Guest Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Well, this thread went down the toilet, fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Well, this thread went down the toilet, fast. "Depend" directions and disclaimer: DIRECTIONS FOR USE: SLIP ON/SLIP OFF. LOOK FOR THE PINK BAR BELOW THE PINK WAISTBAND - THE BAR INDICATES THE BACK. STEP IN AND PULL UP TO WEAR JUST LIKE REGULAR UNDERWEAR. TO REMOVE, SLIP OFF LIKE REGULAR UNDERWEAR AND DISPOSE OF IN TRASH CAN - DO NOT FLUSH. Sorry, couldn't resist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 No, I think he meant Depends. Sorry. I'm slow with regard to products like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Now this thread is becoming interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Now this thread is becoming interesting wickie's fault. I feel the obligation to further the discussion. My apology to Mulder, but this thread has already been hijacked, and has descended into foolishness. (a good thing) "Depend" is a kind of, what...? Adult diaper! Right? Diaper what?... Diaper BUTT.... Never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kerchak Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 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. Thank you Huntster. I'm suprised that nobody else picked up on the opinions of Vincent, which supported what Mulder was getting at in his opening post. Here is somebody who takes at face value the claims of an alleged hoaxer despite the alleged hoaxer providing nothing to back his claim up except words and not even a demonstration. Well actually he did 'try' to demonstrate it but failed miserably. This shows a belief (or rather disbelief) thought process as biased, gullible and with a total lack of critical thinking EVERY BIT as strong as those they are criticizing on the proponent side. Bob H's claim has got as much, if not more, holes, inconsistencies and bizarre scenarios in it than just about ANY bigfoot story you care to mention yet most of the skeptics curiously seem to give him the benefit of the doubt and don't question him.........simply because they don't buy into the PGF being authentic. There is no middle ground with them. When was the last time we heard a real skeptic of the PGF actually looking at Bob H's claim and picking that part in the same way they pick apart pro bigfoot stories and claims? They aren't really interested in critical thought for the most part because if they really were then they'd have a field day with Bob H's nonsense. Rant over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vincent Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Kerchack you are missing the point, i believe bob h. because it seems to fit in quite well with the blatant, obvious lies of patterson. theres a bit of faith involved, sure. But since patty is a clear fake, someone had to be in the suit. Ill go with bob. next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 I think you should insert some IMO's or IMHO's when making such an absolute statement Vincent. It is your opinion that Patty is a clear fake, and it is certainly your right to feel that way. But many people disagree with that sentiment so it is IMHO far from being either clear or resolute. If it were, Kit wouldn't be in the process of making a documentary to expose it as such, and it would not still be debated as to its authenticity after 43 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vincent Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 (edited) hi hr good point, im using absolutisms, but i kinda thought since we were dealing with a bigfoot then "of course" its imho...since nobody exactly knows. im new to the "scene" and didnt realize how rabidly pro pgf some folks were... i believe in the possibility of bigfoot (although im more of a yeti/asian bigfoot believe) and im hoping ones caught. I wasnt aware that most peoples belief in bigfoot hinged soley on the pgf... while to me, its an embarresment and a piece if kitchy 60s americana. I believe a bi pedal spe might exist but im still in possesion of my mental faculties and when i see a fake, read about a fake, and do deductive reasoning, i have to go with fake. can it be real? i guess. is OJ looking for the real killers? possibly. but thanks ill start inserting imho opinion, just in case pgf proponents think i have definitive proof as opposed to common sense best wishes v Edited November 18, 2010 by ChrisBFRPKY edited out negative reference to PGF proponents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UPs Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Chris, your points about privacy are very important and as for myself, I learned this the hard way. Sorry for the thread drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 but thanks ill start inserting imho opinion, just in case pgftards think i have definitive proof as opposed to common sense best wishes v Ouch.... (bold/italics mine..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 but thanks ill start inserting imho opinion, just in case pgftards think i have definitive proof as opposed to common sense best wishes v I guess I'm a "pgftard." But thanks ever so much for the "best wishes." (****, the world truly needs a "sarcasm" font, like for my second sentence.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 "Depend" directions and disclaimer: DIRECTIONS FOR USE: SLIP ON/SLIP OFF. LOOK FOR THE PINK BAR BELOW THE PINK WAISTBAND - THE BAR INDICATES THE BACK. STEP IN AND PULL UP TO WEAR JUST LIKE REGULAR UNDERWEAR. TO REMOVE, SLIP OFF LIKE REGULAR UNDERWEAR AND DISPOSE OF IN TRASH CAN - DO NOT FLUSH. Sorry, couldn't resist. And you got these directions how????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 And you got these directions how????? I got 'em right off the package they came in. Why do you ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Kerchack you are missing the point, i believe bob h. because it seems to fit in quite well with the blatant, obvious lies of patterson. theres a bit of faith involved, sure. There most certainly is, especially if you consider the fact that there are as many (or more) inconsistencies in BH's testimony as there is in everybody else's. But since patty is a clear fake, someone had to be in the suit. Ill go with bob. That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but it certainly isn't a "clear" fake to many. next. That's not amusing, it "concludes" nothing, and it's quite arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts