We're Pretty Sure That Not Even Matt Moneymaker Can Afford This Amazing Night Vision Camera
Hey, Bigfooters. Are you ready to be blown away by a new night vision camera technology? For those who can afford such a device, this new Falcon Eye KC-2000 nightvision camera can turn nighttime into daytime like magic -- in full color! Holyshhhh. This demo is freaking amazing. The company behind it hasn't release the price yet, but we're pretty sure that only serious squatchers (with lots of dough) will be able to afford such a magical tool:
[via Gizmodo]
FIRSTTTTT
ReplyDeleteUncle Wally's pockets are very deep.
DeleteToo bad even these cameras won't help you find something that doesn't exist.
Nice first buddy!
ReplyDeleteSecond!!!
Regards, LL
Not first. Good looking camera picture
ReplyDeleteWhat kind if jackass calls himself moneymaker? A dumb one.
ReplyDeleteRegards, Lord Lickertits
Its just too easy.
ReplyDeleteBloke in a suit.
Show us the verified evidence of bigfoot? We can do it no problem for every other species. Why not bigfoot? Too easy. Cos it don't exist.
Royally smoked.
The funniest thing is the footers will attempt to shoehorn anything they can to be "evidence" of bigfoot. None of it is scientificly acceptable of course but it sure does give us a hilarious circus show to watch. No complaints here.
Let's go back to the packham bigfoot suit that joe and the resident butthurt footer and poster boy for footer stupidity were talking about earlier. Do you really look at that and think that was a recreation of the pgf? Of course it wasn't. If it was an actual recreation attempt you'd think they would at least get the colour right. The bbc just got a costume company to make them a bigfoot suit and that is what they got. This is a classic example of one of many failed arguments put forth by the footers.
If we want to look at a patty recreation how about we actually look at one rather than using one that clearly wasnt meant to be a patty recreation.We have 2 examples of these. We have the dfoot recreation and the blevins recreation. Both excellent examples. Blevins recreated the arm proportions perfectly but his budget was too low to get a similar style fur. Dfoots recreation showed identical "muscle" and bulk, quite excellent really. This is the same guy that made patty bleevers on the bff look like fools when he photoshopped patty onto a different background and all the bleevers said it was an obvious suit. He embarrassed them so bad they banned him and swept the whole thing under the giant footers rug of ignorance. Also lets not forget that side by side shot of a gemora butt with the patty butt. Identical.
And anyway the whole notion of requiring an identical replication is nonsense anyway. The footers know this which is why they use it, instead of doing something like, oh I dont know, find a real life specimen that matches patty.
Its just too easy.
Fish in a barrel.
Got Patty diaper butt??
OK bloke in a suit, Lord of the Lunatics, you're busted.
DeleteYour claim that Jeff Pruitt AKA Dfoot tricked all the footers at the BFF by superimposing an image of Patty onto a different background is not accurate:
http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/36240-dfoots-theories-on-the-pgf-as-a-hoax/page-4
Dfoot cobbled together different pieces of Patty from different parts of the PGF and created a Frankenpatty. He distorted the images of Patty. He didn’t simply lift a Patty image onto a new BG. He created a new cobbled together image of Patty.
He distorted Patty's image to change her proportions, then claimed he'd trapped all those who said the image looked wrong (which it did), by saying Ah ha, it IS Patty, I have trapped you all, I win, yipee.
That's cheating, an old jref trick.
You are guilty of it bloke in a suit by propagating Pruitt's/Dfoot's hoax and claiming it's "real." You can see some of the photos created by Dfoot at the link above. This is dishonest. You claiming that Dfoot ambushed and tricked hundreds of footers by inserting an image of Patty, and some footers doubting the image, is dishonest, it’s a hoax. They doubted it because it wasn't Patty, it was Frankenpatty; it was a montage of images from the PGF pieced together to create something which didn't look right, with different proportions than what you see if you watch the PGF.
It is dishonest to claim that Dfoot tricked and fooled all footers. You are overlooking those who called him out on his prank, and that he altered the image of Patty.
Again, so you understand, he did not superimpose a select image of Patty from one still from the PGF onto an urban background; instead he used many Patty images, when she was at varying distances from Roger's camera (and so changing size and proportions due to varying distance and angle), and created a new figure out of these pieces.
What you have claimed here on BFE is simply another hoax. You are just regurgitating what Dfoot already did. You are lying about why he was booted from the BFF. You are lying about what he did with the Patty image.
One more chestnut: Dfoot attempted to create a Patty lookalike suit, and gave up halfway through. Champion!
Line up your heroes: Dfoot, Packham, Bob H, Blevins.
It's not looking good, bloke in a suit.
My heavens, 6:34 is quite the butthurt footer-fearing jref loon this morning, isn't he?
DeleteIts just too easy.
DeleteBloke in a suit.
Show us the verified evidence of bigfoot? We can do it no problem for every other species. Why not bigfoot? Too easy. Cos it don't exist.
Royally smoked.
The funniest thing is the footers will attempt to shoehorn anything they can to be "evidence" of bigfoot. None of it is scientificly acceptable of course but it sure does give us a hilarious circus show to watch. No complaints here.
Let's go back to the packham bigfoot suit that joe and the resident butthurt footer and poster boy for footer stupidity were talking about earlier. Do you really look at that and think that was a recreation of the pgf? Of course it wasn't. If it was an actual recreation attempt you'd think they would at least get the colour right. The bbc just got a costume company to make them a bigfoot suit and that is what they got. This is a classic example of one of many failed arguments put forth by the footers.
If we want to look at a patty recreation how about we actually look at one rather than using one that clearly wasnt meant to be a patty recreation.We have 2 examples of these. We have the dfoot recreation and the blevins recreation. Both excellent examples. Blevins recreated the arm proportions perfectly but his budget was too low to get a similar style fur. Dfoots recreation showed identical "muscle" and bulk, quite excellent really. This is the same guy that made patty bleevers on the bff look like fools when he photoshopped patty onto a different background and all the bleevers said it was an obvious suit. He embarrassed them so bad they banned him and swept the whole thing under the giant footers rug of ignorance. Also lets not forget that side by side shot of a gemora butt with the patty butt. Identical.
And anyway the whole notion of requiring an identical replication is nonsense anyway. The footers know this which is why they use it, instead of doing something like, oh I dont know, find a real life specimen that matches patty.
Its just too easy.
Fish in a barrel.
Um... You said that already, a few times in fact. You might want to get tested.
DeleteBring on those X ray vision glasses !
ReplyDeleteof course they can afford it
ReplyDeleteif only their prime motive was to actually find bigfoot