Please welcome our new contributing editor Matt K.
Bigfoot Evidence is thrilled to announce the newest member of the editorial team, Matt K.! A frequent guest poster here on BFE, Matt also has a blog discussing the latest happenings in the Bigfoot community (kinda like BFE, but more serious).
I've asked Matt to join me as co-editor of the blog and he graciously accepted. Thanks, Matt! Please send Matt a warm welcome with your comments below or at his blog: http://www.bigfootcrossroads.com/
Follow Matt on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/BFCrossroads
First !
ReplyDeleteWElcome to the new cartoon character !
Dear Matt,
DeleteGet well soon.
Editor's Note: Matt K is one of the most credible people in the Bigfoot world.
ReplyDeleteSup K Man.
ReplyDeleteMy condolences.
ReplyDeleteWelcome Matt! Always have enjoyed reading your stuff!
ReplyDeletePeace.
Pwned by a bloke in a monkey suit.
DeleteBlowhard Fitzsimmons
DeleteWhy haven't you joined BFF yet? Or did they kick your ass out already?
2:54... Ok, stop crying and show me a monkey suit, easy as that old boy.
Delete3:04... Don't worry about me, worry about how you gonna cope with me kicking your arss around here.
You heard it here first, even the BFF loons kicked Joe the F out like "uhh...is this guy trolling?"
DeleteTell me, did they hold you by your arms...And piss on your face? Did you then cry about it?
No, really, did they do that to you?
Quite an imagination there old boy... Unfortunately for you it holds no weight in reality.
DeleteOh... And I'd watch out about your urinating comments. I couldn't give a crap but there were plenty of people (regular posters who don't comment anymore because of it it seems) complaining about it yesterday.
Just a friendly bit of advice.
haha we know it was you complaining, PJ.
Deleteand people stopped posting here because of YOU coming here, retarded troll
3:33...
DeleteI put this to bed yesterday;
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/watch-this-bigfoot-bounty-meets-ron.html?showComment=1390297764780#c5178963426415857148
"Blevins recreation hasn't the same muscle tone & hair texture and skin folds. Plus, the pictures you see the Blevins suit have had the width reduced by 5%. If we can only just make something a little close to Patty now... Then there's simply no way a Rookie film maker could have made a suit that good back then. If anything; Blevins' suit has helped to strengthen the claim that Patty is real, hominid flesh and blood."
"Blevins is a good effort, has to be said... But it's not accurate and used materials not available to Roger in 67, and it merely fuels my argument more than yours in the end, so I must thank you for that really."
Peace.
http://www.ourbigfoot.com/patterson_bigfoot_suit.html
Delete3:36... See for yourself;
Deletehttp://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/watch-this-how-not-to-base-jump.html
As much as you would like to think it bothers me, I can assure you I have had ten times worth thrown my way, it's purely just childish and not worth your effort if I'm totally honest. The only thing I've ever driven away are real trolls, you'll get yourself kicked off by the end though.
Anyway, check it out for yourself and take the word of warning.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletehttp://www.ourbigfoot.com/patterson_bigfoot_suit.html
Deletewe know it was you, don't strive too much
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletehttp://www.ourbigfoot.com/patterson_bigfoot_suit.html
Delete3:45... The thread don't lie bro, go and check it out. I couldn't give a crap what you post.
DeleteDirect your boo-hoo-ing at me by all means, I'm used to baby sitting your dum arsses anyway.
http://www.ourbigfoot.com/patterson_bigfoot_suit.html
DeleteHEY SHAWN
DeleteI want you to give a break to Joe's continuous talking of asses, it's just becoming unreadible
Read my comments and weep, ha ha ha ha!!!
DeleteSchooled.
PJ has driven away more believers, fence sitters, skeptics, and people in general from this site than any amount of other people combined.
DeleteThat's why this place turned into a shithole.
It's the PJ and Chuck show featuring occasional commentary by Chick, Fozzie, Nonarchaic Hominin, 4 different MMC and MMG's, 1 butthurt footer loon ranting about some JREF crap, and Dmaker.
Seriously, you email each other enough, do you really have to converse here daily as well? 95% of the time it's completely off topic anyway.
We used to have all kinds of great posters.
Now we have a welsh egomaniac with a skinny pecker who likes golden showers and some anonymous Canadian bastard.
This is why I only post on Proboards or BFF now.
3:39... Go and put the complaint in an email and send it to Shawn directly... I'm not the one calling for your removal, others are.
DeleteDeal with it.
This is the Internet, you moron. He can only theoretically ban me for a couple weeks. By the first hour, I'd just use a proxy if I wanted to post anything.
DeleteJesus. You aren't bright, are you?
3:50...
Delete"Bl;ah, blah, blah, sob, blah, blah, blah, sob, blah, blah, sob, blah, blah, blah, sob, blah, blah, sob, blah, blah, blah, sob, blah, blah, sob, blah, blah, blah, sob, blah, blah, sob, blah, blah, blah, sob"
There's only one reason, if any that people are not posting anymore, and it's cause of people like you... Funny that you along with Danny Boy your hero are the only ones who have kicked and cried and bitched and winjed for my removal.
Why? Because you can't cope with someone putting you straight... Simple as that. You haven't the intelligence or articulation to post on the BFF so you ain't kidding anyone. Pretty pathetic really.
Cry me river.
Just responded to his own post ^
DeleteWhat a loser.
Hey Joe, do you cup the balls while stroking the shaft? More importantly, do you swallow the gravy?
Delete3:35... Is the one that claimed to know all my personal details and threatened to contact my employers, remember?
DeleteWhat sad existence you must live to have to resort to that type of crap. Man... You are loathed around here and are seriously pushing posters away. Go and find something worthy of labeling a moral existence in the real world and leave the blog to people who want to discuss the subject matter.
I'm going back to work, can't be bothered exchanging with a creepy freak... Mark my words though, people have had enough, take it out on me by all means... You are the problem around here, nobody else.
Laters.
Keep making claims you have no way of proving. I didn't post dick about your so called 'personal details,' you maroon.
DeleteIf you're going back to work, then you won't be posting here for a while...right? I mean you have work to do.
DeleteI bet you don't make it 25 minutes before you are itching to hit that publish button.
See you shortly then sparklecake.
You posted the same creepy crap like;
Delete"He can only theoretically ban me for a couple weeks. By the first hour, I'd just use a proxy if I wanted to post anything."
... When the moderator confronted you about posting my email address, you're skating on thin ice my friend... Like I said, take it out on me by all means. It won't be because of me that you'll be banned in the end.
Did "I" now?
DeleteYou really aren't tech savvy are ya?
If I get banned, all I'll do when I want to post is connect to a new proxy. You can't ban someone on the internet, you can only ban them from accessing the internet. Then I just might get irritated and post some real messed up gore videos just to cause chaos.
All could have been avoided if you weren't a miserable piss licker.
I guess work is slow at Denny's today, huh Joe?
DeleteTold you that you wouldn't even make 25 minutes.
You feed off people talking to you online, you drama enticed queen.
Veni vidi vici
DeleteRight, back to schooling you tards...
Delete4:15... Sure sign of you getting schooled that you should keep posting that, you got blown out of the water yesterday and you getting schooled again today. Read my post at 3:37 and try and come to terms with it, yeah?
4:15... You need me so bad, what would your life be like if I wasn't here to smack you around in your little cyber world? Man, you need this more than anything,; your life is obviously that uneventful and artificial, I should probably oblige you, it's almost like providing a social care service.
4:18... Oscula asino.
you're here quite a bit much for pretending to accuse others of living in cyber world, PJ... what a moron
Deletewhoa, you surely have a hard job, 20 minutes a day!
what a fuckin' loser
I don't doubt that, never have... My point is that you people use this blog as a means of social life, as you lack any real interaction/affection in the real world because you are too socially inadequate... There is a sense of community and belonging in trolling/attacking blogs such as this, like the Nazi's coming together to unite against Jewish populations in the 30's, off the back of economic restraints. The difference is I don't need friends on a blog, and that's why schooling and debate is what's important to me here.
DeleteThis is what makes you cry, this is why you hate me and this is why I can suggest such things about you...
Geeks.
http://pgfhoax.blogspot.it/2011/11/patterson-gimlin-film-hoax-proven.html
DeleteHEY JOE!
DeleteDid you know that Patterson's dog is in the film at short distance from the Bigfoot? Apparently Bigfeets are really invisible to dogs, just like the russian yeti! Yikes, what a magical creature!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIVhiCnNvIw
Now enjoy your shameful enclosure in the basement
end of the journey, PJ
Deleteschooled
pwned
ridiculized
ol' little crying boy
cry me a river
Why just one track of Patty? Why the baerd?
Why just one track of Patty?
Schooled
But I bet you'll find many many maaaaaany words to explain and adjust the reality to your liking. But hey, one day, when you'll die, you'll learn and know...
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!
DeleteHave you seen what this DumDDumDum is suggesting is a 'cat and dog' in the footage? Have you actually seen what you are suggesting is a legitimate case?
