Jump to content

Wally - Walas Bigfoot Suit And Patty.


kitakaze
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just as with salubrious' ginormous-foots, I don't claim to have taken a photo. BH is the one who claims to have taken a photo of his encounter and to be withholding it from being seen on the Internet.

 

You would have something resembling a comparable situation if the suit I found was popping up all over North America for hundreds of years being witnessed by literally thousands of people.

 

So once again, a single, just one, clear photo of Bigfoot.

 

Anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

 

Patty1_zpsmr9y4ywy.jpg

 

 

Now don't you go saying this picture isn't clear enough, kit....as you well know....it's clear enough to make out the Sasquatch's 'iris and pupil'. ;)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you notice that the small blurry photo above is infinitely better than your large blurry photo, kit?  Of course you didn't.  It's as if reality has been taken away from you.   lol!   8 B

 

kits-fake-and-blurry-bigfoot.jpg

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

That's fine as long as you admit there are animals right now they may have no photo or one blurry photo of.  I don't know it had been shot yet, but the Disney France photo is blurry--- of a big cat tiger.

 

As a piece of film or photography, the PGF looks fairly clear.  We would all prefer a better view, just like that blurry pic of the tiger at Paris Disney at the time.

 

BD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrible comparison. First, tigers are a known species. Secondly, if tigers were reported across Europe but oops, somehow we can't get a single clear image, then you'd have a meaningful comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kitakaze said:

Only when it's been doctored, so no.

 

 

"Doctor my eyes....have seen the (doctored) eyes... :lol: ...

 

kitzo-Eyeballz4_zpsd9013f08.jpg

 

Sing along with us, kit... :) ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I'm more a Bowie guy...

 

Quote

 

NASA deliberately presented a distorted view of the Face to the world, in a long-awaited "high-resolution" look at it. As a result of this worthless image, all serious interest by the mainstream media and the general public was effectively killed.

 
 
But wait....there's more...       :).....
 
In 2001, the MGS took a real high-res image of the Face, and.....against all odds....details of an eye appeared....
 
face11a.jpg
 
For comparison...here is the original Viking image...showing the large dark area that gave the impression of an 'eye'...
 
face2.jpg
 
 How there happened to be anything at all within that dark area, even remotely looking like a detailed eye is beyond me.

That is truly 'against all odds'.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

Life on Mars, in the past....there is plenty of evidence for that...in clear, undoctored images. :thumbsup:

 

But, regarding what you requested...you have it....in images in which you declared the level of resolution high enough to make out an 'iris and pupil'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microbial life, possibly. Not the Martian civilization you believe. It is the perfect Fortean addiction - reading super spooky details into the ambiguous, pareidolia play.

 

It's your MO.

 

Freeman babyfoot. Memorial Day babyfoot. Somebody give the man his babyfoot.

 

Get a clear look at the Martian mesa you want people to think is a face and it looks nothing like a face at all.

 

I don't think the iris and pupil that appear to be there in one doctored image are actually there as they appear. I think that is something added after the fact and not visible anywhere else.

 

Images is your distortion when you know it is in only a single image I have discussed, one which has been manipulated.

Edited by kitakaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Yakima. I don't mind if it takes a while to come out. I'm quite sure the wait will be much shorter than the one you'll have to endure for a clear photo of Bigfoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
7 hours ago, kitakaze said:

Terrible comparison. First, tigers are a known species. Secondly, if tigers were reported across Europe but oops, somehow we can't get a single clear image, then you'd have a meaningful comparison.

 

The fact Tigers are a known animal has nothing at all to do with the point. 

Also, the fact you call it a "terrible comparison" automatically means it must be a Home Run point.

 

It is really simple.  There was a reported Tiger loose in or near Paris Disney. There were those silly things called eye witness reports.  Finally there was a photo taken which appears to show the face of a big cat. It looks a lot like a tiger.

 

(The pic of the Tiger flashes at the very end of this video):

 

 

On point, you are asking why there is not some clear pic yet of a bigfoot should they exist.  Obviously if we cannot get such a clear pic of a big cat tiger near Paris Disney then what more are you expecting should such a bigfoot creature actually exist?

 

That is the point.  I know deep down you get that point. 

 

It is a very "Meaningful Comparison"

 

BD

 

 

ADDED: On the video, look at the effort devoted to hunting this thing in a small area of Paris.  Has such an effort been devoted to hunting an area of a Bigfoot sighting?

Edited by Backdoc
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...