Squatchy McSquatch

Members
  • Content count

    1,609
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

590 Legendary

About Squatchy McSquatch

  • Rank
    Yowie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

671 profile views
  1. Not a professor. From the article: "A new class at Centralia College taught by a part-time volunteer instructor " "It will be taught on April 8, April 22, May 6 and May 20 from 10 a.m. to noon" (an 8hr workshop) "The stone carvings still need to be examined in an academic environment" "he has not yet finished a scientific paper that adequately describes his newest findings" "To this day our research stands intact. Not one scientist has been able to refute our conclusions in any category. The integrated and mutually supporting nature of the evidence and analysis is clear, repeatable and microscopically impossible to fake or hoax." Pretty much sums up the state of bigfoot science. Welcome to the forum, btw
  2. The squatch in Slabdog's pic looks like he's holding something. Possibly an avocado. Could this be an example of gifting caught on tape? Let's keep this thread open. This could be fun. I'm off to hunt background squatch.
  3. I'm sure, my friend. I'm quite certain there are no Bigfoot in Chicago. You don't have to be me to agree with that statement. Anyway, how about back to that poll?
  4. There are no Bigfoot in Chicago. C'mon...
  5. I chose the first option. My interest in Bigfoot is modern folklore and nothing else. I love that the internet, and technology in general, has brought us all globally together in search of a legend. I adore that several people in this thread claim to be in regular contact with Bigfoot. Bigfoot can live on forever at this rate.
  6. Sorry pal.. You're so far off the mark it's comical. BF hasn't been proven, accepted or classified.
  7. Except in all those pesky murder cases where police, emergency technicians, coroners et al have inspected the dead body long before a jury has been chosen.
  8. Hamilton, ON is the bigfoot capitol. I called dibs back in '03
  9. If Bigfoot were real, beef ribs wouldn't be so surprisingly expensive and BigFoot Burgers wouldn't be made out of ground chuck
  10. You're wecome. Great thread, btw, and I mean it.
  11. see showman see showmanship see my first post in chief...
  12. If this thread is (by your own words) about HOAXERS, but not about existence... You just trolled yourself in your own thread.
  13. The idea that film alone would be sufficient proof is your claim. I am not required to regard it as anything other than a false argument. Can you cite an instance where bigfoot has been proven real by a film? Film alone is NOT my claim. Now that's the second time you've issued a false comment. And whatever you're "required" to do is entirely your own judgment. Even asking if I can cite an instance where film is proof just shows that you're struggling getting this. This isn't about the film as proof. And this isn't about anything based on other than what P&G said. They said they had to go back for casting materials. Period. I'm saying as a hoax why would anyone go to the trouble? Even if it wasn't a hoax why go to the trouble? If they did indeed have the materials in a saddlebag why lie and say they didn't? You're trying to make this into something much bigger that it is. All I'm saying is for all the rigamarole after the supposed filming of Heironimus in a suit- and even getting to the point of being able to do so- suit and all- why would hoaxers not simply leave with the film in hand and a smirks on their faces. This whole turnaround for casting supplies just doesn't make sense then. That's all this thread is about. If you were hoaxing the exact same thing in the exact same way would you go to the same trouble just to get a set of prints or would you run with the film chuckling? It's an honest and fair question. You've overcomplicated the concept of a hoax. See showmanship and misdirection.
  14. The idea that film alone would be sufficient proof is your claim. I am not required to regard it as anything other than a false argument. Unless, of course, you can back up your claim with an example of a Bigfoot having been proven by film and film alone.
  15. What you call follow supporting evidence, I consider part of the hoax. Roger was involved casting 'tracks' long before the PGF happened. This was the heyday of Bigfootery. In case you haven't noticed, cast footprints were generally the standard of evidence at the time. What kind of bigfoot hunter would Rog have been had he packed up the camera without casting some tracks? As I said in my previous post; Roger was a showman. I'm not talking about existence. I'm talking about misdirection. If that makes you uncomfortable I'm fine with that. Fwiw I don't believe PG tracked Patty after the filming, nor did they return to camp for plaster. The casting materials were likely in the packhorse saddlebags.