Jump to content

Wally - Walas Bigfoot Suit And Patty.


kitakaze
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

I think one day there may even be a book found at the library called "The Little Narcissist who cried Bombshell".   :)

 

Kitakaze is a legend in only his own mind. He seeks attention by claiming bombshells he never seems to back up. SweatyYeti has mastered exposing the guy for what he is. Who else but Kitakaze takes him seriously - really?

 

 

 

Thanks, BH. :)

 

I know I don't take Mr. Kit's words seriously...

 

Sweaty why am I being included in that post quote  for something I've never said?  Fact check please and edit your quotes to reflect the person you're quoting.

 

 

 

You're in that quote box, Crow...because of the way the Forum software functions. I removed the text of your post, but wasn't able to delete the 'quote box' it was in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweaty, can you please limit your interrogation about Kits suit claims to the bombshell thread and stop saturating every single other thread with your constant off topic haranguing?

 

 

I disagree.  You need to consider what is being stated here. 

 

It is my understanding Kit has claimed:

 

1)   He has see THE suit in a glass case held hostage in Al DeAltey's study in his house.  He had an arranged phone call to see it but made no effort or somehow failed to record the video call.  Believe that if you wish.

 

2)  Kit has posted he has multiple (more than one) confessions.  He has stated these confessions 'exist'    This cannot mean they are people that exist and my promise to come forward because for a confession to exist the confessor had to confess.  For  that confession to exist it must exist in a written form or recorded form.

 

If a poster had on his side recorded confession to support their view, they would not argue about Chico the horse or other minor things with 2,000 posts on the BFF.  Furthermore, if a person had seen the suit, they would tell anyone and that would be the answer to any Q.

 

Failure to ask the reasonable Q is the issue here.  Sweaty is just reminding the reader what Kit has said/ stated/ promised. 

 

If I said the moon was made of cheese on the 'Moon Landing' website, Buzz Aldrin would not argue with me about what kind of cheeses existed in 1969.  He would say, "I have seen it, and I was there"  If I asked for evidence of such a statement he would not say, "it is locked away in storage and I moved to Japan"

 

Your demands of those making claims of the believer need to be just as strong in demands of the skeptic.

 

As often as you see Sweaty say this to Kits posts, should Kit be saying, "I have seen the suit!" to each answer.  Also, shouldn't Kit say, "Here is the audio of the confessions"

 

I think that is Sweaty's point but S Y can comment for himself.  Just consider how outlandish it is to think Kit would keep smoking guns secret.

 

Consider how outlandish it is Chris Walas would argue his points on the old BFF but NOT make a suit like 2 cowboys did to just show us.

 

 

BD

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sweaty, can you please limit your interrogation about Kits suit claims to the bombshell thread and stop saturating every single other thread with your constant off topic haranguing?

 

 

I disagree.  You need to consider what is being stated here. 

 

It is my understanding Kit has claimed:

 

1)   He has see THE suit in a glass case held hostage in Al DeAltey's study in his house.  He had an arranged phone call to see it but made no effort or somehow failed to record the video call.  Believe that if you wish.

 

2)  Kit has posted he has multiple (more than one) confessions.  He has stated these confessions 'exist'    This cannot mean they are people that exist and my promise to come forward because for a confession to exist the confessor had to confess.  For  that confession to exist it must exist in a written form or recorded form.

 

If a poster had on his side recorded confession to support their view, they would not argue about Chico the horse or other minor things with 2,000 posts on the BFF.  Furthermore, if a person had seen the suit, they would tell anyone and that would be the answer to any Q.

 

Failure to ask the reasonable Q is the issue here.  Sweaty is just reminding the reader what Kit has said/ stated/ promised. 

 

If I said the moon was made of cheese on the 'Moon Landing' website, Buzz Aldrin would not argue with me about what kind of cheeses existed in 1969.  He would say, "I have seen it, and I was there"  If I asked for evidence of such a statement he would not say, "it is locked away in storage and I moved to Japan"

 

Your demands of those making claims of the believer need to be just as strong in demands of the skeptic.

 

As often as you see Sweaty say this to Kits posts, should Kit be saying, "I have seen the suit!" to each answer.  Also, shouldn't Kit say, "Here is the audio of the confessions"

 

I think that is Sweaty's point but S Y can comment for himself.  Just consider how outlandish it is to think Kit would keep smoking guns secret.

 

Consider how outlandish it is Chris Walas would argue his points on the old BFF but NOT make a suit like 2 cowboys did to just show us.

 

 

BD

 

You miss my point. I am tired to death of Sweaty repeating the same obsessive question over and over and over and over and over again. If he can be limited to a single thread (which is only adhering to the forum rules after all), then I can easily avoid that particular nonsense.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dmaker,

 

If I said Quint does not die in the Movie Jaws, would you argue this with me for days, months or years or you just pull up a clip of the movie Jaws where it could be shown I was wrong.

 

I know there is no Easter Bunny so I avoid the Easter Bunny forums.  I would not take 10 seconds out of my day to argue there is one. 

 

You are not the one claiming you have a smoking gun in the form of a recorded confession(s).  Kit has done so. 

 

Think of it this way:  If after a lot of hard work you felt the PGF was a suit financed by Al DeAtley and you had a spy who was going into the room where it was held what would you do?  You know the phone call is coming. You know you are a smart person so you can learn how to record the video of the call (to play it back 1,000 times to confirm what you think you just saw).  You are in a country of Japan which probably has a video camera you could barrow.  You might have it there in case you 1) can't get the video phone to work.  2) have a back-up to video the video as you will only get one shot at this.  Kit interviewed Morris of the Morris Ape suit fame.  Do you think he forgot his tape recorder/ Video recorder?  No.  Why do you think that is.

 

Right now there are people who are reading the Amazon reviews for When Roger Met Patty.   Kit has written a review of it giving his many listed reasons why he thinks Bill is wrong.  Can you please go on there and tell me where on that list he has put 1) I have the confession(s) or 2) I have seen the suit.   Kit has given reasons for why which I don't feel are reasonable. 

 

How reasonable do you feel it is these confession(s) and the fact Kit states he is a guy who has seen the suit are some kind of state secret outside the BFF?

 

You don't like what sweaty is doing.  I think the level of importance of the issue at hand allows for the reasonable Q sweaty is asking Kit. Don't you agree if Kit would answer the request Sweaty would stop. 

 

Finally, If I said my Grandfather was at Deley Plaza the day Kennedy was shot and had a film of the Book Depository Window showing Oswald shooting 3 shots clearly on the movie film, don't you think the magnitude of such a claim would have big meaning on a Who Shot JFK forums?  This is no different.

 

 

 

BD

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying it's not a valid question, but to keep it to threads where it is on topic

Or how about this? BH claims to have photographic evidence, but refuses to share it here. Would you enjoy it if I hounded him in every thread in almost every post to show those photos? Or would you get tired of seeing it after a couple of years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

I am not saying it's not a valid question, but to keep it to threads where it is on topic

Or how about this? BH claims to have photographic evidence, but refuses to share it here. Would you enjoy it if I hounded him in every thread in almost every post to show those photos? Or would you get tired of seeing it after a couple of years?

 

Actually it is one photo and has been posted as such. The first photo was rushed as it was a solid blur. And besides, at the distance I said that I took it - how would showing someone who only relies on his gut be of any value one way or the other. Like with the PGF - your nonsense is as transparent as a freshly cleaned glass in my view.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dmaker,

 

I am only bringing up the extent of the claim.  Small claims are a small deal and big claims are a bigger deal.

 

We both know if someone like Roger claims to have filmed Bigfoot it has more magnitude than if he said he filmed a rare grey wolf or something.   It's no knock on Kit.  I think the magnitude of the claim is why it cannot go unanswered.

 

This thread is about Wally the suit made by Walas.  The Walas suit is not a PGF recreation. Yet, it will give us some basis for talking about a suit and Walas as a Bigfoot topic.

 

Kit tells us further pics and/ or video will be coming right after Halloween. Halloween has just passed and I have no doubt he will offer these when he gets them.  They are out of his control.  Now how much time should pass before this occurs.  Who knows. Maybe Kit will get them from Walas or maybe Walas will never get them to Kit but that is not Kit's fault.  My point is, at some point I have no doubt Kit will produce them as soon as he can.  You can see why when it comes to other things under Kit's control we Q why months or years have gone by and there has been no arrival of evidence of these claims.  I think that is what motives it. 

 

I'm moving on and waiting for Wally.

 

Backdoc

 

ADDED:  I have re- read you post and will try to keep this in mind when I post further as it is a good reminder to all of us.

Edited by Backdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What is your source for the boot size of Heironimus?

 

Bob Heironimus physical characteristics - The Making of Bigfoot, p. 360.

 

Also, the Gimlin remark has been posted to death that he was talking about no one financing his trip. It's been established to my satisfaction that Bob Gimlin supplied his own gas - food - clothing - and horse regardless of who owned it.

 

 

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

Gimlin: Yeah, and the fuel, and my own horse and my own food. The agreement when we left on any of those investigations was that whatever Roger spent that we would split the expenses with me but Al DeAtley was backing Roger, because Roger didn't have a job at that particular time.