Man... It's a dark blob that could quite easily be anything, a piece of wood, brush... Yet we are to believe it's a cat and dog? Something that not only doesn't even resemble the shape of anything like a cat and dog, but is also part of a fallen down tree?
Oh dear... Quite embarrassing.
Oh, and a reference to dogs not being as afraid of younger Sasquatch as opposed to older specimens is the recent 'Listen to Squachers Lounge Podcast Tonight at 7PM PST With Special Guest Damian Bravo (Archived)' blog page... If you skip to 19mins, there is a reference to this regarding the Georgia house 'Visitors in the Twilight' location that has been stalked by Sasquatch. Also, it is a very poor argument to suggest that you can account for the dog's behaviour in the moments leading up to the Yeti being filmed... The father (cameraman) had already established the whereabouts of the creature prior to filming, and we can therefore easily assume the man's dog had already reacted to the creature.
Schooled.
Was here just one track of Patty... Or is that just your take on reality, you silly little boy?
DeleteMan, you people ask for this drubbing so much, I'm happy to dish it out... No wonder I have this ego!
Clearly just one track of patty in the footage. Fact.
DeleteOne track not followed by other tracks. Fact.
Patty taking many steps. Fact.
Schooled. Fact.
Your 'facts', don't hold any water... You see one track being cast, so like your inability to use imagination, or think outside your immediate experiences (in this case the shot in the photograph); you suggest it isn't there... Like your ridiculous 'dog behavior with the Yeti' argument.
DeleteGetting boring...
I'm seeing one track being casted... and after that track, there is simply no more tracks in the direction of the pathway drawn by said single track, despite the terrain being exactly the same
DeleteYou've been served
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-s_XggutOqbQ/UgKrHGJTv0I/AAAAAAAAABI/qXeCHHzuR-g/s1600/nonextprint.jpg
DeleteHollywood Patterson
DeleteOh dear...
DeleteNotice it's the left foot, yeah? Notice that the camera shot doesn't allow/restricts you from seeing where the right foot is planted.
Man... the;
http://pgfhoax.blogspot.it/2011/11/patterson-gimlin-film-hoax-proven.html
... Is one of the biggest shams your theory group has produced and has been nailed with simple common sense a long time ago.
Sorry.
But patty had an inline step so you should be able to see it.
DeleteKnocked out the fucking park.
Bigfooters have always stated that Bigfoot walks in a straight line, and many casts were validated, also by you, because of this. So you should be able to see the next track.
DeleteSchooling 1
Also of note is Roger Patterson's clean shaven face in the casting footage, and then shown with a heavy beard growth in the cast display footage by a large tree. (alleged to have been shot on the same day at Bluff Creek in California - Oct 20 1967) This beard growth in such a short time?
Schooling 2
Where is your Patty's inline step gone, PJ?
Deleteahahahahahah it's incredible how you are able to forget things that you were spamming out of your shi**y mouth just two minutes before
Ok I admit defeat the evidence is overwhelming that patty was a hoax
DeleteMMG
Irrelevant... The photograph doesn't allow for any track way to be seen, easy as that.
DeleteAlso... The is he clean shaven? Is that the accepted time frame??
"According to long term research from the likes of Christopher Murphy and others, these images were taken at Bluff Creek. They are on the second film roll that Patterson was going to use for his documentary, not “Rene’s film.” The images were naturally taken by Bob Gimlin using Roger Patterson’s rented camera.
Murphy, working with image upgrades from Bill Munns, passes this along: “The images are on the second roll. I am reasonably sure this roll was sent for processing with the other roll on the evening of October 20. The film images could not, therefore, have been taken in Yakima, or anywhere else for that matter, the next day.
“Given the second roll was not sent with the first roll: The images are taken in sunlight. It rained the next day. Although I suppose the sun could have come out briefly."
“Patterson is unshaven and in his grubby clothes. If he took the images the next day, then he either did not shave or change (slept in his clothes) or put the same cloths on the next day for the benefit of the photos."
Oh dear, hope you didn't crack open the champaign after that...
POW!!
Joe you got absolutely destroyed today. More so than usual. Sorry bro. We all have our off days.
DeleteReally?Ha ha ha ha!!!!
DeleteMan, you need to read the threads... Learn something and ask yourself who got tuned exactly.
No, no... The pleasure's all mine.
; )
8:17... The third worst fake MMG I've ever seen.
Deletenono you're not gonna go away with that.
DeletePatterson said to have taken the film on october 20. He gave the film on october 22nd. And that was yet very suspicious given the too much short time to travel from bluff creek to a location into which develop the old film (extracting a film was a very long process). now the timespan has gone to one day.
you're doing a bad job to yourself, pj
also are you aware of the fact that your copypaste is contradicting? Firstly you say that the second roll was sent with the first, then you say it wasn't
you're doing a very bad job, PJ
yeah, one day to develop a 60's roll
Deleteyou're mad
3:50, 'JREF crap'? That's apt.
DeleteThe JREF take-action fleas are hopping all about again, bouncing off Elephant Joe as ineffectually as ever.
'Nono'? I'll whatever I like, old boy... Which includes giving you another pasting with this next comment;
Delete"Friday, October 20, 1967
At approximately 1:30PM, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin begin filming a hairy bipedal subject walking away from them, up Bluff Creek.
59.5 seconds later (assuming 16 FPS film speed), the role of film runs out.
Gimlin pursues the film subject up the creek on horseback for approximately 300 yards before returning to Patterson.
The pair spend about 15 minutes rounding up Patterson's horse.
Patterson changes the film in his camera under a poncho at the film site.
They return on horseback to Gimlin's truck (at Louse Camp?) for casting materials.
Upon returning to the film site, Patterson and Gimlin attempt to track the film subject. Gimlin follows sign for approximately 200' up the mountain before stopping due to the terrain.
Two casts are made - one of a left foot impression and one of a right foot impression. Patterson chooses the most perfect, foot-shaped imprints he can find.
Patterson documents the trackway on a second roll of film. This film is subsequently lost.
Patterson and Gimlin leave Bluff Creek and drive to Eureka, CA, to send the film via airplane to Yakima, WA, to be processed. Note that according to Daniel Perez, John Green's recollection is they drove to Arcata, CA, although all other sources say they went to Eureka. The two towns are only 8 miles apart.
While in Eureka, they call Patterson's brother-in-law Al DeAtley, Albert Hodgson of Willow Creek, CA, and the British Columbia Museum in Victoria, BC, requesting dogs and scientists be sent to the film site. While the museum sends no one, they do call John Green who in turn notifies Rene Dahinden.
Patterson calls the Yakima Times-Standard and is interviewed by an unknown reporter.
Patterson and Gimlin return to Willow Creek, CA, and speak to Al Hodgson and Sylvester McCoy before returning to Louse Camp."
Well according to the timeline I provided you, on the Friday the 20th...
"Patterson and Gimlin leave Bluff Creek and drive to Eureka, CA, to send the film via airplane to Yakima, WA, to be processed."
This would give ample time for the film to be processed. If the processing machine in Yakima was already running there would have been no need to "fire it up" on Saturday. Possibly DeAtely had an arrangement with this "friend" to develop any film Roger came up with "under the table".
Furthermore... The comment I pasted didn't put "Given the second roll was not sent with the first roll..." In bold, to suggest even if that possibility was the case, there is still an easy explanation.
Bad day? Man, I've smacked you about like a bitch, and I'm here the rest of the day to give you as much as you need.
Easy.
I'm not gonna spend my time reading all this shit. nevertheless, it would be impossible to you to accept something that creeps your belief.
Deleteenjoy your vacancy and all your "schooled" "numpty" ecc. like a crybaby child, you're making good use of your life, man!
BOOOOOMMMMMM!!!
DeleteNow run along, you've been schooled by Mr Joe Fitzgerald.
Don't let it ruin your day!
^ Exactly proving my point
DeleteThe point here is you know nothing... You think you know something, but you should get an understanding of the wider something. You dig?
DeleteYour inability to read what hurts you sums up yor inability to look at the subject matter fairly.
I mean that with as little offense as possible.
^ Continues to prove my point
DeleteMan joe got destroyed, did you hold it against him Joe. When...well........you know
DeleteSometimes PJ gets them menstrual cramps real hard.
DeleteIs it as obvious to everyone else as it is to me that Joe emailed his regular buddies like Chic, MMC, and a few others and decided that they would all complain to Shawn about the pee in the face guy. LOL. How obvious and pathetic. Who would have thought that the regular posters who get criticized constantly would be driven off by comments about pee.
DeleteIf thats the case we need more talk of that so we can get rid of Joe, Joes other accounts, MMC, Chic, Chics other accounts, etc.
Yep, one of "the most credible people in bigfoot" for sure. Joe should love him
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6ZtlOaiQqk
ReplyDeletePARABREAKDOWN: CRAVEN BIGFOOT FOOTAGE!
Unless you can search on google for "monkey suit" and get zero results then patty is a bloke in a suit.
ReplyDeleteYou say monkey suits don't exist. Google thinks otherwise.
DeletePwned.
None that alter the proportions of a human being.
DeleteSchooled.
http://www.ourbigfoot.com/patterson_bigfoot_suit.html
DeleteDealt with up top.
DeleteOur very own Lord of the Lunkheads, Prince of the Prats, Duke of the Dunces, 'bloke in a suit' dork is here. Yay.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSign #17 that this blog has jumped the shark and is failing miserably.
ReplyDeleteHey, I have an idea! Let's just ban everyone, screen comments, an have the same 4 people here everyday patting each other on the back. Yeah. That will make this place awesome!
*pukes*
At least Daniel Campbell brought some life to this place. Ever since he left this place has rocketed downhill at an alarming pace.
Joe is still here so plenty of comedy
Delete3:03...
Delete"Boo hoo... Boo hoo... Boo hoo..."
He's dull, unworthy of interaction, and steals most of his retorts and joke from creative people like Campbell.
DeleteI haven't seen plagiarism that bad since MLK Jr applied for college.
3:10...
Delete"Boo hoo... Boo hoo... Boo hoo..."
What are "sounds from Mum's basement in Wales" for $200, Alex.
DeleteIt's true though. For a solid 14 hours a day, this person is here making post after post. Craving attention, craving interaction, whether good or bad, he just needs someone to talk to him.
DeleteThe ultimate virgin dweeb with a pair of black rimmed glasses drenched in Drakar Noir.
... Says the geek who needs the drama in his little cyber world. Cry me a river... You're only upset cause you get your arss handed to you more than you would like.
Delete; )
point is: the world doesn't accept Bigfoot
Deleteyou lose
Tell it to Sykes, Attenborough and Goodall.
Delete; )
Again PJ? Seriously?
DeleteWhen you'll learn that considering the possibility is not equal to stating its existence? When, PJ?
Skeptical of the reality, open to the possibility.
Delete3:50... Considering the possibility is significant.. It also calls into question your fragile mind who in stark contrast is too fearful to at least have such an open mind.
Delete3:56... A true skeptic self corrects and looks at the evidence impartially. It is otherwise denialism; this renders you very far from being open to the possibility because you pose rhetorical arguments that are disguised as legitimate debate which actually have an agenda to out-rightly dismiss.
Peace.
Thought you were back to work?
DeleteCan't stay away, can you?
denialism is you not wanting to look at a patty video recreation, ol' boy. you should take example from attenb and be open to the possibility of Bigfoot's nonexistence, noob.
DeleteYa, weren't you going off to work? Bet there is no work
4:17...
DeleteDidn't you embarrass yourself with this yesterday? Show me this imaginary Patty recreation and then you have a point.
Oh dear... Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!
Also, Attenborough made it quite clear he's open to the idea, not the opposite (man, I'm baby sitting clowns!)
For your information, people access desktop's in the work environment all the time... If you weren't a silly little child that should be sleeping ready for school tomorrow, then you'd grasp that.
HEY JOE HOW'S DENNY'S?
DeleteDID THEY REHIRE TRAVIS YET?
Read my post at 3:37 and try and come to terms with it, yeah?
Deletehttp://www.ourbigfoot.com/patterson_bigfoot_suit.html
Delete^ Annihilated.
Deletehttp://www.ourbigfoot.com/patterson_bigfoot_suit.html
DeleteDealt with up top.
DeleteLast word
DeleteJoe, if Matt K pee'd in your face, would you hold it against him??
DeleteYou guys keep pickin on PJ and he will indeed have a meltdown leading to a second banning from a Bigfoot Blog...yep, a Bigfoot Blog.
Deleteo boy! was that neccessary to put the word 'serious' in the same sentence as bigfoot.
ReplyDeleteo the humanity
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's 7:30am....
DeleteNot quite sure how the education system is in Wales but here in America, we go to school during the daylight hours.
DeleteMoron.
Exactly! Now shouldn't you be in bed!! You'll be falling asleep at your desk!! Now lights out!!!
DeleteMost schools on the east coast have been in class for an hour...
DeletePlus it's a snow day.
Are you retarded or just slow?
Are you of the belief that the world revolves around American time zones and weather reports? Nothing more dum-dum than that...
Deleteyou were the first bringing american to the table... oh look you removed the comment
Deletewhat a child...
boy you're silly
Purely cause I put it in the wrong place, you will notice... Look up top.
DeleteSchooled.
don't be wrong next time then
DeleteIdiot
Phono doubt I was wrong... And it put you in your place: numpty.
DeleteIs there anyone that comes here for the blog content? Im just here to see the joe vs everyone show.
ReplyDeletei'm just looking for harvey the rabbit. anyone seen harvey.
DeleteLucky if I come here at all anymore, sometimes I just stop by to drop a load in joes mouth and continue on while he spends every waking moment on here.
DeleteCry me a river... You've been served too many times, is what your problem is.
DeleteI come here solely to read the pee in the face comments
DeleteThe blevins suit shows the "impossible" proportions of patty. Joe knows this which is why he diverts to "muscle tone" and other such nonsense that is beyond the film resolution.
ReplyDeleteJoe wants matching arm proportions and blevins does that. Make the fur colour a bit more brown and film it in an open creek in the autumn at a distance on a film camera that is being shaked and there is your pgf.
Joe and his like are failing miserably which is why they have to resort to a 50 year old shady film to back up their beliefs. That in itself is devastating evidence that there is no bigfoot to find.
Schooled.
Like I said yesterday; this is very old news... And was put to bed a long time ago.
DeleteHaving to reduce the width by 5% is pretty much as damning as you can get when you are looking at 2D photographs; this is something I'm sure you are not aware of. The muscle tone is not even comparative, neither the spinal erectors and the upper leg proportions are not the same as Patty.
Extended toes;
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8zIE3ZPvCLY
Percentages for scale comparatives of that of a normal human can be attained and have been. Patty's arms are 10% longer than those of a normal human and also have bending fingers. These are also longer than the Blevins recreation, this is plain as day for you to see for yourselves. Limb proportions don't lie, regardless of the exact measurements not being attainable. When Bill Munns compares the proportions of Patty to a 'normal human'; we see something very obvious in the junction of two points of the right leg when pasted on top of each other, from the hip socket. It is here where you have an amazing example of the posture of the upper and lower leg of Patty; the upper leg is far shorter. The crotch area of Patty is far more higher than the average human norm and like Bill States; "when you put a costume on, it always adds, it never subtracts". If you were to put the 'costume' on a human being, then we would expect the crotch area to be lower than what is clearly not the case when comparing the proportions. This is no more evident in the Blevins recreation and props up my point amazingly, so thank you for that.
I will say it again... When you compare the two subjects; a normal human and Patty; Patty's arms are 10% longer when trying to apply all the other anatomy... It doesn't fit, and a normal human would have to be deformed to do so. Exact measurements cannot be attained; I pretty much made that clear from the start.
Blevins is a good effort but far from accurate and used materials not available to Roger in 1967, and it merely fuels my argument more than yours in the end.
Educatin'!
Also!!!
DeleteThere is a reason why you are only presented with edited, reduced by 5% images as opposed to running footage...
I wonder why? Because the muscle tissue in the back has nothing in the way of even remotely mimicking the moving tissue of the subject in the PGF!
Thank you.
There we go again on "muscle tissue" etc completely missing the point of the post because he is just too stupid to understand.
DeleteNo, no... I understood and knocked it out of the ball park!
DeleteMuscle tissue is pretty much as significant as it gets because if you cannot imitate that, 46 years later, with materials that weren't available to Roger Patterson; then that's it.
Peace.
you say there is "no costume that alters human proportions".
DeleteWell, that is. It doesn't alter the human proportions exactly the same percentage as Patty? No problem, the point is that altering proportions is possible.
Oh, and for you judging the exact percentages of proportions from a 50year old shaky blurry video, I have two words for you.
Perspective
now cop "illusion" with it
Think again
Perspective
You've been shot and now you're dead
Bigfoots invisible to dogs
DeleteHEY JOE!
Did you know that Patterson's dog is in the film at short distance from the Bigfoot? Apparently Bigfeets are really invisible to dogs, just like the russian yeti! Yikes, what a magical creature!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIVhiCnNvIw
Now enjoy your shameful enclosure in the basement
Unfortunately for you, your argument doesn't wash and wouldn't to a ten year old. Altering human proportions, laughably... Isn't possible. "when you put a costume on, it always adds, it never subtracts", funny that the upper leg doesn't mimic proportions of a normal human, it's that simple. Blevins doesn't accomplish this and as much as you bang on about perspective, it doesn't accomplish this.
DeleteIt might be news to you, but we have digital, cleaned up, stabelized versions of the PGF that helps you with your 'perspective cry'.
Now cop 'schooled' with it... And cry me a river.
what cleaned video has to do with perspective? go on the net and have a search of what perspective is.
Deleteoh boy you're stupid
Also, if you think that Blevins suit doesn't seem to alter human proportions, you have some serious problems in your brain
perspective
Deletepəˈspɛktɪv/
noun
noun: perspective
1.
the art of representing three-dimensional objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the right impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other.
"the theory and practice of perspective"
THIS WOULD ARTICLUATE PERFECTLY THE REQUIREMENT OF ALTERING BLEVINS' PHOTOGRAPHS BY 5%!!!
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!
(Definition continued...) a particular attitude towards or way of regarding something; a point of view.
"most guidebook history is written from the editor's perspective"
ARTICLUATES FURTHER YOUR FRAGILE MIND TRYING TO GRASP THE FOOTAGE!!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
I tell you what cleaned up footage has to do with perspective; it means that you can see the back muscle tissue far better, compare that to the lifeless Blevins (that we don't even see in motion, I wonder why?), and there you have my point.
DeletePeace.
Try again, numpty
DeletePerspective, in the context of vision and visual perception, is the way in which objects appear to the eye based on their spatial attributes; or their dimensions and the position of the eye relative to the objects.
In perspective, the size and detail of objects depicted corresponds to their relative distance from the imagined position of the observer"
try again, turd
... Which still doesn't explain how a human's upper leg proportions, for just one example; can be decreased. This is evident over the entire course of consecutive frames and cannot be a result of 'blurry film,, like you laughingly keep suggesting. Forget the exact measurements... Your argument holds weight with regards to the actual height of the subject and distance from the camera... But forget your silly little argument because it has been blown apart for the second day running.
DeleteIt also renders your argument even more significantly void when you realize that we don't have the Blevins subject in motion, and the photographs had to be edited.
Man, you must be pretty miserable.
^ Fool
Delete^ Schooled.
DeleteJoe...way to school these fools man. Keep up the good work..its a child...they have'nt matured yet!
DeleteNo one is schooled when your argument rests entirely on a hoaxed film from the 60s
DeleteNothing rests on the PGF; it is one piece of the puzzle though, old boy.
Delete4:57, Patty's muscle tone is not beyond the resolution of the film.
DeleteIt is apparently beyond the resolution of your congnitive ability.
Back to the JREF for another brush up and refuel. See you soon.
Joe fitsgerald ! Hi hope all is great,! Spring is approaching slowly here but I thought if u had any questions regarding sasqwatch ?? I'm here and I'll answer anything u want to throw at me I have a amazing area here and if there is something about them u wanted to now I'll tell u today!! Have a good day joe I'll talk to u later!!!!
ReplyDeleteHey TTL!! How are you bro?!
DeleteI was wondering if you tell me if the Sasquatch you study ever use quadrupedal motion??
Peace.
How much reliable will be the studies of a guy not able to spell correctly?
DeleteHi joe! Yes they do use quadrapedal motion all the time, when there moving threw the edge of the cuts in the bush they seem to always be on all fours and u will notice a arch in there back while on all fours. They move slow and stealthy just like bears during the days, very hard to pick out if u don't now what your doing but if they get disturbed buy me they will go from all fours then up on two and back on all fours it just depends on the terrian
DeleteYes I can not spell very good sorry!
DeleteAlso joe this area has been clear cut 17 years ago and the sasqwatch seem to like it even more now I m Shure it's cause they have more spots to ambush there pray infact I now that's why anything else joe F just keep it coming?
DeleteThank you TTL! I really appreciate that... Have you seen them hunting on all fours??
DeletePeace.
Oh ya joe u would probably already now about the eye shine it just depends on what kind of flash light your using ( type of bulb) u get bit different color red to a yellow or amber ttl
DeleteJoe ! The arch in there back is more prominent in the taller ones due to there long legs !!! Nothing special just in case u wondering ttl
DeleteJoe we rarely see them hunting but if u now were they sit up to stalk there pray there will usually be one or two set up in that spot just above and below the game trail so if u can get far enough away with a good scope u can watch them almost do nothing for long time if u have the time but your placement is key given they r there and u now what places they stalk if it's a area they have grown into ttl joe f
DeleteThanks TTL.
DeleteWe need to talk off this blog, do you have email yet?
Peace.
No not yet and that's the truth joe! But I promiss this spring I will get a email set up for u and will still be sitting up game cameras etc for u I really think u will enjoy it espially if u could get a live feed for your own viewing and even at worst u get now bf on it your going to get some amazing footage that's a promise ttl any questions just ask! But as far as the game cameras go will talk threw email and not on here have a good day joe f ! I'm also going to be talking to William jenving this spring to get some thoughts from him on what I have going on and that's the only person who I will be talking about what's going on. Ttl joe
DeleteJoe fits! One thing I can't understand on these bf shows or any bf tv or u tube post with people setting up game cameras is that everyone of them set the trail camera up on a game trail and the bf s never travel the game trails! They might travel beside one to find a spot to stalk game so is everyone this ablivious to these animals and knowing how they hunt u would probably have a better chance of just throwing your trail camera into the bush from a game trail, anyone care to expand on this and why people r setting up cameras on game trails?
DeleteThanks so much TTL!! I really appreciate your information... Can't wait to talk to you on email, loads to discuss off this blog.
DeleteHope you are well.
Joe, do you and TTL hold it against each other when.........you know
DeleteHey Joe. Looks like you got the boy that is still peeing his pants upset.
ReplyDeleteDid you take a look at the Craven, SK bigfoot a couple of blogs back and any thoughts. It appears to have the right shoulders, conical type head, and no neck. Not enough back story for me to go on and that region of the country is I believe a huge durham wheat farming area, which would severely limit cover. However it is at the end of a really big lake.
Anyone from this area with some good thoughts?
Chuck
Hey Chuck!!
DeleteMy thoughts were exactly the same buddy... I thought it looked good, just not enough back story to commit. I would love to read the thoughts of someone local to that area too!!
Peace Chuck!!
Joe - by the way...I'm a "random" anon poster.
DeleteI post every so often.
I bet I have posted at least 4 or 5 items that people jump in and conclude that it must be you.
It must be a little frustrating. Anyway...
:) fyi
I've been exposed to every degenerately severe example of cyber paranoia possible, whilst blogging here... Nothing surprises me anymore, so n worries.
DeletePeace.
Glad to have you contributing Matt. What would be neat would be to have you contribute in articles and discussion, much like a radio talk show host does as I am sure you have some experience and ideas that this site could use. Best to you.
ReplyDeleteChuck
I use to think Patterson was legit.. with the amount of hoaxers (there are a bunch) any more i pretty much refuse to believe anything in regards to the boogers...ive moved on the boogustler especially the pics and such...in the march edition she is quite hairy..
ReplyDeleteOh boy another nasty full-of-himself Footer with a fake name. (And an ugly cartoon face.)
ReplyDelete^ another nasty full-of-himself skepzoid, oh lucky for us
DeleteLol 7:20, you are right on the money. What would this blog be without it though. Its already a clown show here
DeleteThis guy Matt K was pwned over at the Coalition FB page by the admin...Matt K wants to blame only Dyer and Musky and the guy who made the body for Dyer's hoax. He's too short sighted and protective of the other big-heads to acknowledge the rush to either believe or "fence-sit" and therefore give the whole thing the oxygen it needed to keep going.
ReplyDeleteAnd now Rhetman Mullis the Professor will only say it's 60% likely a hoax? After he saw the "body" we all saw? But everyone is just a poor victimized outsider to Matt K. That just gives the blowhards the room to welcome the next hoaxer and absolves them of any responsibility. Mullis' new 60/40 thing is a total joke and embarrassment to all of Bigfootery when it can already barely stand bipedally.
Dyer is not a popular topic but if you sweep him under the rug you're doomed to repeat all the wider pathologies that are now making it possible for him to emerge as the most famous Footer in America. Congratulations. He succeeded.
Mulletman is a text book looney toon footer
Delete^ textbook tooneytard skepfool
DeleteI finally figured out Justin Semja has been lying since day one. His now ever present underarms and Joe Dirt persona are derivative as well. What a Smeja. Pnkd.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first part, although with Smeja I think what you see is what you get.
DeleteSmeja has turned his "I shot up a dang bigfoot" lie into something of a celebrity in the bigfoot community getting on tv shows and lots of booty. What a douche
DeleteSo does everyone like the Canadian Guys footage!! In Saskatchewan haha its in northern Ontario and that's in his driveway of his house, some of his worst footage but if he releases his good footage this summer people r going to freak out so enjoy that tast from the Canadian Guy , but wait for what's coming. Cheers
ReplyDeleteGW knows wheres the bigfoots goes
ReplyDeleteHey Joe, did I miss something? Have you become an active poster on the BFF?
ReplyDeleteThe reason I ask is that upthread you mocked someone for not having the intelligence or articulation to post on the BFF. So I assume that you are now posting there?
Nope... Just know enough about the etiquette there to know that poster was telling lies.
DeletePeace.
Is it the rules of etiquette that keep you from posting there Joe?
DeleteSays who? You?!
Deletehttp://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/37621-bigfoot-research-still-no-evidence-continued/
... It appears you need to respect a bit of etiquette from time to time.
; )
Joe if dmaker.....you know.........would you hold it against him??
DeleteCant take much credence in a cartoon character. But after Damian Bravo anything is an improvement
ReplyDeleteEarly settlers' diaries spoke of an angry Welsh boy with lots of moxie....no Squatch, but plenty of moxie.
ReplyDeleteYGNALI
Great to see Matt K join the team Shawn!
ReplyDeleteGood choice
Matt K. Good choice
ReplyDelete