, which is no
rathole or
sidetrail, is that when you say those statements trump any point I may have about clear
proof of Bob Heironimus' involvement in Roger Patterson's Bigfoot activities at the time of the PGF, you are in fact merely letting wind fly from your pants. It's an excellent demonstration of how even the simplest points cause you to fall apart in a mess of obfuscation and evasion. Any intellectually honest person could admit the
major significance to Bob's claims of being Patty the
fact that he was involved with Patterson's film at the time.
Only you here, Sweaty, are the person here that can't even muster up the courage to deal with it. After so much coaxing to answer why he is in the images, all you can say is "I don't know but it doesn't matter because my arguments have won and there's no way it could be him." How lame is that? You're so afraid and so clammed up in your footer shell that you can't even emerge long enough to just try and honestly think about why Bob H is in the images with Patterson and on his film.
I'm glad you're at least trying to address Vort's questions. You could learn so very much from him. Mine simply cause you to lose function in an intelligent conversation.
)
