Jump to content
SweatyYeti

Bayanov And Bourtsev's Analytical Paper

Recommended Posts

Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Still going on about using someone's horse as being seen as Heironimus/Patterson funding the Bluff Creek trip. 

 

bor·row
ˈbärÅ,ˈbôrÅ/
verb
verb: borrow; 3rd person present: borrows; past tense: borrowed; past participle: borrowed; gerund or present participle: borrowing
1.
take and use (something that belongs to someone else) with the intention of returning it.
"he had borrowed a car from one of his colleagues"
 

fund
 
noun
noun: fund; plural noun: funds
  1. 1.
    a sum of money saved or made available for a particular purpose.
Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Green: So you provided the truck and the...

Gimlin: Yeah, and the fuel, and my own horse

 

pro·vide
prəˈvīd/
verb
 
  1. 1
    make available for use; supply.
    "these clubs provide a much appreciated service for this area"
    synonyms: supplygiveissuefurnish, come up with, dispensebestowimpartproduceyield, bring forth, beardeliverdonatecontributepledgeadvancespare, part with, allocatedistributeallot, put up; More
     
     
       
    •  
       
       
       
       
       
         
    •  
       
       
       
  2. 2
    make adequate preparation for (a possible event).
    "new qualifications must provide for changes in technology"
    synonyms: prepareallow, make provision, be prepared, arrange, get ready, plancater
    "we have provided for further restructuring"
     

 

 

 

own
Ån/
adjective & pronoun
 
  1. 1
    used with a possessive to emphasize that someone or something belongs or relates to the person mentioned.
    "they can't handle their own children"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Not upset in the slightest. You can seek to violate Bob Heironimus' rights, imagine a really great home confrontation in your imbalanced perception of fairness, and the best part is you get to have quote-mining turned back on you...

 

"No, he didn't finance my part of the trip at all. I had my own horse"

 

Green: So you provided the truck and the...

Gimlin: Yeah, and the fuel, and my own horse

 

Bob: Okay... I did have Bob Heronimous's horse because Roger had, apparently, borrowed that horse from Bob Heronimous.

 

"I was riding a big, tall 16 hand horse that Roger had borrowed from another guy."

 

 

You can smiley/crayon/all-caps it until it looks like acceptable human behaviour. Just hope that Heironimus receives guest better than Gimlin.

Gimlin admitted to riding Chico October 20th, because he is seen riding him in the PGF reel, correct?

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

It's funny how the question was put to Gimlin in the context that no one financed his way to California and back .... to the prince of spin trying to make Bob's using someone's horse as some sort of financial gain.

 

And then when it couldn't get any more insane - Kitakaze attempts to equate it to Bob H's gross mis-truths such as when he said it was a dry creek - the sand was white as snow - Patterson shot the film from atop of his horse - Patterson left hair off the suit so to make it look like the creature was shedding its fur (going into winter) - had his shoes off - had his shoes on - rubber lined legs all the way to the waist ... rubber lined legs only to the knees - etc., etc.


  1. "we have provided for further restructuring"
     
     
    own
Ån/
adjective & pronoun
 
  1. 1
    used with a possessive to emphasize that someone or something belongs or relates to the person mentioned.
    "they can't handle their own children"

 

Your play on words are as lame as your photo interpretations IMO.

 

Gimlin:  "No, he didn't finance my part of the trip at all. I had my own horse"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDL

"the 1967 Documentary (the PGF) in particular, has not been given its due yet. In this connection, I regard the disrespectful, suspicious and slanderous treatment of Robert Gimlin and the late Roger Patterson as gross violation of human rights in America." 

 

 

 That is a ridiculous statement. Particularly so soon after such a hard fought battle for actual civil rights in America. People died to protect their civil rights. That is an insensitive, ignorant and embarrassingly callous comment to make.

 

The gross violation of civil rights were the people dragged out of their homes and hanged to death, or shot, or burned alive.  

 

Ok, so a couple of scientists in the early 70's from the Cold War Soviet Union make a comment about human rights in America, and you take it seriously?  It's nothing more than Cold War rhetoric, and these guys may have perceived it necessary to throw in some sort of gratuitous criticism of America, while analyzing an American topic, just to keep their own government off of their butts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

To further that, also consider that neither of the scientists are native English speakers.   Listen to either of them on youtube.   Both are well-spoken, though with an accent, and both, despite being highly educated and well-spoken, still occasionally pick a translation that's a little "off."  

 

Personally, I'm a lot more interested in what they said on the intended topic than in nitpicking their translation.   Of course, I'm not a denialist.  Perhaps denialists lack any relevant rebuttal so they have to attack the person to keep the on-topic discussion from moving forward?   It is standard denialist operating procedure after all.

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

You got that right, MIB.

 

Some of the local skeptics here remind me of a cat who lowers its head so to peek out from under a coffee table top .... and all the while unaware that the rest of its body can be seen in plain view.

 

I just witnessed this sort of thing in another thread where McSquatch and dmaker became more concerned about whether customers could get a refund if they didn't see a Sasquatch on one of SCA's tours or whether if I ever give free tours to anyone. They got the answer.

 

So far McSquatch hasn't booked a tour and dmaker hasn't said how much of his income a year does he give away to various causes. It's almost as if both were attempting to change the topic by starting a witch hunt.  Typical!

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

You're the one who said you would love to take everyone who wanted to go for free. So I was just curious if you take anyone for free.

 

 

You brought it up, not me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

I brought it up?   Here is where it started -

 

 

McSquatch:  "But you hunt bigfoot for a living."

 

 

Bigfoothunter:   "Who hunts Bigfoot for a living?"

 

 

Bigfoothunter:   "If I could afford to take countless tourist out to these sighting locations for free, then I would."

 

 

dmaker:   "How many do you take out for free?    Any?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I was not part of the previous conversation. I was simply responding to your " "If I could afford to take countless tourist out to these sighting locations for free, then I would."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Yeah right.   Now you are doing this .....   :stinker:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^ You ought to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^ You ought to know.

 

 

Bigfoothunter:   "If I could afford to take countless tourist out to these sighting locations for free, then I would."

 

 

dmaker:   "How many do you take out for free?    Any?"

 

 

So enlighten everyone as to why you thought it important to know how many tourist SCA "take out for free, if any?"  Are you seeking a free tour for yourself or someone else - If so, just email me your request and if it is believed to be sincere and/or for a good cause, then there will be no charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Why did you think it important to mention that you would take countless ones out for free?  You seem to be expressing a desire to take people out for free, but money is an issue. So I was simply wondering, since you mentioned it, if you take anyone out for free.  You have since mentioned some examples. That is good of you. Particularly when done for charitable purposes. I applaud you for those efforts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chelefoot

MODERATOR STATEMENT

 

That's enough. Let's get back on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...