Jump to content

Patty's Feet.....and The Footprints (Part 2)


Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

dmaker doesn't play the anecdotal evidence card when it comes to evidence that he chooses to respond to. Etc., etc. etc.. Recorded accounts and photos are simply compelling evidence when he wishes them to be.

 

dmaker:  ""If so, it would seem to be pretty compelling evidence that he hoaxed that cast."

 

damaker:  "If you ask am I interested in hearing recorded confessions? Of course. If Kit has them and wants to share them, I'd love to hear them."

 

dmaker:  "I already explained this BH. The two photos look very similar. If Roger provided the cast on the left, claiming it to be from a really, real bigfoot, but his naked foot looks remarkably similar to the alleged bigfoot cast, then it would seem to indicate that he simply faked the cast using his own naked foot, or perhaps with the latex/kerosene method using his own foot."

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

 

 

The Bombshell Thread has been locked for some time now.

 

That could have something to do with it.

 

 

kit could still answer Giganto's questions if he wanted to. He could answer him via PM...or, in the 'Was It A Suit' thread. The topic of "the Patty suit" itself is not off-topic in that thread. 

 

Besides, there has been an off-topic conversation going on lately, about tranquilizing a Bigfoot. Is that conversation a "posting crime"??? 

 

 

Actually the 'Bombshell Thread' has been locked for a couple of weeks. However, KItakaze had been repeatedly asked what specifics did he see on the alleged feed that caused him to believe he was looking at 'the suit'. It's obvious that there isn't anything specifically that he can say because at best he saw a pile of fur and like Chicken Little he started claiming the sky was falling. You see - Kitakaze is up to his eyeballs in support for Heironimus being the one in the suit and the more detail he gives, then the more about what he saw in the alleged video feed - the more damage it does to his propaganda campaign.

 

In the end there was no-bombshell at all.

^^

 

Crowlogic

Now about those muscles.  Let's assume for a moment that we're seeing the anatomy of a real animal in action.  Let's just say the film is the genuine article.  Where then are the examples of others of it's kind?  Where did they go?  Where were they before?

 

They are in the countless sightings both before and after the Patterson film was taken.

 

And are they anything except anecdotal accounts?  Are there photos, films and casts as good as Pattersons?  If so where are they?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

 

 

 

Actually the 'Bombshell Thread' has been locked for a couple of weeks. However, KItakaze had been repeatedly asked what specifics did he see on the alleged feed that caused him to believe he was looking at 'the suit'.

 

It's obvious that there isn't anything specifically that he can say because at best he saw a pile of fur and like Chicken Little he started claiming the sky was falling. You see - Kitakaze is up to his eyeballs in support for Heironimus being the one in the suit and the more detail he gives, then the more about what he saw in the alleged video feed - the more damage it does to his propaganda campaign.

 

In the end there was no-bombshell at all.

 

 

That's right, Bigfoothunter....there aren't any specific details that kit can mention. If there were...he would have simply mentioned them. 

 

In his recent reply to you...

 

 

BH's question about what I saw that convinced me I was seeing the the PGF suit was answered within the first seven pages of the original Bombshell thread. It was answered countless times since then. In the OP from the person who started it and in post #139 when I first responded to that specific question.

 

 

....he said his answers could be found in the Opening Post, and in Post #139 of the "Bombshell Pt.1" thread. But, in actual fact, there aren't any specifics listed in either post.

 

Here are a couple of highlights from the OP:

 

"The suit was heavily aged, but looked like Patty. "

"...he claims it "looks like Patty".

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/30016-kitakazes-patty-suit-bombshell/page-1

 

 

And....from Post #139:

 

"1) The damage to the suit is mainly to the face and hands which are made out of hide and are now extremely dry and cracked. I can't say anything about the exact details of the suit ..."

 

 

So, BH....kit's "answer" to your question...(looking for specific details)...can supposedly be found in Post #139...where he says that "he can't say anything about the exact details of the suit."   :lol:

 

 

 

That is right - Kitakaze gave us nothing but lip service that he attempted to turn into a bombshell. Makes me wonder how many m ore claims h e has made that were played up to be more than they were.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

dmaker,

 

I respectfully disagree. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence, eyewitness testimony is used as evidence all the time. The PGF is evidence, the tracks are evidence, these things are indeed physical evidence, something was filmed, the tracks were witnessed by multiple witnesses, those tracks were also filmed, photographed an cast. All these things are evidence.

