Jump to content

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax (2)


Recommended Posts

xspider1

So, the PGf subject looks like a costume, even though there is no comparison?  : |  And, it's too blurry to tell either way??  Sorry, I'm not following.  I helped DFoot's master-piece as much as I could but, no dice: )

 

post-131-0-54233100-1368071529_thumb.jpg

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Squatchy McSquatch,

 

Just posted a vid on The Munns thread, from round the same time. Check it out for clarity/blur for comparison, an they're likely much closer.

 

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

So, the PGf subject looks like a costume, even though there is no comparison?  : |  And, it's too blurry to tell either way??  Sorry, I'm not following.  I helped DFoot's master-piece as much as I could but, no dice: )

 

attachicon.gifuhhh-not-quite.jpg

 

 

Nice montage of Dfoot's "Patty re-creation", xspider... :lol:  As you said...."No dice"....on multiple 'counts'. One of those, of course, is it's 'arm proportion'... :) ...

 

 

DfootPattyArmComp1_zps3873c9bf.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Here are some of the 'Lowlights' of Dfoot's....."re-creaction"...

 

DfootLowlights5_zps1d67c7ac.jpg

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

So, the PGf subject looks like a costume, even though there is no comparison?  : |  And, it's too blurry to tell either way??  Sorry, I'm not following.  I helped DFoot's master-piece as much as I could but, no dice: )

 

attachicon.gifuhhh-not-quite.jpg

I did not say it looked like DFoot's costume.

 

I said I think it looks like a costume.

 

If I have to reference a specific costume to support my opinion, then which authenticated and verified sasquatch does Patty resemble to support the believer camp?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

If I have to reference a specific costume to support my opinion, then which authenticated and verified sasquatch does Patty resemble to support the believer camp?

 

You don't need a costume to support your opinion, much like how proponents don't need a body to support theirs. Theoretically speaking, the film itself can be enough to prove your opinion that she's a costume, but only if she really is one  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ exactly

 

If I have to reference a specific costume to support my opinion, then which authenticated and verified sasquatch does Patty resemble to support the believer camp?

 

 

Who said that Patty resembles an authenticated and verified sasquatch, S. McSquatch?  You said she looks like a costume, I just thought you might want to show an example as an attempt to support that conclusion.  No worries; no one else has ever been able to do that either. 

 

Good examples of the Dfoot costume 'lowlights', Sweaty.  I'm can't imagine how that was ever supposed to help the skeptic "cause":scenic:

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Dfoot just thought he could replicate Patty, xspider.....but, he thought wrong. :nono: 

 

He was at a disadvantage, though....he only worked in Hollywood. Roger was a former rodeo rider....clearly, something in that line of work gave him a 'padded leg up', on those 'suit guys'.

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

^ exactly

 

If I have to reference a specific costume to support my opinion, then which authenticated and verified sasquatch does Patty resemble to support the believer camp?

 

 

Who said that Patty resembles an authenticated and verified sasquatch, S. McSquatch?  You said she looks like a costume, I just thought you might want to show an example as an attempt to support that conclusion.  No worries; no one else has ever been able to do that either. 

 

 

Good examples of the Dfoot costume 'lowlights', Sweaty.  I'm can't imagine how that was ever supposed to help the skeptic "cause":scenic:

 

Xspider:

 

Nope, For the third time, A Costume sums it up for me quite nicely. Believe it or not, there are a LOT of us out there who see the PGF creature as nothing more than an ape suit shot from a distance. 

 

II'm sure it resembles whatever is in DeAtley's office. Whether it's  the real deal or a replica suit.

 

And if Patty wasn't a costume, what was she? A non-authenticated, unverified sasquatch?

 

Can the mods please fix my quote problem? I have to watch Game 7 of the playoff. Cheers

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

'Believe it or not, there are a LOT of us out there who see the PGF creature as nothing more than an ape suit shot from a distance.'

Yep, I believe that.  The thing is: no other ape suit shot from a distance compares. 

 

'I'm sure it resembles whatever is in DeAtley's office. Whether it's  the real deal or a replica suit.'

Really? Based on what?

 

'And if Patty wasn't a costume, what was she? A non-authenticated, unverified sasquatch?'

Exactly!  The costume default doesn't seem to apply here.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

It seems that with many skeptics both here and on the JREF, there is a strong emotional response to the idea of such a creature existing or what's in the PGF being real. The guy called dfoot is a perfect example of this. I don't know why it is, but it seems many of these devoted Bigfoot skeptics were once either proponents themselves or are interested, but aren't comfortable with the idea of this thing being real.

Edited by OntarioSquatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
xspider1

Yep and I don't really get that.  I understand that some give Bigfoot a zero possibility of existing but, why should there be an automatic campaign against all evidence to the contrary? 

 

I borrowed some more 'Reasons Not to Consider the PGf a Hoax' from the 'Outlined Patty' thread:

 

post-131-0-52705300-1369274953_thumb.jpg

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brAojTvgBnc&feature=player_embedded

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape
'I'm sure it resembles whatever is in DeAtley's office. Whether it's  the real deal or a replica suit.'

Really? Based on what?

 

 

 

 

 

 

He used the scientifically based "I just know" method.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand all the emotion from skepticals on this. Particularly when so much dispassionate analysis contests them. What's emotion against that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

yep. The cookie-cutter approach saying that one must either solve the unknown quickly or, discount it as completely unreal, doesn't suit a variety of mysteries, Bigfoot included.  Everyone experiencing things unproven to the general public isn't either lying, crazy or, dumb; no way, no how.  :B   

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...