Jump to content
kitakaze

Wally - Walas Bigfoot Suit And Patty.

Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter

Crowlogic wrote:

Now if a hearty group of bigfoot experts can't find the beast and prove the beast why would you demand or expect a skeptic to go out there and whoop and holler in search of the thing?

 

Experts have gone to school so to be able to intelligently evaluate the evidence .... they don't get a lot of time, if any, to look for the creature.

 

And then there are the non-experts who wonder how Gimlin could see in the dark when in actuality it wasn't dark at all when Gimlin left for the film site to cover the tracks.

 

It's those same non-experts who claim the tracks below must have been made in mud to achieve their depth when in actuality there was no mud, but rather dry dust on the ground.

 

And its those same non-experts who claim a boot heel is seen in a cast who didn't think to check to see if that theory was even plausible.

boot%201_zpskjzbfgfe.jpg

 

Too bad those non-experts didn't spend less time posting disinformation and devote some time looking for the creature.   :)

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

It's not unfair, Drew. I think that both of those videos have their strong points. :)

 

 

 

 

Strong points = pixel blur pareidolia babyfoots...

 

wolftrax wrote:

Quote:
To further support that this is not a lifting of a child, this drawing shows how the child would be climbing up the figures back

I think the subject picked-up the infant, lifted it up over it's head, and put it down onto it's shoulders...then steadied it over the course of a couple of steps.

(Another little detail: As the subject gets closer to the woods, walking leisurely, only ONE of it's arms can be seen swinging. The explanation which makes the most sense to me, as far as why the other arm cannot be seen swinging, also, is that the subject is using the other hand to hold onto the infant. Hence....as the infant leans over, it doesn't fall off the subject's shoulders. biggrin.gif Kinda makes sense.)

That's how I interpret the movements, and shapes that I see in those frames.

You prefer to think that 'spots in the background' are the most likely explanation, to account for all those movements........well, that is good for you, wolftrax! smile.gif

 

 

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4746685&highlight=infant#post4746685

 

 

To go along with the extended animation I posted in Post #108....two of the last three Frames, of that gif...

FF-BabyLift-AG9.gif

Evidence of an Infant Sasquatch.

Interestingly....in this interview...(at the 8:14 mark)....Paul incorrectly states that he "never got any film of it (the smaller one)"...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

Strong points = pixel blur pareidolia babyfoots...

 

 

You got me beat, kit...in the 'pixel blur' department... :lol: ...

 

kitzo-Eyeballz2_zps0f998597.jpg

 

 

And:

 

kitzo-Eyeballz4_zpsd9013f08.jpg

 

 

kit holds the World Record, for "finding" the smallest detail on Patty. Great work, Champ.

 

Regarding the Memorial Day Video, and the Freeman Footage....I stand behind my analysis. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

Crowlogic wrote:

 

 

I wouldn't expect a skeptic to go out into the woods, and 'whoop and holler', looking for Bigfoot, Crow....but I would expect some of them to go onto a Bigfoot Forum...and 'whoop and holler'....just like you've been doing lately. ;)

 

   smileyvault-cute-big-smiley-animated-013         So funny because its true!  

 

 

 

Yup!... :drinks:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Given the image is doctored by MK Davis, it's not something I think is likely to be actually real, whereas you argue baby on board for not only the MDF but Freeman footage as well.

 

Have a good look at the track Freeman is saying is of the babyfoot at the beginning of his video (see 00:10 second mark)...

 

 

It is the same nonsense as seen in the upper right track here...

 

Bigfreeman.jpg

 

I think the eye was doctored by Davis. You think there are really, really real Bigfoots carrying really, really real Babyfoots in not one, but two pieces of footage. 

 

It's almost as good as you thinking there is an eye with pupil here...

 

Mars_face.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

Given the image is doctored by MK Davis, it's not something I think is likely to be actually real, whereas you argue baby on board for not only the MDF but Freeman footage as well.

 

 

One day you call Biometric measurements of the PGF subject "fabricated non-reality"...and then another day.....you go gaga over five pixels inside Patty's right eye. 

 
And then you try to blame your self-contradicted analysis on MK Davis... :lol:
 
 
 
So, tell me Champ....in what form do your "two unrecorded confessions"...."exist"?
 
Also, can you ask any of the "principals" who have confessed who made the "suit"? 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

I'm not saying that all of the sightings are legit, but you are implying all of them are not legit. If even one was real, then there had to have been a real creature.

 

I've mentioned this same point in the past in a different part of the forum. There have been thousands of reported sightings (and how many more are unreported?); what are the odds that every single one of these thousands of sightings are made up stories or a result of hallucinations or people don't know what a bear looks like.

 

Something I would be very interested in knowing: how does a hoaxer fake being 7&1/2 to 8 ft.tall? And how do they fake the terrible BIgfoot odor that many people have reported smelling?

Maybe they order it online? ;) 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

The ones I saw were close up and in good lighting. I know what a bear looks like- for one thing, they have a snout. Most animals do. When I encountered them that was one of the first things I noticed since my view was from the side, no snout. And they were both bigger than any grizzly I had seen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ there are some good points above, thx!  ++    :locomotive:

 

Compared to the PGf, the images in the Original Post of this thread falter in every way.  Even the evident blurring incorporated in those images does not help the subject look more realistic in any way.  That is in stark contrast to the PG film for which every enhancement makes the subject look better.  go figure..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

 

 

If there is no bigfoot, then each and every single sighting of the 30,000+ sightings recorded on the BFRO has a logical and scientific explanation.

Indeed there are several logical explanations.  Shall we list them?  Outright fabrications, for the sake of $$$ gain or attention, outright hallucinations generated from impressionable brains of the observer, mistakes in actually recalling what was seen, things seen too briefly and under poor conditions to make an accurate call any my favorite gaining entrance into a perceived exclusive club of knowers and seers.

 

 

As far as I know - Sal has not sought out or taken money for having a sighting. Neither have I .... and a lot of the witnesses I have interviewed over the years who didn't even want their names mentioned. So once again and just like you did by inferring that Gimlin could not have possibly seen where he was going in the middle of the night to get to the film site which wasn't the case at all .... it was you who made that scenario up. It certainly doesn't make you look good to be suggesting someone lied when it is you who is found to be making up fabrications, looking for attention, or outright hallucinating.

Okiefoot

Something I would be very interested in knowing: how does a hoaxer fake being 7&1/2 to 8 ft.tall?

 

 

They can't even tell you how the tracks were pressed so deep into the ground when other men could only walk atop of it.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

Given the image is doctored by MK Davis, it's not something I think is likely to be actually real, whereas you argue baby on board for not only the MDF but Freeman footage as well.

 

 

One day you call Biometric measurements of the PGF subject "fabricated non-reality"...and then another day.....you go gaga over five pixels inside Patty's right eye. 

 
And then you try to blame your self-contradicted analysis on MK Davis...

 

Excellent. You counted. That means you know exactly to what I was referring. Yes, I do think MK is responsible for that particular fabricated non-reality.

 

So, tell me Champ....in what form do your "two unrecorded confessions"...."exist"?
 

 

Also, can you ask any of the "principals" who have confessed who made the "suit"? 

 

 

 

 

As a general rule....I don't answer your questions...period. 

 

 

 

detail1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

^ there are some good points above, thx!  ++    :locomotive:

 

Compared to the PGf, the images in the Original Post of this thread falter in every way.  Even the evident blurring incorporated in those images does not help the subject look more realistic in any way.  That is in stark contrast to the PG film for which every enhancement makes the subject look better.  go figure..

 

Spit-or-swallow.gif

 

PattyTurningAG2.gif

 

 

Bigblevins5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

^^   :)

 

 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

 Yes, I do think MK is responsible for that particular fabricated non-reality.

 

 

I'm sure you do, kit. 

 

You also think this, about the evidence for Bigfoot:

 

"OK, we have many types of evidence for Bigfoot. We have anecdotal evidence. We have alleged footprints. We have questionable photos, video, and film. That's nice. All of it is weak. It's all unreliable. None of it presents any major difficulty in accounting for without a real species of giant non-human bipedal primate living, eating, pooping, *******, and dying across your continent.
 
You want to deny reliable evidence but the effort is for naught. What we are asking you for beyond proof in the form of a type specimen is some evidence of it that can pass basic quality control and quality assurance. We are the FDA and we are telling you your beef is bad. Where's it been? Who's touched it? I don't know. Yuck. Whatcha got there? Some casts? Yippy skip. Gimme some boots and I'll go make some too. What's that? Old film? Where is it? Don't know? Yawn. Some lady said she and her daughter saw a Bigfoot in 1983 at the corner? Did you talk to both of them? No? Why are you wasting my time? The request for reliable evidence is completely valid and a matter of course when it comes to things like Bigfoot. If there really is such a creature as Bigfoot then it should be conforming to the same rules that apply to all large animals that share ecosystems with humans. The only way Bigfoot gets around those rules is by cheating and if you think the Bigfoot/alien idea is so silly then you have a problem on your hands."
 
 
You also "think" this, about the "bad beef"....Mr. FDA Inspector:
 
"I would think it is reasonable .... four American states - Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California and two Canadian provinces - British Columbia and Alberta."
Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The ones I saw were close up and in good lighting. I know what a bear looks like- for one thing, they have a snout. Most animals do. When I encountered them that was one of the first things I noticed since my view was from the side, no snout. And they were both bigger than any grizzly I had seen...

One of the other questions I have always had was whether people who had their own encounters think that the PGF was real. Did the Bigfoot(s) they saw in person resemble Patty. Salubrious, could you comment on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...