Get These Awesome Sasquatch Sculptures/Statues For 25% Off! Before They Are Gone!
So, you've seen Dyer's fake Bigfoot dummy and you weren't the least bit impressed by it? Well. Here's something you can actually own and touch, and it's 100% made with love and care (made of solid hydrostone). Our friend Jason Shanaman has a special deal going on right now at etsy.com and he's prepared to take a 25% hit on it as a promotional offer. The link is below, including some awesome pics of Jason's work:
25% off sale on all sculptures, pendants boxes etc. in my Etsy Shop. All you need is the coupon code and the code is ARTSALE enter ARTSALE when prompted and you will receive the discount when checking out. Below are a few examples. Thanks for looking! Here is the link to my shop http://www.etsy.com/shop/jasonshanamanart
FIRST AGAIN!!!
ReplyDeleteRegards, Lord lickeypussy
Ernie is Joe Fitz.
Delete^he's gay enough to be
DeleteHey you're the one following other posters around with obsessed behaviors.^
DeleteThere he is!!!
DeleteThere I am.
Delete^ MMC or Kent Obsessed with Joe obsessors
DeleteSecond first!!
ReplyDeleteRegards, LL
Hurry up guys!!! Buy this piece of Bigfoot sh*t before they are all gone!!! You know you need more worthless sh*t lying around!
ReplyDeleteDamn, message bigfoot gots some big azz titties.
ReplyDeleteMrs bigfoot I meant.
DeleteIts 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.
OK bloke in a suit, you're busted.
DeleteYour claim that Jeff Pruitt AKA Dfoot tricked all the footers at the BFF by superimposing an image of Patty onto 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 didnt 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, 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.
DeleteCurrently researching your other claim bloke in a suit:
Your assertion that the BBC Packham X-Creatures phony bigfoot was not an attempt to recreate the PGF appears to be a laughable lie:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bigfoot.research/ALBqUaKK8bc
"Packham decided in his own words "to pay homage to Bluff Creek", by attempting to recreate how the footage may have been faked, using the same type of hand-held Kodak used by Patterson and laying out the path the creature took as precisely as possible the BBC crew filmed a large actor costumed in a rather unconvincing suit (no doubt supplied by Jon Vulich's studio),"
Let's not forget this redux attempt was done at Bluff Creek, at the original film site, bloke in a suit.
OK yes, the BBC and Packham went to the Bluff Creek film site, had an expert costume maker
produce a suit, used the same bloody camera Patterson did, had the actor walk the same ruddy
path Patty walked . . . but oh oh oh oh no, no no no WAY did the BBC and Packham try to recreate the PGF. That is your claim. What a joke!
You're just a propagandist and a lowbrow lowlife liar.
Talk about too easy, talk about fish in a barrel; in your case, it's mentally deficient fish in a barrel, whom we can only pity.
Its 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.
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.
Its 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.
I want three statues -- one to shit on, one to cover it up with, and a third to wipe my ass with.
ReplyDeleteCome out and play Ernie. We didn't say you could leave yet.
ReplyDeleteYou call yourself we now. Figured.
DeleteObsessed stalker^
HAHAHA puppet on a string. I love it.
DeleteI know you love it. Obsessed^
DeleteI am obsessed. WITH YOU.
DeleteLet's trade emails.
Of course you are. Pure obsession^
DeleteCan we be friends?
Delete^^ MMC or Kent Obsessed with Joe obsessors
DeleteNope. Obsessed^
Delete^ MMC or Kent Obsessed with Joe obsessors
DeleteNope. Keep scrambling for answers though :)
DeleteObsessed^
^ MMC or Kent Obsessed with Joe obsessors
DeleteObsession unhinged^
Delete^ MMC or Kent Obsessed with Joe obsessors
DeleteErnie your a peace of garbage.
ReplyDelete*hugs and kisses
Delete^ MMC or Kent Obsessed with Joe obsessors
DeleteNope, keep scrambling for answers though. Obsessed ^
Delete^ boob
Deletes
Delete^ MMC or Kent Obsessed with Joe obsessors
Deleteso its now a bigfoot blog and gift shop eh?
ReplyDelete^why not? bigfoot's just a racket anyway
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere he goes, deleting comments again. Where have we seen someone do this before........Hmmm.......
Delete^ MMC or Kent Obsessed with Joe obsessors
Nah I placed a comment in the wrong spot. Keep up your obsession though, and keep on scrambling :)
DeletePopeyes arms
ReplyDelete500.00 sawbucks.
ReplyDeleteSmokin FIRST LL
ReplyDeleteIt's only a statue, bigfooters: it's as fake as the "real thing".
ReplyDelete