Green: So in fact he only financed Roger, he didn't finance your share at all?

Gimlin: No, he didn't finance my part of the trip at all. I had my own horse, my own equipment and my own food. I didn't expect somebody else to support me on that. It would be nice if I could have gotten part of the fuel pay paid and expenses on the truck.

 

"Roger got the horses lined up. I didn't take any of my own horses." - Bigfootology interview, Sasquatch Summit, April 2011

 

Thom: There are sources that you an... that you had Bob Heronimous's horse na... uh, named Chico at Bluff Creek.

 

Bob: Okay... I did have Bob Heronimous's horse because Roger had, apparently, borrowed that horse from Bob Heronimous. 'Cause I never got the horses together to go. Roger gathered up the horses...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am not saying it's not a valid question, but to keep it to threads where it is on topic

Or how about this? BH claims to have photographic evidence, but refuses to share it here. Would you enjoy it if I hounded him in every thread in almost every post to show those photos? Or would you get tired of seeing it after a couple of years?

 

Actually it is one photo and has been posted as such. The first photo was rushed as it was a solid blur. And besides, at the distance I said that I took it - how would showing someone who only relies on his gut be of any value one way or the other. Like with the PGF - your nonsense is as transparent as a freshly cleaned glass in my view.

 

It would give me an idea of what you think a really, real bigfoot looks like. But guessing by your cranky reluctance to share, I can only imagine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 BH claims to have photographic evidence, but refuses to share it here. 

 

Actually it is one photo and has been posted as such. The first photo was rushed as it was a solid blur. 

 

 

 

 

I have posted many times that I took two photos once I saw the subject in my telescopic lens. The subject was moving up a mountain - was covered in a cinnamon colored fur - and very broad across its back. I have never sold the photo rights, and I share my experience with customers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have posted many times that I took two photos once I saw the subject in my telescopic lens. The subject was moving up a mountain - was covered in a cinnamon colored fur - and very broad across its back. I have never sold the photo rights, and I share my experience with customers

 

 

 

Did you share your photos with Steph Florian during the filming of Sasquatch: The Legend With Bigfoot?

 

If yes what was her reaction and why was only your sketch included in the documentary?

 

How does the resolution of your 'bigfoot photo' compare to stills of the PGF Freeman or other 'bigfoot footage'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Right now there are people who are reading the Amazon reviews for When Roger Met Patty.   Kit has written a review of it giving his many listed reasons why he thinks Bill is wrong.  Can you please go on there and tell me where on that list he has put 1) I have the confession(s) or 2) I have seen the suit.   Kit has given reasons for why which I don't feel are reasonable. 

 

 

It's not an omission. I remember you asking before and I'm quite sure I answered. I'll just answer again rather than dig it up.

 

My review of Bill's book directly addresses the conclusions that he makes point by point based on the merits of each individually. Saying I have seen the suit within the context of that review is as much an unverified claim as anything I could possibly object to regarding Bigfoot. I have no direct access to the suit and at the time of the review no way to arrange it under current circumstances. The only viewing I had of the suit was years ago on a Docomo smartphone via Skype and were I to try, I had no knowledge at the time how one might record such a call. The purpose at the time was to try and establish further contact in hopes of getting access to the suit in person to document it.

 

That is a claim that should be categorically dismissed without reliable evidence. I do not think the rule somehow applies differently to skeptics. I had a very similar experience to this when I first sought out personal contact with Bob Heironimus, which took major effort on my part. I similarly can not prove I have actually had any personal interviews or even contact with Bob Heironimus. At the time I documented everything with a phone, a pen and a notepad. All the work I did in that phase of the documentary project, the interviews, establishing what and where BrentD saw what he saw was to lay down the ground work for the actual filming. All interviews that I had filmed at that point were done in Victoria, BC Canada.

 

So I would ask you, in a formal written review of Bill's book, how would it be of any help to include a claim that I could not verify, something which Bill and I had tried personally between us to make possible?

 

Bill's book, specifically his end conclusions for the veracity of the PGF is what I focused on in that review.

 

 

^^^

 

Kit,

 

That actually makes more sense than I expected it to.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It would give me an idea of what you think a really, real bigfoot looks like. But guessing by your cranky reluctance to share, I can only imagine. 

 

dmaker,

 

Here's a photo I snapped quick of a really real black bear that popped out of the bushes not far from me down at the beach last year. What you see...an what I seen at the time...different. 

 

Pat...

post-279-0-90136400-1446596247_thumb.jpg

Edited by PBeaton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • masterbarber pinned this topic
  • masterbarber unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor featured this topic
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...