• 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.

Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
William Parcher wrote:
That sounds like Titmus didn't see Patty tracks coming out of the forested mountainside and entering the creek bed.
Click to expand...
Titmus didn't SEE Patty's tracks coming out of the forest....because, apparantly, he didn't go into the forest LOOKING for them.
Because, as he said...."since it was soon obvious that he did not come up the creek."
 
William Parcher wrote:
Titmus......wanted us to believe he was tracking a real Bigfoot (Patty),
Click to expand...
How do you know what his intentions were, William?

Bob Titmus was, in all likelihood, not in on the hoax. Why then would he make-up a story about the tracks going on for such a long way, when in fact they did not. Especially since, at that time, his assertion could have easily been checked out.

This shows the length that skeptics will go to, to find an explanation OTHER than "Bigfoot" to account for all the details concerning a potential Bigfoot sighting....caught on film, or not.

Contrary to kitakaze's claim....it's the skeptics that take the longer, more complicated route in analysing the evidence for Bigfoot.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Titmus didn't SEE Patty's tracks coming out of the forest....because, apparantly, he didn't go into the forest LOOKING for them. Because, as he said...."since it was soon obvious that he did not come up the creek."
Click to expand...

I'm already tired of calling you Sweety, so I'm switching to calling you "Baby Dangling".

Titmus had the opportunity to see Patty tracks leaving the forest and entering the creek area, because when the forest ends the sand begins. A smart person can see from his testimony that he deduced she must have come from the forest. Probably because he didn't see tracks walking along the creekbed leading to the film spot.

It's as if he said, "I didn't see any pre-filming tracks alongside the creek leading to the film spot, so she must have come out of the forest."
 
Is it really true that some Bigfootsies believe that he’s a shape-shifter, a trans-dimensional entity, a mind-reader and telepathic broadcaster, in short a supernatural being? If so, then damn! but we’re seeing the birth of a god!

Here in this thread we see repeated examples of the stubbornness of True Believers. Can outright worship be far behind?
 
It's never explained by P&G or Titmus what kind of sign Patty left after she exited the sand. She is presumably walking through forest at that time. Maybe they looked for smudges in the floor litter, or something. Titmus describes the sit down area, but not the kind of sign he was following to lead him to that spot. Titmus tells us he was able to do that 9 days later. I think I read that it rained more than once in that period.

It's inexplicable why P&G didn't describe or film the sign that they followed for 3.5 miles on horseback.
 
sackett said:
Is it really true that some Bigfootsies believe that he’s a shape-shifter, a trans-dimensional entity, a mind-reader and telepathic broadcaster, in short a supernatural being? If so, then damn! but we’re seeing the birth of a god!
Click to expand...

More than one person thinks that. Try to find a spare 18 minutes to watch this video. You'll get to see a filmed "Blobsquatch" as well...

Into the Woods

Here in this thread we see repeated examples of the stubbornness of True Believers. Can outright worship be far behind?
Click to expand...

The worshipping is happening right now.
 
kitakaze wrote:
Sweaty, before you scoot do you think you'll make any attempt to quit hiding from all the recent posts addressing you?
Click to expand...
I don't have time to respond right now.
You can "divine" the reason why....you're good at that...even though you always guess wrong.

I'll get around to responding to your questions eventually.

I've been busy posting on another board lately, so I'll be posting here less frequently.
 
Sweaty, I understand your plea for patience to respond to posts which are so embarrassing for you. #1480, comments on reliable evidence, and a Joyce pitch to Huntster any time you're ready. (That won't be soon, right?)
 
As far as I'm concerned half of the BF proponents currently posting in this thread have been proven to be dishonest in their handling of facts.
 
Huntster, we both agree that Kathy Moskowitz-Strain is a very pleasant individual but I'd like to know your thoughts on her statements to me regarding kushtaka.
 
kitakaze said:
Huntster, I tried to size up where we are on the Q&A. Thanks for linking Mangani's map, when you originally referred to it I didn't realize that it was the one LAL had already posted earlier. I checked and found three reports for POW on the BFRO but I'm as of yet not sure where any others might be?
Click to expand...

That's the problem with such databases.

They aren't comprehensive.

When discussing SE Alaska, I usually refer to "Raincoast Sasquatch" by J. Robert Alley.

My next question:
Do the Tlingit currently equate sasquatch with kushtaka?
Click to expand...

No.

The Tlingit refer to "kushtaka" from their own, unique perspective.

Many "footers" link the sasquatch phenomenon in the entire PNW/continent/world (regardless of the particular local language used) with the Tlingit perspective of the same or similar phenomenon when they use the word "kushtaka".

The people of the Koyukon refer to such a creature as a nik’inla’eena, and in their English version they refer to them as "woodsmen".

Are you among the idiots around here who are willing to go to extremes to claim that this is different than a "kushtaka", a "sasquatch", or a "bigfoot"?
 
Last edited:
sackett said:
Is it really true that some Bigfootsies believe that he’s a shape-shifter, a trans-dimensional entity, a mind-reader and telepathic broadcaster, in short a supernatural being?
Click to expand...

Yup.

I don't.

You?

If so, then damn! but we’re seeing the birth of a god!
Click to expand...

Are you in need of a god?

Maybe you can "latch on".

Here in this thread we see repeated examples of the stubbornness of True Believers.
Click to expand...

We also see "repeated examples of the stubbornness of" denialists.

Can outright worship be far behind?
Click to expand...

It sure can for me.

You?
 
kitakaze said:
As far as I'm concerned half of the BF proponents currently posting in this thread have been proven to be dishonest in their handling of facts.
Click to expand...

Considering myself to be a "BF proponent", where do I fit in with regard to your analysis?
 
No, Huntster. I'm not an idiot and I've already linked a reference to 'Raincoast Sasquatch' and proven that kushtaka is not related to sasquatch and that Kathy Moskowitz-Strain has been dishonest to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom