Well the IDIOT was on ET tonight... :yuck:
Got a Good Laugh out of it if nothing else

Belle,

I missed it last night, was out to dinner with my wife and kids. What did the IDIOT have to say for himself?


WIS

What gets me is they didn't even bother to ask WHERE'S THE SUIT

All of you claim Patty is real. If this is true then you're asking for a suit which does not exist.

Now since you claim Patty is real and estimates say there are 2000+ Bigfoots roaming the Pacific Northwest you show me a speciman, living or dead.

Um, what have I missed here? We're asking the guy who says it was a suit to produce the suit. No, there has not been the opportunity to study a body, but for you to say we have presented no evidence is to grossly underestimate all the evidence that has been 'presented'.

If I cross my fingers and hope and pray hard enough will my wish come true that all the trolls of the earth will disappear?

Why?  Physical sasquatch proof has no bearing on how full o s**t Bob H is.  (bright as a 2 watt bulb)

And unil you can present me a speciman that proves Bigfoot exist than your claim that Patty is real is just as full o s**t.

I do think the PG film is very likely the genuine article, but it would not be the end of my world if it were conclusively proved to be a fake. I think other evidence is equally if not more compelling.

We all tend to be very visual people. We love sightings, photographs, and films. We want to see what is out there.

Most skeptics fall into the same way of thinking we do. They focus on the visual evidence. If they can cast doubt on the PG film, then they have done their debunking of sasquatch. End of story.

But, there are other things that are widely accepted by humans that we don't need a picture of. Have you ever seen a good picture of the planet Pluto? an atom? the earth going around the sun? Of course not. In fact, when I look up in the sky, it looks like the sun goes around the earth.

Pluto, atoms, and a heliocentric planetary system were all initially demonstrated through inference. Measurement of their properties through indirect means provided the evidence needed to show they existed (not without denial, ridicule and debate in some cases!)

That's why I find evidence like dermal ridges and the inferred functional morphology and dynamic motion of sasquatch feet to be more interesting than the PG film. Unlike film evidence, we have lots of track evidence that spans many thousands of miles and dozens (perhaps hundreds) of years.

And when you get many instances (tokens, samples, observations) of any one thing (type, population), you can make see how those tokens are distributed (such as track length-to-width ratios in a bell-shaped curve) and if they are consistent with each other (like dermal ridges found on a Georgia track in 1997 being consistent with dermal ridges found on PNW tracks). You can even see how those tokens cluster (such as geographically in certains kinds of habitat and not others) and how they correlate with other measures (no correlation to human population implies sociopsychological explanations are not the underlying driver).

There is an abundance of compelling evidence that doesn't rely on filming or seeing a sasquatch. In lieu of a body (IMHO), it is worth our effort to explore more fully how we can strengthen the persuasiveness of our arguments by plunging more thoroughly and systematically into what we already have in our hands.

Some of you people need to start posting with more logic and less emotion.  If Patty is proven to be real the sun will rise up tomorrow and I will go to work. 

If Patty is proven to be a hoax the sun will still rise up tomorrow and I will go to work.  Some of you act like if Patty is proven to be a hoax the sun will never rise again and gloom will come upon your world.

Is this some new Bigfoot believer’s seminar response?  When asked for evidence to support your claim you accuse the poster of being a troll to avoid presenting the evidence?

What evidence?  Footprints?  Many have been faked and you have no Bigfoot specimen to prove blah blah blah..

You tell me I shouldn't believe Mr. Long because he can't produce a suit.  You can't produce a specimen for me, living or dead.  Why should I believe you when you lack just as much verifiable evidence as Mr. Long?

And until you can present me a speciman that proves Bigfoot exist than your claim that Patty is real is just as full o s**t.

All of you claim Patty is real. If this is true then you're asking for a suit which does not exist. Now since you claim Patty is real and estimates say there are 2000+ Bigfoots roaming the Pacific Northwest you show me a speciman, living or dead. You can't even do that. You want Mr. Long to present evidence to support his argument when you can't even present evidence to support your argument when the odds are 2000 to 1 in your favor.

If you cross your fingers and hope and pray hard enough your wish that Bigfoot is real might come true.