Jump to content
kitakaze

Wally - Walas Bigfoot Suit And Patty.

Recommended Posts

Guest

In my opinion, I feel that the opponents should also be searching the forests and woodlands to disprove bigfoot. It is easy to sit behind a computer and say, "I've never seen one!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

It's pretty whacked for someone to go to a web site on a topic they do not believe in and continually tell people Bigfoot doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

In my opinion, I feel that the opponents should also be searching the forests and woodlands to disprove bigfoot. It is easy to sit behind a computer and say, "I've never seen one!"

That is a ridiculous notion. How would one "disprove" bigfoot by going into the forest? Every time one goes into the forest and doesn't find one? Ok, fine. Bigfoot, by your logic, is "disproven" daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

^^

 

It's pretty whacked for someone to go to a web site on a topic they do not believe in and continually tell people Bigfoot doesn't exist.

 

Don't have to believe in bigfoot's existence to have an interest in bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

But what about the times people enter the forest that do encounter one - you don't accept that either because you say it can't exist .......... so who is that comes up with the ridiculous notions that its disproven daily.


 

^^

 

It's pretty whacked for someone to go to a web site on a topic they do not believe in and continually tell people Bigfoot doesn't exist.

 

Don't have to believe in bigfoot's existence to have an interest in bigfoot.

 

 

 

If people like you really had an interest in Bigfoot, then you would not have to be constantly corrected so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^

 

It's pretty whacked for someone to go to a web site on a topic they do not believe in and continually tell people Bigfoot doesn't exist.

You may feel that way, but so what? It's possible to be interested in a topic, but not share the same view as everyone else. 

 

When I was doing my undergraduate studies, I took almost every elective I could in Religious Studies. I am not exactly a person of faith, but I find religion fascinating. It may be difficult for you to get your mind around it, but to participate in the bigfoot myth one does not need to believe. One can participate by discussion, observation or challenge. That you find the only acceptable participation is perpetuation and support is your issue. I suggest you deal with it accordingly.

 

If it helps, then perhaps you should put those who have a different opinion than yours on an ignore list. It may save you from some of your apoplectic moments when dealing with people who disagree. It might even do wonders for your health, too. 

Edited by dmaker
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

The PGF is of very little importance in my life.

 

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
 

 

 ...but to participate in the bigfoot myth one does not need to believe. One can participate by discussion, observation or challenge.

 

 

 

dmaker wrote:

 

"I think footers are either mistaken, lying or deluded."

 

"I certainly don't care what YOU think."

 

"In fact, I have always said that nothing can be proven, one way or the other, with the PGF. "

 

"I've never said anyone should consider anything I have to say on this as anything more than my opinion."

 

Oh boy, I can hardly wait.....to see dmaker participate... :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

^^

 

It's pretty whacked for someone to go to a web site on a topic they do not believe in and continually tell people Bigfoot doesn't exist.

 

Don't have to believe in bigfoot's existence to have an interest in bigfoot.

 

 

 

Great .... then answer SweatyYeti's question ....

 

  • shownagain.jpg

 

 

Squatchy McSquatch, on 28 Oct 2015 - 12:12 PM, said:snapback.png

pulled it off google as is. if it was manipulated it was that way when I found it.

 

 

SweatyYeti, on 28 Oct 2015 - 12:43 PM, said:snapback.png

What website was it on? And, what did you type into the search box, on Google?

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

 

^^

 

It's pretty whacked for someone to go to a web site on a topic they do not believe in and continually tell people Bigfoot doesn't exist.

 

Don't have to believe in bigfoot's existence to have an interest in bigfoot.

 

Yeah, but that is pretty obviously not an interest in bigfoot.  No.  I mean pretty well way beyond obviously.  It is an interest in something else.

 

As is badgering people whether they have read a book they pretty clearly understand (having read it, HARRUMPH!, before it was a book)...and the badgerer just as clearly does not.

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

 

Of course there are those (myself included ) who have always said Bobby H didn't wear the suit.  He's somewhat tall but his height is all in his legs and his arms are no match for his leg length.  But then there's Jerry Romey who was in the ANE loop who has been said to have worn the suit.  Well Old Jerry ain't a bad fit.  He's nearly 7 feet tall and look kids his arms are longer than Bob's and his torso is longer with waist lower giving him somewhat different proportuions to Bobby.  I've scaled Bobby to Jerry even though Bobby isn't as tall as Jerry.  A man in a suit walked in front of that K-100 and where is it written in stone that Bobby H is the only possible candidate for the suit?

 

Copy%20of%20Jerry_zpsqypkqpwb.jpg

 

The only thing that annoys me is tripe like this because I have to waste my time refuting it. You don't really want me to destroy all your straw men, do you?

For the record, I don't believe anything can be proven, one way or the other, using the PGF footage.  If someone like Sal believes otherwise, then knock yourself out, go and prove it to the world.  

 

I knew you would eventually show your true colours. And excuse me for not giving a rat's behind what you think can be proven. No one is interested in the opinions of special pleaders (scoftics), but fill your boots. :)

 

By each every and all means have at it. Burn and hack all the straw you think you must and I'm sure you will.  However after the smoke has cleared from the straw burning and after the bits and pieces have settled from the straw hacking the central point of each and every argument against bigfoot  will remain standing and intact.  No bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"By each every and all means have at it. Burn and hack all the straw you think you must and I'm sure you will.  However after the smoke has cleared from the straw burning and after the bits and pieces have settled from the straw hacking the central point of each and every argument against bigfoot  will remain standing and intact.  No bigfoot."

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

"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."  

 

Yes, that is, of course, true. However, anecdotes are not falsifiable which renders them pretty much useless as scientific evidence. 


 

 

 ...but to participate in the bigfoot myth one does not need to believe. One can participate by discussion, observation or challenge.

 

 

 

dmaker wrote:

 

"I think footers are either mistaken, lying or deluded."

 

"I certainly don't care what YOU think."

 

"In fact, I have always said that nothing can be proven, one way or the other, with the PGF. "

 

"I've never said anyone should consider anything I have to say on this as anything more than my opinion."

 

Oh boy, I can hardly wait.....to see dmaker participate... :popcorn:

 

Oy, does this mean you are going to quote-mine-stalk me now too, Sweaty?  What joy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

"By each every and all means have at it. Burn and hack all the straw you think you must and I'm sure you will.  However after the smoke has cleared from the straw burning and after the bits and pieces have settled from the straw hacking the central point of each and every argument against bigfoot  will remain standing and intact.  No bigfoot."

 

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.

Where is "no bigfoot" coming from?  No bigfoot that he can see?  No bigfoot that he can snuggle with?  No bigfoot eating his sister?  That he can see?

 

The evidence says:  BIGFOOT.  Ignorance of that evidence is no excuse.  In science, it never is.

 

Indeed, it is a profoundly and could not be more so UNscientific position to say, for 30,000 consistent reports, and that is from ONE WEBSITE, people, and the slam-dunk scientific finisher is that it is consistent with EVERYTHING on EVERY OTHER BIGFOOT WEBSITE and no you have no explanation other than the obvious one for that, that there is an explanation...and...and...we can...um...assume....the....thing....we want toBUTNOTBIGFOOT!

 

Sorry.  Science says!

 

BIGFOOT.

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

  

Oy, does this mean you are going to quote-mine-stalk me now too, Sweaty?  What joy....

 

 

 

Not to worry, dmaker....I won't be quoting you very often.....if at all. :)

 

The statements of yours I quoted give a pretty good picture of what your "contributions" to the Forum will be... ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...