Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Correa Neto said:
In sum...

WB, Mad Hom, but nothing has changed when it comes to evidence. You would have had some fun with some bigfoot trolls that were around for a while...
Click to expand...

Gracias Correa...I just can't keep away from this thread and am looking forward to the 10,000th post party...Wooo Hooo!!

As for the Bigfeetsus trolls...dammit I miss all the fun...I had such a blast with Fuddster (not that he was a troll mind you) that when he was banned I lost interest...but I am back and I hope the trolls return... Cuz I love me some troll bashing.
 
kitakaze said:
No, no, no, Madness. Your sly Freeman reference is all wrong. We should be saying 'he's lucky he didn't get shot' and we should keep saying that until someone asks us why no bigfeet have been shot. Then we should do a total 180 and talk about stunned hunters or insufficient calibre or you know, whatever sounds good.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly..whatever sounds good.

That seems to be the mission statement of the Bigfoot Nation...doesn't it?
 
So what I want to know next is how many of those campers were convinced at the time that they'd seen a bigfoot? And will some remain convinced even after the kid was arrested?

No joke, I really think it would be interesting to know.
 
Santard (presumed by me) reaction of some bigfoot investigators:
"You can't dismiss all the sightings because of a single hoaxer"
"He was caught, wasn't he? This proves there are real bigfeet out there! Hoaxers are always caught!"
"Despite of this, we still have compelling evidence, such as the PGF, Skookum cast, the many footprint casts, thousands of sighting reports. More than enough to convince reasonable persons."
 
I love it! It's like an automatic reflex or something.

First post on the story at cryptomundo:

Darla KnD responds:
August 16th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Why do people keep doing that? Don’t they realize that there are some that WOULD SHOOT them? Just insane!
Click to expand...

Quick, Darla! Run! We must get to the 'no bigfoot hunter kills' thread as fast as we can!

You can type "What hunter would shoot at a human-shaped form? Just insane!"
 
kitakaze said:
I love it! It's like an automatic reflex or something.

First post on the story at cryptomundo:



Quick, Darla! Run! We must get to the 'no bigfoot hunter kills' thread as fast as we can!

You can type "What hunter would shoot at a human-shaped form? Just insane!"
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, if this were north central Arkansas around the opening of gun season for deer, well, you would stand a high chance of getting shot. Of course, this is true even if you're wearing hunter's orange with a neon weather baloon floating just over your head flashing lights that spell out "Don't shoot, I'm human".

But other than that, yeah...I don't think we have a case of a bigfoot hoaxer, bigfoot, ape, monkey, or other animal of a similar nature being shot by accident anywhere in the U.S., do we?
 
Correa Neto said:
Dammit Kitakaze is faster than me at typing!
Second time, first was for nearly a year, this time, some minutes.
I'm getting closer at a stunning rate!
Click to expand...
My little secret:

silicone%20oven%20mitts.jpg
 
bruto said:
So what I want to know next is how many of those campers were convinced at the time that they'd seen a bigfoot? And will some remain convinced even after the kid was arrested?

No joke, I really think it would be interesting to know.
Click to expand...
Not quite what you were asking for but quite interesting, nonetheless.

The 1977 Canadian Bus Driver Hoax.

Now let's wait for a proponent to show up and talk about something to do with thousands of reports and statistics and whatnot.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Do you have the same evidence for those claims as you have for bigfoot?

I hope you have some better evidence...I'd hate to think you are a liar.
Click to expand...

I have never made claims - I dont pretend to know it all. You would hate to think I was a liar - as opposed to a regular on this board that posts flat out lies - in an attempt to attack someone personally? So, if I called myself a skeptic, you would have a discussion with me that did not borderline on insulting? Thats absolutely the way it seems.

If your not willing to call someone out like that - dont talk to me about honesty and integrity. Whether it was his intent or not, it was out of line and ment to attack me personally. If you can point to one quote where I said ANY of those things that make me sound like I am a believer in all things bigfoot - I will post an apology, until then - you are doing nothing more than defending a liar, and a trouble maker, and in that regard, I could care less what you think.

I have respect for many on this board - but it appears the only people who get called out are the ones who disagree or offer discussion to the contrary of your own opinion. How sad is that? William Parcher made a direct attempt to put out commentary as if I said it - and yet you have no words for him. You instead tell me I should prove to you I am not a liar. I dont have to prove anything to anyone. Read all the things I have typed in the past, on this very board and others - then if you still want to call me a liar - so be it, I stopped caring.

Insults are a sure sign you have nothing to offer the conversation. Keep hurling insults while protecting your own - it only goes to show just how the discussion here is less about the actual research and more about the desire to call people names and insult. I hope that was not the intention of those who created this website. Discussions and debate should be free of personal insults and stick directly to the issue. But, if you want to hurl insults my way, I will be more than happy to lob them back.

