hiflier Posted May 29, 2016 Author Share Posted May 29, 2016 (edited) As far as what Heironimus said about the one take? Crowlogic was probably just testing me to see how up on the subject I was Edited May 29, 2016 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted May 29, 2016 Author Share Posted May 29, 2016 Norseman, I wonder if Crowlogic will come back and accuse John Green of being in on hoaxing the trackway? Doubt it but he's certainly been grabbing thinner straws than that. I hope he doesn't ignore post #110... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 29, 2016 Admin Share Posted May 29, 2016 I have said all along that if Warner Bros or Universal Studios had stood up at some point and said "Yup....it was us, here is the suit, here is the guy in the suit, here is how we did it"? No problem. I can consider the possibility that the PGF is a hoax. But to claim three cowboys cooked that up? I'm from that culture....me and my buddies are going down to the Halloween shop and picking out a mass produced Gorilla costume and shooting it. Gonna spend 500 bucks tops..... And if the hoax convinces no one? Oh well....we tried. The skeptic side of the story on how these guys accomplished this is ludicris. IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 Norse you want Patty to be real so let Patty be real for you. You wanted me to put something up that backs up my position why the PGF is a hoax. So I did and I asked for proponents to supply real animals showing the same anomalies and not a single example have the showed. But a lot of words, yes a lot of words. well words were not requested. However I realize it was to much to expect that any proponent could come up with anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 Norseman, I wonder if Crowlogic will come back and accuse John Green of being in on hoaxing the trackway? Doubt it but he's certainly been grabbing thinner straws than that. I hope he doesn't ignore post #110... No John never hoaxed a trackway but he sure was hoaxed by Ol' Ray up at Blue Creek Mt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 29, 2016 Admin Share Posted May 29, 2016 Norse you want Patty to be real so let Patty be real for you. You wanted me to put something up that backs up my position why the PGF is a hoax. So I did and I asked for proponents to supply real animals showing the same anomalies and not a single example have the showed. But a lot of words, yes a lot of words. well words were not requested. However I realize it was to much to expect that any proponent could come up with anything. I dont "want" Patty to be real. That is where the evidence leads me. And you said "stay tuned"....... so I'm patiently waiting for your awesome evidence that will convince me otherwise. Sometimes Crow your posts sort of run together. If I missed something my apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted May 29, 2016 Author Share Posted May 29, 2016 (edited) Crowlogic, this isn't about BCM and no matter how many time you cite it it's useless for the PGF as it makes no sense in the PGF context. So then, John Green wasn't in on the hoax at Bluff Creek when he went to look at the trackway. As in THE trackway singular. And don't worry about addressing my Post #110 even though this is the third time I've brought it up. So is it true what Heironimus said about it being done in one take at Bluff Creek? and if so do you believe him? If not then you shouldn't believe anything else he says- like about wearing the suit? And if you believe him about the suit and knew what he said about the one take thing then your comment regarding the hypothetical 10 out takes was what? Some kind of joke? Because if it was it isn't funny and you were wrong to even suggest it as it tells me you will say anything just to throw mud at something. Not cool Crowlogic, not cool at all. Time to clear the air on this as you've apparently dug a hole here for yourself and just may have gotten caught doing it. Edited May 29, 2016 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 Who made the costume? By the look of that upper thigh I'd say Monroe Shocks Not here please Crowlogic. Take it to the Patterson Gimlin Film Forum for debate. It's outside the scope of this thread which needs to stay focused on the topic it has been set up for. Where is the second reel? And try to resist turning your back on my post #110 please. Sometimes you dance around worse than DWA! Norse put the challenge up so I obligated him. He is Steering Committee after all. Now then here is the topic all neatly wrapped up for you. You want the PGF to be real so you have fixated on cast making or lack thereof as the lynch pin that confirms the film as real for you. Nobody will change that. I'll even help you out. They were cowboys, cowboys never lie, cowboys are loyal and true. There that makes the PGF super real. But while you're polishing the Cryptozoic Grammy it deserves the sun rises and sets going on half a century and there is nothing else to show for it, nada zip. So what exactly does that imply? BTW is this not a PGF thread since you did include the casting issue of the PGF? You mention Patterson Gimlin in the OP Oh come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 29, 2016 Admin Share Posted May 29, 2016 THAT is your evidence!!?? About a half a step of the PGF looped over and over? Can you explain it to us? What are we suppose to be looking at? Yanno like Bill Munns does? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O0a5eaoR1U0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC witness Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 What exactly are you seeing in your GIF clip that looks fake to you, Crowlogic? I'm afraid I'm going to need red arrows or circles to grasp what you're trying to show us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted May 29, 2016 Author Share Posted May 29, 2016 (edited) ...You want the PGF to be real so you have fixated on cast making or lack thereof as the lynch pin that confirms the film as real for you. This is another joke Crow? Nothing you said is anywhere near true but as it comes from a guy who will say anything to stay away from direct dialogue it doesn't surprise me. Someone who dodges the hard stuff. Twist things however you wish in true Crow fashion your house of diversion is slowly falling apart. I've seen you contradict yourself at least three times in this thread in a lame effort to sound like you know what you are talking about as you hand out inconsistent drivel everyone can witness. If you care so little about being accurate then you really shouldn't post at all. You ignore dialogue and cite ridiculous what ifs about things and purposefully throw out answers designed only to maintain confusion. Either engage the dialogue meaningfully or please leave the thread. Your hollow excuses that you're trying to pass off as logical rebuttals have failed. You're not going to address Post #110? Then address Post #127 instead. In fact, address them both and try to do it with something that makes some sense without some wild assumptions about what you think my fixations are or whatever it is I want to make real. Of course if you do leave the thread then everything you've said gets tossed. Edited May 29, 2016 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 ^Actually I had been answering your questions all along. You've just refused to accept the answers because they are not what you wanted to hear. You wanted to know about hoaxer mindset and how a hoax might be constructed. I presented you with many options that could allow the hoax to be created. But you have failed time and time again to take the first step into the mind/MO of hoaxing. You are somehow trying to keep the story by the cowboys as gospel and therefore all has to be as they say. There is no answer for you, you are playing fuax inquiry. You are not inquiring anything. You are looking to validate your predetermined belief in the PGF. It is clearly impossible for you to step out of the written in stone cowboy tale so happy trails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 THAT is your evidence!!?? About a half a step of the PGF looped over and over? Can you explain it to us? What are we suppose to be looking at? Yanno like Bill Munns does? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O0a5eaoR1U0 Norse here is something for you to consider. The PGF gospel of suit analysis has come down written that a human being couldn't have fit because the eyes wouldn't be able to see.out. Well here;s a very close head to Patty and look close there is a human eye peering out of it and there's a small looking cranium and low jaw and face. Just like Patty and a human eye seeing perfectly none the less. Now what is that they say about the exception proves the rule. Human could see out of these things like Patty head. Q.E.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 29, 2016 Admin Share Posted May 29, 2016 *slaps forehead* Crow you would be doing skeptics a favor if you just left the debating up to others of your party. With your ramblings anyone following this thread that was riding the fence? Is now a proponent.....congratulations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 29, 2016 Admin Share Posted May 29, 2016 (edited) THAT is your evidence!!?? About a half a step of the PGF looped over and over?Can you explain it to us? What are we suppose to be looking at?Yanno like Bill Munns does?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O0a5eaoR1U0Norse here is something for you to consider. The PGF gospel of suit analysis has come down written that a human being couldn't have fit because the eyes wouldn't be able to see.out. Well here;s a very close head to Patty and look close there is a human eye peering out of it and there's a small looking cranium and low jaw and face. Just like Patty and a human eye seeing perfectly none the less. Now what is that they say about the exception proves the rule. Human could see out of these things like Patty head. Q.E.D. How is that head CLOSE to Patty? Its not even close to a real Gorilla. Edited May 29, 2016 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts