Guest Vincent Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Hi Kerchack. I dont "just" believe Bob H "because". I believe him because the patterson film itself is a clear, blatant fraud, visually... than if course pattersons history of fraud, some dodgy laughable phony footprints, lost original tapes, storys that dont match etc. then bob comes along, walks more or less like patty, lives next to patterson, and says he was the guy in the suit, plus apparently his horse was filmed at bluff creek on the bf reel, adding more evidence. am i 100 percent sure? no. can i produce the suit? nope. but common sense tells me that Bob is a likely candidate for the guy in the bigfoot costume. and if he says he is, ill at least lusten to him and definitely give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially since its clearly a man in a suit and he fits the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Saskeptic, there's no need to explain why you do not wish to reveal your identity or credentials old buddy. Cheers, mate. You too Huntster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kerchak Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Vincent, If you trully 'believe' Bob H walks more or less like Patty then I guess you'll believe anything to do with that claim. Thus I'll leave you with your thoughts and move on. Thanks anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UPs Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Saskeptic, there's no need to explain why you do not wish to reveal your identity or credentials old buddy. It's not required for anyone to reveal anything of a personal nature here. Anyone that argues someone else's point is invalid simply because that person chooses to remain out of the public eye, needs to sharpen up their debate skills a little cause that's not much of a counter. Let's all try to keep in mind that we're not required to show a photo ID, or prove what we do for a living before signing into the BFF. So please don't demand these things from others. I'm proud to have Saskeptic here with us. I may not agree with him much , but I'm still proud he's here. Chris B. Chris, My point was not that anyone's point is invalid because they want to remain anonymous, but that I personally weigh their arguments differently. To me, this is the nature of the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 You are a prime example of what the opening poster is talking about. It sounds like you accept what Bob H says as proof, even though he offers almost nothing and demonstrates even less. You accept an alleged hoaxer claiming a hoax based on very little. This bears repeating. There is little to no valid evidence that the PGF was a hoax. There is only testimony, conjecture, and character assassination, and from individuals with as much discrepancy (or more) in their testimony as there is with Patterson and Gimlin. The trace evidence is definately and overwhelmingly on the side of supporting the validity of the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vincent Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 (edited) believe what you like! if you honestly think your looking at a real live bigfoot, fine. but in reality your not. the freenan footage is far more realistic looking although thats fake to. Edited November 17, 2010 by Vincent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 believe what you like! Thank you. I do. if you honestly think your looking at a real live bigfoot, fine. but in reality your not. You have no more control over "reality" than you do over my beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vincent Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Hi Hunster, Than please enjoy your own reality. I to was once a small child and saw great white sharks in the folds of my bedsheets. Apparently you see Bigfoots in badly made 60s ape suits. ps not trying to "control" you... that would mean i have telepathy, and only bigfoot has that. gonna try to do some real research now, and leave this PGF stuff to you guys! enjoy your fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Than please enjoy your own reality. Actually, what I'll do is maintain my belief based upon the evidence while I await to see what reality actually is, as opposed to declaring what reality is before I actually know. I to was once a small child and saw great white sharks in the folds of my bedsheets. Interesting. Growing up in Southern California, and even when quite young, I was quite aware that white sharks lived in the ocean, and my bed was not "wet enough" for them to live there. Did you wet your bed often? Apparently you see Bigfoots in badly made 60s ape suits. Actually, I've seen "badly made 60s ape suits", can see that the PG subject resembles such suits in absolutely no way, and have never seen a real live sasquatch. But I have seen footprints that I believe were left by a sasquatch........... ps not trying to "control" you... that would mean i have telepathy, and only bigfoot has that. post script: you couldn't "control" me under any circumstances whatsoever, including telepathy, and I don't believe that sasquatches are any more capable of such telepathy than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Chris, My point was not that anyone's point is invalid because they want to remain anonymous, but that I personally weigh their arguments differently. To me, this is the nature of the internet. UPs, That reminder was not pointed at anyone in particular. I've noticed that throughout several threads in the forum, there seems to be a recurring theme to get Saskeptic to reveal personal info ie credentials etc. I just wanted to remind everyone that's not the way it works. People have different reasons for revealing their ID or keeping their ID from the public eye. For me, well, I have no problem with folks knowing it's me. (I guess i'm not pretty enough to attract a stalker ) But some folks may be, and some folks may be tied in with a University and have to worry about things like tenure. Anyway, Saskeptic has as much right to his privacy as anyone else as do you too. The previous post was just a reminder to everyone we should respect each other's choices when it comes to privacy. Chris B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Interesting. Growing up in Southern California, and even when quite young, I was quite aware that white sharks lived in the ocean, and my bed was not "wet enough" for them to live there. Did you wet your bed often? SWEET! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Did you wet your bed often? Depends. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Did you wet your bed often? Well that's just stupid. Everyone knows that sharks don't swim in urine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Huntster, on 17 November 2010 - 12:45 PM, said:Did you wet your bed often? Depends. On what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest River Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 On what? No, I think he meant Depends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts