Was It A Suit? (2)

[dmaker 1,474]

Or, for example, someone who says they have a picture of a bigfoot, but they will only share it with those who pay for their tour?

[Bigfoothunter 1,658]

2 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Yes, there are a lot of seemingly-small, but unreplicable differences, and it takes an unbiased mind to properly identify them. The differences are small enough that people can be fooled into thinking it's a person in a costume. My point is that it's like that with any Sasquatch.

 

 

 

This isn't small nor does it fool anyone who seriously examines it  ...........

29 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Or, for example, someone who says they have a picture of a bigfoot, but they will only share it with those who pay for their tour?

 

That was not what I said. I said I have shown it to folks on the tour and to other researchers who come and see it in person. I made it clear that I had no interest in putting it on the Internet.

 

Either way - seeing one through a 600X camera lens is Bigfoot related - McSquatch's truck is not.

[Backdoc 625]

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

My point was very simple. SMS says he looks at the pgf and sees a man in a suit. What follows is mockery and derision. Yet when a bigfoot witness recalls their perception it is treated as gospel. Why the double standard? Why is personal perception hailed as an indicator of truth in one instance, and a point of ridicule in another?

 

 

I can't speak for anyone on the BFF but I suspect if that was All he said, that would be fine.  My guess would be the statement along with a long history of other statements might have something to do with some of the response.  

 

some will think its a man in a suit.  Fine by me.   If they test that idea in a deeper way, that idea gets weaker each time.  

[dmaker 1,474]

9 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

hat was not what I said. I said I have shown it to folks on the tour and to other researchers who come and see it in person

I guess the picture does not impress. All these people that have seen a picture of a really, real bigfoot and yet no fanfare at all? 

 

Maybe it's best you don't share your blobsquatch.

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by dmaker

[SweatyYeti 2,048]

3 minutes ago, dmaker said:

I guess the picture does not impress. You showed it to a media member, if I recall correctly, and she did not exactly light up the airwaves with how she had seen a picture of a real sasquatch. All these people that have seen a picture of a really, real bigfoot and yet no fanfare at all? 

 

Maybe it's best you don't share your blobsquatch.

 

 

 

...with scoffers.  

 

I would be interested in seeing the picture....mostly out of curiosity. We already have good close-up images of a Sasquatch....in the PGF. 

 

Contrary to popular belief.....most people have seen a Bigfoot.  

[dmaker 1,474]

Sweaty, all you need to do is fly to B.C and pay Bill for his bigfoot buggy tour. Seems reasonable.

 

Technically speaking most people have seen a film claiming to be of a sasquatch. Because I watch Shark Week does not mean I have seen a great white. 

 

 

Also, just in case you are interested. Just saying...

 

com·ma
ˈkämə/Submit
noun
1.
a punctuation mark (,) indicating a pause between parts of a sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list and to mark the place of thousands in a large numeral.
2.
MUSIC
a minute interval or difference of pitch.

el·lip·sis
əˈlipsis/Submit
noun
the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues.
a set of dots indicating an ellipsis.

Edited July 26, 2017 by dmaker

[norseman 2,658]

11 hours ago, dmaker said:

 

So, people are just taken at their word?

That still does not adequately explain the double standard, though. Personal perception is the reason reports are lauded as a great source of evidence. But when one person expresses something based on his personal perception that goes contrary to the myth, then it is a source of mockery. 

All you seem to be defending is bias.

 

 

Im not defending anything, I'm just applying some logic.

 

If this was the BOWHUNTING forum and you were speaking out against bowhunting? Because it's just your opinion? I think the result would be extremely predictable.....

 

It's no different here.

 

If you bash on the PGF, the holiest of holies? Your going to be ridiculed.

 

 

[dmaker 1,474]

2 minutes ago, norseman said:

If you bash on the PGF, the holiest of holies? Your going to be ridiculed.

That really promotes discussion.

[norseman 2,658]

I think it actually does.

 

McSquatchy obviously gets off on poking sticks at the hornets nest.

 

They get mad at me when I tell them that the PGF no longer matters, because it's 50 years old. We need to focus on new evidence/proof.

[salubrious 896]

13 hours ago, dmaker said:

SMS,you should know by now that personal perception means nothing around here. Unless, of course, you are claiming to have seen a bigfoot. Then your perception is perfect and you could not possibly be mistaken.

 

This statement is false and rather obviously so.

 

12 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

Of course I know that D.  

 

My trucks are in the shop for brake work. 

 

How have you been keeping?

 

So, rather than answer a simple question, you'd rather derail the thread?

[SweatyYeti 2,048]

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

Sweaty, all you need to do is fly to B.C and pay Bill for his bigfoot buggy tour. Seems reasonable.

 

Technically speaking most people have seen a film claiming to be of a sasquatch. Because I watch Shark Week does not mean I have seen a great white. 

 

 

Also, just in case you are interested. Just saying...

 

com·ma
ˈkämə/Submit
noun
1.
a punctuation mark (,) indicating a pause between parts of a sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list and to mark the place of thousands in a large numeral.
2.
MUSIC
a minute interval or difference of pitch.

el·lip·sis
əˈlipsis/Submit
noun
the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues.
a set of dots indicating an ellipsis.

 

 

You've seen Bigfoot, too, dmaker.  

[Bigfoothunter 1,658]

2 hours ago, dmaker said:

I guess the picture does not impress. All these people that have seen a picture of a really, real bigfoot and yet no fanfare at all? 

 

Maybe it's best you don't share your blobsquatch.

 

 

Some folks have noted details that I was not aware of. You seem to have the mentality assurances makes things true and that is a erred notion that has been proven not to be so. There is plenty of evidence that has been posted and yet you have nothing of value to add.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Bigfoothunter

[Squatchy McSquatch 842]

11 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

I made it clear that I had no interest in putting it on the Internet.

 

I made it clear that I have the intention of putting my pics on the internet.

 

On my schedule. Not yours.

[SweatyYeti 2,048]

37 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

McSquatchy obviously gets off on poking sticks at the hornets nest.

 

 

 

It is to be expected, Norse...that some people will join  a Bigfoot forum, just for the fun of "poking sticks at the hornet's nest"/having fun with folks "stupid enough to believe in Bigfoot". I wouldn't expect that to stop, until and unless a specimen is found....but, what is really wrong...and senseless....is the bigfoot proponents carrying on the endless/goin' nowhere arguments...(ad nauseum)...with the scoffers, and trolls. 

 

Take the BCM trackway argument, as just one example. It is argued over in pretty much every PGF thread....with hundreds of images posted.....and not a chance in you-know-where of anybody ever changing their view, on what that trackway was. 

 

If that ain't the Poster Child for Insanity....or, at the very least....Pointless/Senseless Activity.....I don't know what is.  

 

[Squatchy McSquatch 842]

48 minutes ago, norseman said:

I think it actually does.

 

McSquatchy obviously gets off on poking sticks at the hornets nest.

 

They get mad at me when I tell them that the PGF no longer matters, because it's 50 years old. We need to focus on new evidence/proof.

 

I'm sorry Norse.

 

Is this not the PGF section of the forum?