Jump to content
kitakaze

Wally - Walas Bigfoot Suit And Patty.

Recommended Posts

Guest DWA

^^^Dis.  Meaning "this."  Or...yeah...that.   :spiteful:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Wally:

 

Not too impressive but all we can do is wait until Kit is able to post more, which should be after Halloween at the earliest I understand.  Then, we can look at it closer and be More or Less impressed after we see the rest.

 

 

Another Wally point:

 

For me, I find it interesting we have to actually search for a Walas example such as Wally. Why should that be?  We are told it is somewhat like Patty but never meant to be a Patty re-creation. If a laymen makes a suit it may be good or bad and we don't expect much out of the laymen  After all, they are not a pro Right? 

 

Lets keep in mind though the one offering this work up is Walas:

 

1) He was on the old BFF

2) He showed an interest in the subject.

3) He is a very talented and capable movie guy (The Fly, and many others)

 

and here is the key...

 

4) In spite of all of this never offered a suit to shut up the PGF once and for all.  No attempt to do so.  Only talk. 

 

I remember when NFL great Jim Brown boasted he could run faster than NFL RB Franco Harris, Jim did a lot of talking. At some point they put this to a test.  They Raced!   Jim Lost.  When he was all talk, we might have believed him but when put up or shut up time came, he failed to back up his talk.

 

 

Walas is talented enough in my thinking he should be able to take 1967 era materials and best what two cowboys did EASY.  Instead, he hung around a bit on the old BFF and offered a lot of talk.  Just remember that when we finally see this Wally being posted in a few days.  He has the talent, but offered talk.  This should matter. 

 

BD

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

"If I can overcome your arguments then I will be in a better position to bring this to the attention of others in the science community" 

 

 

But you have "proof". You have said so. My arguments (I have none other than my remarks based on my observation, i.e. it looks fake) are hardly any sort of barrier to bringing this to the attention of the science community. You must not be very confident in your proof. 

 

I guess bigfoot will have to await a more confident champion. 

 

"looks" fake? You have to do better than that.

 

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.  

 

Belief is not science (emphasis mine).

 

I am sad to report that while I held out the possibility that you might rise to the challenge, at the same time apparently your interest here has nothing to do with what is true- we can see that in your response (this is what was meant by the 'true colors' statement that you questioned earlier on this thread). I assume that you will not cause your hand to move so I won't waste my time with you further on this subject.

 

So the list grows: "skeptics" that appear to not be interested in the truth (IOW their presence here is motivated by something other): Kitakaze, Crowlogic, Squatchy McSquatch and Dmaker.

 

FWIW, it already has been proven to the world. Not that the world cares; IMO it would rather not know, and in its somnambulance other than the occasional odd bump in the night there will be no consequence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

There is much that has been proven to the world about which the world is either ignorant or doesn't care.  This is one such thing.

 

Sorry, all you who profess to know something about science.  It is thoroughgoing ignance to think that something for which all evidence says, this, is actually some undefined, that, that you just want to think it is, because, not evidence, because evidence have you none, but, you know, you.

 

Bigfoot's as proven as lions are.  To people who have seen one, first; to people who have found their tracks and know they couldn't have been anything else, second; and third, to people who A, care about the topic, and B, care about the truth, and C, know how the world works.

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:  None.  Who cares what you think, if you aren't paying attention?

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Backdoc wrote:

 

Wally:

 

Not too impressive but all we can do is wait until Kit is able to post more, which should be after Halloween at the earliest I understand.  Then, we can look at it closer and be More or Less impressed after we see the rest.

 

 

My version... :) ...

 

Wowiie:

 

Not too impressive...in the slightest....but all we can do is wait until Kit is able to post more.  Then, we can look at it closer and be Even Less impressed, after we see the rest.

 

On a side note, one other thing you could do, Backdoc....is ask kit questions about his Big, Bad "Bombshells". That might actually accomplish something.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The following are pieces of footage other than the PGF which Sweaty considers to be impressive...

 

 

 

And how many baby Bigfoots do they show?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

 

 

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.  I've been around the bigfoot question since the early days of the modern era and have see and heard pretty much all of it.  I was there when bigfoot was 12 and 15 feet tall and hold up in the PNW, I was there when bigfoot went nation wide and I'm here for bigfoot being a portal jumping mystic.  And you know what?  None of it has ever delivered the goods.  It's fun to speculate but hey after 50 years any intelligent person will know they've been had and are continuing to be had.

 

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?  But for argument sake I could hook up with Matt Moneymaker and company and we could all go out to the hottest bigfoot hotspot of all time and we'll come home empty handed.  Everyone in bigfoot comes home empty handed.  Bigfoot  long ago stopped being about the mystery of the forest.  It's mostly about money and attention now.  It's about guys and gals who'eve maybe had a rough ride in some way but by gosh they vindicate their lives by believing in bigfoot or by believing they can confirm bigfoot.  That's mostly what I see and sense about this modern bigfoot world.   Thus far history is on the side of those on the opposing team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

The following are pieces of footage other than the PGF which Sweaty considers to be impressive...

 

 

 

And how many baby Bigfoots do they show?

 

I don't think it's fair to paint Sweaty with this brush, just because he thinks those silly films are real, doesn't mean that the PGF isn't real, the PGF not being a real animal stands on it's own, you would need to show how Sweaty's poor judgement of those other films, directly affects his judgement of the PGF.

 

The MDF and The Freeman Footage are so epically bad, that they stand as examples of how willing to believe, the Bigfooters are,  but it does not diminish the fact that the PGF was shoved in our face as kids, on In Search Of..., whereas these other two were just kind of added to the Bigfoot Lore later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

The consistency over such a large volume of reports implies that lots of them are legit...or that someone would have to come up with a theory they themselves wouldn't bet if they ever thought about it much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

 

I don't think it's fair to paint Sweaty with this brush...

 

 

 

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

 

 

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?

 

 

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. ;)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

Beast is proven, Crow.  Bigfoot is settled science.  That it isn't proven to bigfoot skeptics - scientist or otherwise - is irrelevant.  I could probably list a long line of settled-science facts of which you are unaware.  Doesn't mean they aren't settled science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

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.

No implication at all.  I am firmly in the camp that bigfoot does not exist.  Your mileage varies but that's just the way this stuff is.  Since none of the sightings have ever resulted in a sign sealed and delivered bigfoot the logical answer are as I've posted.

Beast is proven, Crow.  Bigfoot is settled science.  That it isn't proven to bigfoot skeptics - scientist or otherwise - is irrelevant.  I could probably list a long line of settled-science facts of which you are unaware.  Doesn't mean they aren't settled science.

Negative it's only settled in the minds of those willing to by the mythology.  When I can ride  Amtrack to DC and see the bigfoot at the Smithsonian or in the museum of Natural History in NYC  then you'll have a point.  Or when it's in university textbooks with it's genealogy and classification explained then it's proven.  But it is light years away from proven.  BTW none of your settled science facts ever turn up in any search for them.  So as they say publish or perish which is a way of the professional world  says put up or shut up.

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

 

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!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...