If he isn't aware of the before an after the PGF, he is simply sitting there with his eye closed.

 

Pat...

Anecdotal evidence we have coming out of our ears.  Anecdotal evidence is little more than campfire stories.  We get to see anectdotal evidence explained and acted out week after week on Finding Bigfoot.  Where is there anything approaching the PGF in the half century since the film was made?  The PGF happened a half century ago and in the half century since there is nothing to further build onto the bigfoot reality in any  meaningful way.   We have volumes of excuses why this hasn't happened and we have volumes of garbage that is supposed to pass for real.  You know this, I know this and so does each and every person that takes an interest in this.  The difference between you and me is you swallow the bait and I don't anymore.

 

Now can you point anyone to a first class bigfoot video post PGF that confirms we skeptics are willfully ignorant of great evidence?

dmaker wrote:

 

 

Where is the actual evidence?

 

 

The Patterson Film is one piece of evidence....(of substance). 

 

Now you're learning... ;)

It's for all intents and purposes the only piece of evidence and an old one at that.

Edited by Crowlogic
Link to post
Share on other sites

dmaker,

 

I respectfully disagree. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence, eyewitness testimony is used as evidence all the time. The PGF is evidence, the tracks are evidence, these things are indeed physical evidence, something was filmed, the tracks were witnessed by multiple witnesses, those tracks were also filmed, photographed an cast. All these things are evidence.

If he isn't aware of the before an after the PGF, he is simply sitting there with his eye closed.

 

Pat...

They are not evidence of what you think they are. Anecdotes are evidence that someone filed a report, or believes they saw something. They are not evidence of that something. Tracks are indentions in the ground, either made by hoaxers or a known animal. They are not evidence of bigfoot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

dmaker

They are not evidence of what you think they are. Anecdotes are evidence that someone filed a report, or believes they saw something. They are not evidence of that something. Tracks are indentions in the ground, either made by hoaxers or a known animal. They are not evidence of bigfoot.

 

Footprints are only worthless to those who cannot tell the heel from the toes. To those who are more informed, footprints can say a lot about an individual. They can also rule out being man made in some instances. Like below - The Green Party could not see how the deep tracks were made by a fake foot when they could only walk atop of the ground. When you were asked as to how it could have been done - I believe you said 'I don't know'.

track%20depth%20compared%20to%20shoe%20p

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Well we need to be asking other than proof? What sorts of evidence should proponents be offering up?

sighting reports? Foot cast? photos? audio? video?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Well we need to be asking other than proof? What sorts of evidence should proponents be offering up?

sighting reports? Foot cast? photos? audio? video?

Stunningly good graphics will help.  Now if Roger made a hoax then don't expect it to be anything more than what he did.  But we've come a long long way since Roger and if it's there we should be getting graphics a lot better than we get.

 

gorilla-face-closeup_zpsui0jc2ih.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

In real world studies happening today we see all kinds of things. Blurry thermal footage may not count for much by itself but if it was taken while looking for warm poo that tests for unknown primate or relic hominin  or x it would get serious attention. HD footage wouldn't prove existence but it would get folks on the scene with budgets and resources beyond the current researcher's means. 

 

I don't see footprints counting for much given the amount of hoaxing that's happened. Even in conjunction with HD footage they don't give us much other than a place to start looking. DNA is the key whether it's from a dead body that seals the deal or is just a hair or fecal sample that brings results that scientists are confident enough in to invest their time and resources on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

They are not evidence of what you think they are. Anecdotes are evidence that someone filed a report, or believes they saw something. They are not evidence of that something. Tracks are indentions in the ground, either made by hoaxers or a known animal. They are not evidence of bigfoot.

dmaker,

 

"Tracks are indentions in the ground, either made by hoaxers or a known animal."   Either made be hoaxers or a known animal, huh, not much option there. So you are saying before a animal becomes "known"...it doesn't leave any tracks ?

 

An the PGF is evidence of a bipedal primate walkin across the sandbar, yes ?

 

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I agree they are worlds apart, but dont believe in has anything to do with quality.

When we look at supposed Sasquatch video? We do so from a guarded point of view.... and its not just skeptics.

But I have posted up several videos of people being tricked while looking at supposed gorillas but were being hoaxed and they had no idea. And some of these people were mere feet away from the gorilla suit. Of course people do not expect to be hoaxed concerning a gorilla like a Sasquatch.

So I really question peoples motives even if they dont mean too.

Its also very important for me, because my ability to detect a hoax is a matter of life or death.

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