Jump to content
xspider1

The 50th Anniversary of the amazing Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film has arrived and there is no debunk in sight! 8 )

Recommended Posts

Backdoc

 

1 hour ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 19 years in BC and I have yet to see a mountain lion in the wild, but have seen their tracks countless times. Think about it.

 

 

Conclusion of the Skeptics:

 

1) You have not presented any evidence to prove the existence of mountain lions  <------ (based on the limited parameters of your story).

2) Because you have said you have not even seen one or photographed a mountain lion yourself, any tracks must be faked tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

You boys have argued yourselves blue in the face.

 

Once again and to no avail.

 

I tell you what, the ignore feature works wonders.

 

6 blue lines on a topic that each and every one of you nailed shut a long time ago.

 

Collectively, we have only BF hoaxes.

 

You have only yourselves to blame. 

 

PGF was a hoax. Deal with it.

 

 

 

For the record...

 

I just left Mr. Rick Shaheen a simple voicemail.

 

From his message he seems to be in charge of public skating schedules...

 

I can't wait to hear from him.

 

Also, reading ioyza's posts I've come to the conclusion that he is one of those 'special' people who encounters sasquatch everywhere he goes. Not jmo, a record here on forum.

 

I'll let you know what Mr. Shaheen says...

 

 

 

wrong thread. transfer that last part to ioyza's chicago bigfoot thread in GD please. too late for editing

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
11 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

You boys have argued yourselves blue in the face.

 

Once again and to no avail.

Self important much? Just because you haven't been swayed from your firmly entrenched limiting disbelief does not mean that others have not been swayed by the arguments.

In my eyes, you lost this debate years ago,

 

11 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

I tell you what, the ignore feature works wonders.

 

6 blue lines on a topic that each and every one of you nailed shut a long time ago.

It is a thing of beauty. I still read the posts from those I Ignore, but sort of use it as a reminder not to bother responding. I made a special exception for you this evening. You should be proud.

 

11 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Collectively, we have only BF hoaxes.

 

You have only yourselves to blame. 

 

PGF was a hoax. Deal with it.

Prove it... Oh that's right, you can't. (50 years and no debunk in sight)

 

11 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

For the record...

 

I just left Mr. Rick Shaheen a simple voicemail.

 

From his message he seems to be in charge of public skating schedules...

 

I can't wait to hear from him.

 

Also, reading ioyza's posts I've come to the conclusion that he is one of those 'special' people who encounters sasquatch everywhere he goes. Not jmo, a record here on forum.

 

I'll let you know what Mr. Shaheen says...

 

What does that have to do with this discussion? Gotta get your digs in I guess because somebody has different opinions and experiences than you.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

I already explained in the last line of my post.

 

Pay attention and move on.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

McSquatch:  you keep telling us to "pay attention" but, you haven't said anything worth paying attention to.  :crazy:   Sorry, that's just all talk and no walk.  Surely the PGf scofftic community has something better to offer than "it looks like a bloke in a suit", no?  (Nevermind, after 50+ years, we can see that you don't :  )

 

 

 

bigfoot-patty height Roger was 5-2 maybe.jpg

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
13 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

I already explained in the last line of my post.

Pay attention and move on.


You post something in the wrong thread and you think it is me that needs to pay attention? yeah...ok

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker
15 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

 

Conclusion of the Skeptics:

 

1) You have not presented any evidence to prove the existence of mountain lions  <------ (based on the limited parameters of your story).

2) Because you have said you have not even seen one or photographed a mountain lion yourself, any tracks must be faked tracks.

Nice strawman.

 

Mountain lions are a confirmed species, obviously. Your comparison is logically flawed, and childish. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
15 hours ago, Redbone said:

Self important much? Just because you haven't been swayed from your firmly entrenched limiting disbelief does not mean that others have not been swayed by the arguments.

In my eyes, you lost this debate years ago,

 

It is a thing of beauty. I still read the posts from those I Ignore, but sort of use it as a reminder not to bother responding. I made a special exception for you this evening. You should be proud.

 

Prove it... Oh that's right, you can't. (50 years and no debunk in sight)

 

What does that have to do with this discussion? Gotta get your digs in I guess because somebody has different opinions and experiences than you.

 

 

McSquatch brings up the ignorant things some people say such as 'seeing Bigfoot everywhere they go' and he is correct in thinking its all hogwash. The Internet is full of people who make others wonder if their elevator goes all the way to the top floor. It's true on both sides when some folks make claims like 'all one has to do to make deep tracks with enlarged rigid stompers in the same ground they can only walk atop of and hardly leave a mark while in their shoes' or that they own stompers and yet they never demonstrate that what they said is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

 

Quote

Mountain lions are a confirmed species, obviously.

 

 

That at is good to know.  BTW, Giganto is a confirmed one all be it assumed extinct.

 

Quote

 

Your comparison is logically flawed

 

 

 

Not one bit

 

Quote

 

, and childish. 

 

 

I'm not clever enough to be childish.  I did talk to a kid once who was able to do a card trick.  I asked him, " how did you do that?" He told me " my dad showed me and now I can do what he did".  See, the kid knew in order to know it was a trick it would have to be produced in a same or similar way.  Once he could do what his dad did he proved by demonstrating the same thing under near the same conditions it was a trick and that is how it was done.  

 

Care to do this with a Patty suit?

 

amazing what you can learn from a kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Of course mountain lions are a confirmed species - that doesn't mean that someone really saw one - so the "confirmed species" crap is meaningless as that was not the issue. Example: People in the Congo were reporting the hairy men who walked the jungle on two feet before the Bili Ape became a confirmed species. In other words - people who saw them before science confirmed their existence had told the truth.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, Bigfoothunter said:

^^

 

Of course mountain lions are a confirmed species - that doesn't mean that someone really saw one - so the "confirmed species" crap is meaningless as that was not the issue. Example: People in the Congo were reporting the hairy men who walked the jungle on two feet before the Bili Ape became a confirmed species. In other words - people who saw them before science confirmed their existence had told the truth.

 

 

 

 

And, by the skeptics' logic....there was no evidence of the Bili Apes' existence...until there was Proof of their existence.  ;) 

 

That is how the concept of 'evidence' works....in some people's brains.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

The metric that many of these “skeptics” use is to evaluate novel theories is whether or not it’s accepted by mainstream science. If it isn’t accepted by mainstream, they desperately try to explain it away with something seemingly mundane, which in cases like this is incorrect. 

 

If the theory that Patty is purely biological was accepted in mainstream, these same individuals would buy into it hook, line and sinker, regardless of whether or not it’s actually true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

^^^ Not even close.

 

I look at Patty and see an obvious guy in a suit.

 

When you peel back the layers that are the backstory, the onion is even more rotten than on the surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
2 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

The metric that many of these “skeptics” use is to evaluate novel theories is whether or not it’s accepted by mainstream science.

 

From what I have seen on this site - most skeptics do not appear to have ever had a science course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
3 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

 

I look at Patty and see an obvious guy in a suit.

 

 

 

...and yet Peter Brooke (of the Jim Henson Creature Shop) doesn't: 

 

"If it's a hoax"

 

" I don't know how they would have done that back in 1967"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...