Jump to content
kitakaze

Wally - Walas Bigfoot Suit And Patty.

Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

FWIW - What I saw from the rear and slightly to the side looked very much like Patty with the exception that it's waist was tapered compared to Patty's which might be why it looked so massive in its upper body.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

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."

 

 

All correct. Joyce is not reliable evidence. Casts are not reliable evidence. Chance of actual beef in this product 0.1 - 1% is not good meat. So where's the beef? We are being told it is in every state and province of North America.

  • Upvote 1

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...

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?

 

 

I can. I saw the PGF in a movie theatre back in the 1970s. I really didn't give it much thought after that. But when I had my encounter about 20 years later, I was struck by how similar the creatures looked, although I was not prepared for how large they were- the first of the two had to be at least 10 feet tall, owing to the fact that seated on the ground it was already 6 feet tall. They were both a different color from Patty- more of an auburn, much like that of an Irish setter. But the fact that the body and limb ratios were something different was apparent due to the pose that both had taken in this encounter; it was not something a human could possibly do.

 

That makes me kind of curious- if somehow it were possible to make a 2-D model of Patty, such that the arms and legs could be moved, it would be very interesting to see if she could be set into the same pose as I saw that night. If so that could be a dead ringer, as there would be no way of faking that.

 

Is there anyone on this forum that has graphic skills that might be able to do something like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Kitakaze:
 

All correct. Joyce is not reliable evidence. Casts are not reliable evidence. Chance of actual beef in this product 0.1 - 1% is not good meat. So where's the beef? We are being told it is in every state and province of North America.

 

 

It is really getting old hearing how we are told that Bigfoot is in every state and province of North America. It's just unrealistic.

 

The internet has become a medium for a large percentage of attention seekers on both sides. On one side there are those who claim all one needs to do is to sit in a chair in the middle of the forest and Bigfoot will come to you. Others will invite folks out so to whip rocks behind their back so to make it appear a Bigfoot is doing it (that is a fact as Steenburg and several BFRO members caught a suspected hoaxer doing just that in Golden Ears Park not to many years ago. Others fill Youtube up with some of the most ridiculous videos and claims of Sasquatch/Bigfoot activity imaginable. With those people - every noise in the forest is Bigfoot related and every broken branch or accumulation of twigs is either a shelter or a message created by Bigfoot. Even some make claims that Bigfoot pulls large trees out of the ground (roots and all) - somehow discards the upper part of the tree which is seemingly never nearby - and with unimaginable strength it is claimed to then be able to shove the inverted tree deep into the ground. And believe it or not - those alleged hoards of individuals aren't out looking for Bigfoot - they are out creating hoaxes.

 

Then there are those believers who aren't so bush-wise who could find a single dent in the ground on a sand beach without another one to be found coming or going and consider it to be a Bigfoot track. Those people may be sincere, but are not capable of considering the countless other possibilities. So whether it be an attempt to hoax or an honest sincere consideration ... there are claims being made about Bigfoot evidence that isn't really evidence at all. To say that Bigfoot should have been killed or captured by now with so many claims being made of their existence in every location in North America is as ridiculous as the many claims being made that two or three sticks laying a certain way on the ground is a message from a Bigfoot. It's just rhetoric being handed out to discount the better evidence they have no explanation for.

 

That brings us to the people who don't wish to address the better evidence so to live for the opportunity to tell others that Bigfoot can't exist while saying they don't really care what others think. If the latter is a true sentiment, then why the repeating that they have no answers, and don't feel they need to have any answers on the grounds that Bigfoot can't exist, so there is no need to consider anything else. One can only assume that these individuals are also seeking attention as well. they make up claims of Bombshell findings that never seem to have anything to back them up. They re-write the evidence from tracks being made in fine dry dust to water soaked mud without a shred of proof to support their allegation. They claim a witness has lied without knowing any of the relevant data needed to make such a claim. These are people who prefer poor images over clear ones - form conclusions first and research the facts later. They are people who will discount a field test without ever conducting one of their own. They are individuals who don't care how ridiculous they sound or if they get called out for misstating the evidence. In other words they are willing to fabricate evidence to justify their skepticism in the same way people are fabricating evidence so to make them appear to have an edge on the existence of Bigfoot over anyone else. These are individuals who can't seem to rationalize why they cannot see a rump-crack through several inches of thick fur when its obvious they can't be that naive. And all because some individuals on both sides are wanting to appear informed while not caring enough to be informed. It is those individuals on both sides of the coin who are easiest to spot and seemingly don't give a hoot about being right as much as appearing right.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Is there anyone on this forum that has graphic skills that might be able to do something like that?

 

 

fur_2b_zpsugjlsev6.jpg

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kitakaze:

 

All correct. Joyce is not reliable evidence. Casts are not reliable evidence. Chance of actual beef in this product 0.1 - 1% is not good meat. So where's the beef? We are being told it is in every state and province of North America.

 

 

It is really getting old hearing how we are told that Bigfoot is in every state and province of North America. It's just unrealistic.

 

Paging DWA, Bigfoohunter clean up in aisle #2...

 

 

In other words:  that's why they're reported from every state but Hawaii.  THEY'RE FOUND IN ALL OF THEM.  Thanks for clearing that up, Kit!

 

 

BH, by all means, in this thread indicate where you think Bigfoot does not exist within North America...

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/52083-where-you-think-bigfoot-does-not-exist/

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

 

fur_2b_zpso8hrl2i3.jpg

 

 

The link really doesn't do anything. What is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Its a a replica project that I worked on with a witness who saw the creature from 50 feet away. This was the initial mock up and has since been tweaked. I blurred the face on purpose,  A larger version has been exchanged for the image in post 155.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

 

All correct. Joyce is not reliable evidence. Casts are not reliable evidence. Chance of actual beef in this product 0.1 - 1% is not good meat. So where's the beef? 

 

 

 

According to you....there is a "reasonable probability" that it exists in the PNW.

 

Why did you never leave that impression on JREF???  Everything I have ever quoted of you from over there consists of mockery...ridicule...condescension...and/or an assessment of extremely low odds....including "one-in-a-million", against.

 

 

How about stopping-into "JREF", and stating your "reasonable probability" there...and see what they think of it?    :)

 

 

Also, since when is "reasonable probability' the same thing as "bad beef/yuck/yawn/why are you wasting my time/very ridiculous"???  

What I see there is a contradiction. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

kitakaze:

BH, by all means, in this thread indicate where you think Bigfoot does not exist within North America...

 

I could care less as I have not seen the evidence suggesting these other places. Maybe you should read post 154 again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thanks Salubrious and BigfootHunter. Were you close enough to see their faces? One thing that has always bugged me about Patty is the facial hair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

kitakaze:

BH, by all means, in this thread indicate where you think Bigfoot does not exist within North America...

 

I could care less as I have not seen the evidence suggesting these other places. Maybe you should read post 154 again.

 

Excellent. Dismissing evidence without having examined it. You have the makings of an excellent denialist.

 

Time for you to have a DWA driveby...

 

 

 

It is really getting old hearing how we are told that Bigfoot is in every state and province of North America. It's just unrealistic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

 

Excellent. Dismissing evidence without having examined it. You have the makings of an excellent denialist.

 

 

 

Excellent. We should examine your evidence.

 

How about answering the questions that have been asked by me...and others....concerning your "Bombshell evidence"? :)

 

 

We really shouldn't dismiss your evidence, without examining it....should we?? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

 

Excellent. Dismissing evidence without having examined it. You have the makings of an excellent denialist.

 

 

 

Is this about your rebuttal to Bill Munns' When Roger Met Patty?  

 

You said you would be posting a rebuttal before you even read it!

 

 

Excellent Indeed.

 

BD

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Backdoc,

 

I said the same thing ta kitakaze when he first mentioned this ha ! ha ! 

Oooooops ! Eh kitakaze !  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...