I will always respond to personal attacks when I hear about them. Dont like it - to bad.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Madness, you missed some spectacular lemming charges.
Mad Hom said:
Yes exactly..whatever sounds good.

That seems to be the mission statement of the Bigfoot Nation...doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Alternative mission statements for the cult of bigfootery:

'It could happen.'

'We have better hats than those UFO guys.'

'Prove us wrong.'

'Because the goat sucker guys were getting weird.'
 
Melissa said:
I have never made claims - I dont pretend to know it all. You would hate to think I was a liar - as opposed to a regular on this board that posts flat out lies - in an attempt to attack someone personally? So, if I called myself a skeptic, you would have a discussion with me that did not borderline on insulting? Thats absolutely the way it seems.
Click to expand...
I assume you're referring to this post? I've read it over a couple of times and given it some thought and I agree, William's attempt at satire was overly personal and unnecessary.

I'm guessing it was an over-reaction to some of the sweeping generalizations you made in this earlier post but I could be wrong.

Incidentally, my computer's audio has gone mysteriously silent and I haven't been able to listen to the show for a couple weeks. I was very interested in hearing squatchcommando's interview. What kind of skeptical questions did you have for him?
 
Melissa said:
Keep hurling insults while protecting your own - it only goes to show just how the discussion here is less about the actual research and more about the desire to call people names and insult. I hope that was not the intention of those who created this website.
Click to expand...
Hold the phone, I missed that. I disagree with that statement. You got raised eyebrows and criticism from two people who are very informed on the PGF and because of your level of involvement with bigfootery expected you to be also.

The conversations here are about the PGF, the bigfoot phenomenom, bigfootery, it's various claims of evidence, and the various characters who perpetuate the myth. Please don't make such unfair generalizations when someone gets your back up. Are Correa or RayG here out of the desire to be insulting?

Now, as for actual research, let's talk about your actual research if you'd like. Any reliable evidence? Have you seen this giant bipedal primate eluding us in the forests? If not, any thoughts on why not?
 
I sometimes get bored and will use extreme satire and sarcasm to pass the time. Hurting anyone is never my goal. I poke fun at Bigfootery because it's there for the poking.
 
Kitakazee said:
Incidentally, my computer's audio has gone mysteriously silent and I haven't been able to listen to the show for a couple weeks. I was very interested in hearing squatchcommando's interview. What kind of skeptical questions did you have for him?
Click to expand...

I signed on this morning, wondering if this would be asked. Kitakazee, could you either listen to the program yourself by fixing your system - or give those of us who knew Dan a few days before you started in on what we did or did not ask of him?

As for all the rest of your "I strongly disagree" - who cares, William Parcher didnt say those things about you - so, how you feel really doesnt matter to me and again, I could care less. When I start putting words in your mouth - then I will accept your righteous indignation. At this moment in my life, I really dont care and frankly you dont even rate on the list of people I am even thinking of right now.

Either stand up for what is right - or just stay seated. Either way, I really dont care.

William Parcher said:
I sometimes get bored and will use extreme satire and sarcasm to pass the time. Hurting anyone is never my goal. I poke fun at Bigfootery because it's there for the poking.
Click to expand...

Thats no excuse for your behavior. Either you can hold a discussion like an adult, or you can not - guess which one I am thinking right now? I like talking to skeptics, I take their advice and criticism very seriously - I apply those things to my research. You are not a skeptic, your someone who is taking advantage of a message board to do what you do best - attack people for fun. There is a name for that.

And you whined about SweatyYeti and LAL - wow, you have nerve.
 
Some people have been moaning about my term "Pattycakes". It simply refers to someone who believes the PGF shows a real Bigfoot. Knights mused that the term connotates a childish game. This wasn't my thinking and instead I imagined a pancake. LOL. Nobody is being forced to use the term. The obvious alternative is something like "PGF Believer".

"Suitnik" seems to work as a term to describe anyone who thinks the PGF subject is somebody in a suit or costume. I'll give you guys two new terms you can use for the special sub-category of Suitniks who believe that Bob Heironimus was inside the suit that is shown in the PGF. Around here, I might be the only one. You can call me a "Bobsucker" (suckered into thinking BH is Patty), or if you want to be less bawdy you can use "Bobster".

I also thought of "Heironimo" (think Geronimo), but it's just too stupid. Okay now "Heironopotamus". It sucks too...
 
Melissa, all you have to do is show that your claims about WP are true, and I'll be right there with you.

Do you seriously think sceptics are the only ones who use terms like "pattycakes" to refer to the "other" side"?
 
I don't think I lied about anything. I can certainly make mistakes however, but that is not really a lie.

Your Honor, I don't understand the charges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom