Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[kitakaze]

Some claim to see that Patty has braided her hair and fastened it with a bone clasp, thus revealing a level of culture not hitherto ascribed to bigfoot.

What further wonders await us as we take a 16mm frame and expand it!

The imagination is our only limit.

I say we move boldly onwards.

Could be the exact opposite too. In fact I know it is.

So, Luminous, what are you talking about?

 

[carcharodon]

You will anyway. Hmm... I guess we shouldn't infer too much about a questionable film taken under questionable circumstances by a questionable man of a questionable subject at considerable distance.

Oh you mean the 'questionable' footage that is a hell of a lot better than any hoax, any Hollywood suit or any t.v recreation of the last 40 years? Oh right, I see.

Tell you what Snitch, why don't you pipe up only when you have something worthwhile to say? You should really restrict yourself to things that you do best....i.e cowardly copying and pasting a post from ANOTHER WEBSITE here and then sniggering behind somebody's back, or telling tales and reporting somebody to the admin. That's all you're good for. Nowt else my little sunbeam.

 

[kitakaze]

Hmm... good evidence and plenty of it? I guess it shouldn't be too hard to qualify that statement here since you made it here. Typical.

Evidence?

You expect two individuals who refuse to back the accusations they made against forum members will be able to provide reliable evidence about bigfoot?

Actually I expect them to just keep spewing garbage without support and have fantastic hissy fits. Nevertheless, it's customary to make the request.

 

[carcharodon]

So anyway, Tourette's boy, what happened when the creature was first encountered?

What happened then the creature was first encountered? Why is that of such great interest to you that you keep asking ad nauseum?

Apparantely Roger and Bob were on horseback and they came round a log pile to suddenly see the subject crouching by a stream. Roger's horse reared and somehow Roger ended up on the ground. Roger then took after the creature (who by this time had stood up and started backing and walking away from the two men) on foot while Bob Gimlin stayed on his horse and watched the events.

How's that???

 

[kitakaze]

Oh you mean the 'questionable' footage that is a hell of a lot better than any hoax, any Hollywood suit or any t.v recreation of the last 40 years? Oh right, I see.

So, are you saying that those who doubt the PGF after close examination are being unreasonable?

Tell you what Snitch, why don't you pipe up only when you have something worthwhile to say? You should really restrict yourself to things that you do best....i.e cowardly copying and pasting a post from ANOTHER WEBSITE here and then sniggering behind somebody's back, or telling tales and reporting somebody to the admin. That's all you're good for. Nowt else my little sunbeam.

You're a wounded soul. Shall I pm you posts I'd like to make so you can dictate whether or not they are worth while?

 

[carcharodon]

You expect two individuals who refuse to back the accusations they made against forum members

Whatcha talking about? It's a FACT you tried to ridicule Huntster's opinions knowing full well he was banned and couldn't reply. You even asked Hairy Man to pass the message on and sniggered. That's a sly, cowardly and pathetic thing to do. If somebody isn't able to post to defend him self, it's a low act to still try and get one up on them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2396006

Speaking of "individuals who refuse to back the accusations", who here actually backed up their assertions that LAL ridiculed tube's profession???

Anybody actually do that did they?

Nup.

 

[kitakaze]

What happened then the creature was first encountered? Why is that of such great interest to you that you keep asking ad nauseum?

How many times was that? Anyway here's why:

Apparantely Roger and Bob were on horseback and they came round a log pile to suddenly see the subject crouching by a stream. Roger's horse reared and somehow Roger ended up on the ground. Roger then took after the creature (who by this time had stood up and started backing and walking away from the two men) on foot while Bob Gimlin stayed on his horse and watched the events.

How's that???

How's that? kinda like

Thanks, you've just taken the dunce hat and walked yourself right to out of class, assisted me in making an important point on the PGF, lost any credibilty you might have had, and made yourself look like a silly footer who can't do their homework. Cheers.

 

[carcharodon]

And blockfoot? Where's the blockfoot cast?

http://www.bfro.net/AVEVID/PHOTOS/FOOTAGE_STILLS/frame72.jpg

No 'blockfoot' here.

 

[kitakaze]

Whatcha talking about? It's a FACT you tried to ridicule Huntster's opinions knowing full well he was banned and couldn't reply. You even asked Hairy Man to pass the message on and sniggered.

Keep flapping, we know what you're like with 'the facts'.

Speaking of "individuals who refuse to back the accusations", who here actually backed up their assertions that LAL ridiculed tube's profession???

Anybody actually do that did they?

Nup.

So, I guess she never referred to tube's examination of Meldrum's casts as 'looking in his drawers'?

 

[carcharodon]

Keep flapping, we know what you're like with 'the facts'.

Yeah dopey. I just presented a link to the FACT that Correa still tried to get one up on Huntster after Huntster was banned and couldn't respond.

Bit like your cowardly pathetic copy and paste job on my post from Cryptomundo.

So, I guess she never referred to tube's examination of Meldrum's casts as 'looking in his drawers'?

Didn't say she didn't. That's hardly the same as an accusation of a personal attack and ridiculing somebody's profession.......which was NOT backed up and substantiated. When did Lu ridicule tubes profession??? Hmmmmmm??

I get sick and tired of the whinging and double standards here. Were all arseholes, yet you mongs won't admit it and pretend you are whiter than white. It's hilarious.

 

[kitakaze]

Yeah dopey. I just presented a link to the FACT that Correa still tried to get one up on Huntster after Huntster was banned and couldn't respond.

Flap all you like, you've already been wiped by Correa and will be again.

Bit like your cowardly pathetic copy and paste job on my post from Cryptomundo.

I'm far too scared to debate you on the same board. You've been served.

 

[Correa Neto]

Whatcha talking about? It's a FACT you tried to ridicule Huntster's opinions knowing full well he was banned and couldn't reply. You even asked Hairy Man to pass the message on and sniggered. That's a sly, cowardly and pathetic thing to do. If somebody isn't able to post to defend him self, it's a low act to still try and get one up on them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2396006

OK, I feel like playing the “poke-the-troll” game.

If it is a fact, as you claim to be, I wonder why you are having problems to demonstrate it. More than once you were asked to back your claims; the links below are just a few.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2448489&postcount=3379
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2641159&postcount=4450
Your answers? Lies, ad homs and an explicit refusal to back your accusations. Not to mention that now you changed your initial statement. Your initial claims included presumed distortions of his words and quote mining. Distortions and quote-mining that I proved to be inexistent.

You should note that by pointing the silliness of that line of reasoning (as well as many others) I am actually helping the people interested in presenting a better case for bigfeet as real creatures. Like it or not, flawed reasonings and arguments must be eliminated if you want to have a good cause. And I stand by my point. That was a very lame argument.

What about you, why don’t you try defending his point?
Give it a try. Alternatively, you could try defending your version of the argument. Show us your evidence, your arguments, your reasonings, your debating skills.
Go ahead.
Can you?

Speaking of "individuals who refuse to back the accusations", who here actually backed up their assertions that LAL ridiculed tube's profession???

Anybody actually do that did they?

Nup.

Oh, a dodge attempt. Add one more to your list of silly tactics.

Here's a good answer:

You think I've got time to go back through every post he made? Good luck with that thought process.

Can you recognize the author of these words?

In the absolute lack of arguments and debating skills you appeal to ad homs, dodges and lies, pretending to be white knight in shining armor. But you are only embarrassing yourself. If you can’t contribute to a debate, shut up, stop wasting bandwidth and let the adults handle the issue.

 

[William Parcher]

Bob Heironimus' claims are all over the place. More importantly he's not the right size and shape to have been the man in the suit and he doesn't even walk like 'Patty' when he tries.

Watch the videos. I see there have been NO comments on them so far. Typical. Here they are again. Here's Bob H NOT walking with the same bent legged gait as Patty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCzR...m/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

What the hell is that? Why is this clip of Bob Heironimus so short (only one step) and speeded-up? It looks like someone is trying to hide something about the way BH walks. Are the Pattycakes playing dirty tricks?

Here are some other comparisons.

 

[Luminous]

I think it comes down to what I have always thought about proponents of anything phenomenal, be it Bigfoot or UFOs. They prefer to be believed without question.

Some may prefer that, but that's not what I'm asking of anyone. I have had my days where I question the PG film. But it always comes back to what I see. What I see in that film silences my doubts every time I watch it. The PG film has survived until now and is still believed to be authentic by many, despite the small gaggle of squawkers who have tried to debunk it without successs. Pictures speak louder than words.

 

[RayG]

It's hilarious.

As are your meltdowns.

RayG

 

[Luminous]

I have no problem with you believing that. I don't, though.



Evidence of what? You mean you want me to provide evidence that it's a man in a suit? I'll provide the same evidence you provided for it being an actual sasquatch.

It looks like a man in a suit to me. It moves like a costume on a man to me. I see padding shifting, glove joins bulging, fake hair, etc. Patty also walks like a human to me.

It's possible that you need glasses.

 

[Luminous]

But, we can ..

Let me guess.. Now you are going to insist on two suits with those features ..

Speaking of muscle tone ..

What's up with that left leg ?

And the muscle tone in your costume butt is where? Maybe I need glasses. The other pics of Patty clearly show muscle tone, not a costume. Patty, one. Skeptics, zero.

 

[Luminous]

So, Luminous, what are you talking about?

Sorry Kit. That comment was in response to Yeah Right when he said, "Conversely, people saying that they do see the muscle tone could be victims of wishful thinking."

 

[Luminous]

What the hell is that? Why is this clip of Bob Heironimus so short (only one step) and speeded-up? It looks like someone is trying to hide something about the way BH walks. Are the Pattycakes playing dirty tricks?

Here are some other comparisons.

[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/70e82b59.gif[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/183d6f64.gif[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/877469e0.jpg[/qimg]

Not even close. The knee break and elbow break don't even match. And this is without him wearing his teddy bear suit. Try that with his ewok suit on and then see if they match. They won't match because they can't.

 

[RayG]

The PG film has survived until now and is still believed to be authentic by many, despite the small gaggle of squawkers who have tried to debunk it without successs.

One could just as easily say, the PG has survived until now and is still believed to be bogus by many, despite the small gaggle of squawkers who have tried to promote it without success.

Like it or not the PG film has never been proven to show an actual human or an actual sasquatch. Without 'the suit' or an actual bigfoot body, debating the PGF is like a dog humping an armchair. The dog might feel good doing it, but he ends up with no little doggies.

It's been 40 years, move along, nothing to see. Where is the recent evidence* for bigfoot?

* evidence = matching dermals in successive tracks, clear video of an actual animal, DNA results of a non-human unidentified primate, tracks showing convincing midtarsal-breaks, etc.

RayG