SweatyYeti

Members
  • Content count

    7,976
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,815 Mythical

About SweatyYeti

  • Rank
    Sasquatch
  • Birthday 06/23/1958

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Bigfoot, Ice Hockey, Hiking, Antique Cars

Contact Methods

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

Recent Profile Visitors

3,418 profile views
  1. Salubrious is quite capable of closing a thread or issuing warnings and he hasn't had a real problem with the post being made, but I see WV Footer has stepped in and bitched about any reference to trolling.

  2. ShadowBorn wrote: No, SB....Todd's hoaxed videos certainly don't help him, in any way. Neither do his make-believe adventures, in the Land of Sylvanic....tunneling underneath mountains...( )....being surrounded/chased by Sasquatches...and having tree trunks thrown at him. Also, I wonder what ever happened to his "video of an encounter with a Sasquatch that ended in violence"....(with Todd apparently the victor)??? Did his pet T. Rex eat it?? I don't know if Toddy ever has had a legitimate encounter with a Sasquatch....but, one thing I know for sure.....I don't care if he has.
  3. I may obsess a little over 'truthfulness'. But, don't forget to ask kit how he calculates his probabilities.
  4. Don't forget to ask...how does kit calculate his probabilities??? One fine day...it is 1-in-a-hundred... "Within a max of about 4 states and two provinces... I think there's a maximum 1% chance that any of the sightings from those areas are true which is enough to keep me interested in claims of reliable evidence." http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/49350-information-wanted-roger-patterson/page-5#entry874605 Some other fine day...(in the cesspool called JREF).....it is approx. 1-in-a-million... "I think Lloyd had a better shot (chance) with Mary than Bigfoot being real"...
  5. Or imprint themselves onto Film.
  6. kitakaze wrote: You have 'contradiction addiction', kit. And "Bombshell Constipation"... Although, we do get a few 'puffs of smoke' from them, every once in a while.
  7. I like this line from your JREF post, kit... ... "Maybe one day if you ever get tired of playing the adult role-playing game of Woods & Wildmen you might give your head a shake and think about honestly to yourself. " It has that nice ring of "condescension" in it...like your use of the word "boogeymen". Gee whiz, kit....all those years you railed against Bigfoot's existence' on JREF....in glowing, insulting, mocking tones.....all you were really objecting to was it's "reported range"??? All us "intransigent believers" need to do, is to say that we think it's range is more confined than it has been reported in....and our belief would be "just fine/okee-dokee"?? Who'd have thunk there was such a simple remedy for the problem?! Oh, wait a minute....it's not that simple....kit hath also saith: "OK, footers. What's the deal? Why are there no unambiguous photos or videos of Bigfoot? Why can't I see an unambiguous video of Bigfoot on youtube? You would have us believe these creatures live all over North America (as well as other continents like Asia and Australia) and that there are over 400+ sightings a year. If you try to argue just for a specific area, show how you were able to dismiss others areas. What is the precedent for a massive land mammal living across major industrialized nations with a viable breeding population and no reliable evidence, unambiguous photos or videos, or type specimen. It is ludicrous and insane. Will you please try and honestly confront this problem? Don't talk to me about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW. Over 2/3 of reports come from outside it." http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/49350-information-wanted-roger-patterson/page-5 kit wants us to talk about Bigfoot existing within a smaller range.....but just don't talk to him about it existing within only a smaller range.
  8. From kit's post, above....kitakaze wrote....(emphasis mine....because "Love" deserves emphasis )... kitakaze wrote: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/30016-kitakazes-patty-suit-bombshell/page-141 So, kit....what keeps you "interested in claims of reliable evidence" in 2015??? I thought we all should have "given it up" back in 2013... Bonus 'kit quote'... kit wrote: "I put the possibility of Bigfoot existing to be somewhere between 0.01 - 1%. That may seem next to zero, but that extremely small margin is what keeps me interested." .....In "Boogeymen"...
  9. MIB wrote: Or....you can get a grant to study zebra fish or the eye color of fruit flies or any number of silly things but you can't get a grant to study the near-Human....or possibly Human beings, in the woods. Heck, why should a government which wastes money by the trainload waste any more money on the potential existence of...Human Beings?? http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/10/17/the-10-dumbest-ways-the-government-wasted-taxpayer.aspx
  10. You're welcome, mbh...
  11. It is extreme, mbh....as that is the most definitive form of evidence. I'm not implying a negative connotation to the use of the word 'extreme'...as if there is something wrong in asking for a physical specimen. For 'mainstream scientists', it is a 'fair and reasonable' thing to require. My point is simply that a 'body' is not a requirement for 'proof' of the creature's existence...(at least, in the eyes of the general public). A good, up-close video of the creatures can, potentially, rise to the level of 'proof'.
  12. There are actually two lines drawn in the sand, norseman. The line drawn by 'Mainstream Science' has an extreme requirement....a physical specimen.....but that doesn't prevent us from being able to determine/know that the creatures exist, with a less extreme requirement....a very good film/video. A film...(such as the PGF)...or a video can reach that 'line in the sand'.
  13. You mean the 'messenger' who will not talk with his fellow Discussion Board members?
  14. But wait....there's more! Where is Tontar's response...to this community's questions/comments??? Tontar talks, and talks, and talks, and talks, and talks, and talks, and talks, and talks, and talks, and talks...about Bigfoot....and then...he talks some more, about Bigfoot........ad nauseum.....etc....etc....etc. But, where is his willingness to talk with fellow members of this community of people, concerning the Elbe trackway?? To me, his defiance is as inappropriate as anything else he may have done.
  15. mesabe wrote: I agree completely, mesabe... I think the discussion threads/analysis of the PGF would be better-off if Tontar, and one or two other "skeptics", were put on 'Ignore' by the Bigfoot proponents. As it stands now...there is a lot of good analysis buried within many pages of Tontar's and kitakaze's posts, along with the responses they've gotten.