Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[mythusmage]

Wow, it sure took you long enough to come back to JREF. Couldn't stand another minute of PGF skepticism, eh?

Had a major freak out. Comes with clinical depression. 'Sides, I wanted to get people to doubt their surety. Can't do science worth crap when you're hidebound certain of yourself.

Asking for reliable evidence is one thing, putting wheels and a 400 horsepower engine on your goalpost is quite another.

 

[Teresa.Hall]

I'm the one who suspended SweatyYeti and LAL for the sarcastic remarks. I don't remember exactly how that happened, but I think I suspended both of them and then PMed Melissa to tell her I'd done it. The sarcastic remarks just to be rude or condescending pushes my buttons.

Thought I'd clear that up though.

Kitakaze, you're correct we had some big storms in my area, my power was off a couple of times, and my cell phone reception wasn't cooperating either, so I didn't get to do the interview. I did make sure the questions from the JREF members were available when it was time for the question and answer segment. I was present for the interview but my cell kept dropping the call due to the weather. In times like that I just forego my part of the show. I'd rather not be there than ruin the show with technical difficulties.

I haven't listened to all of the Rick Noll interview yet.

 

[mythusmage]

Ape costumes don't use long arms?

We're talking about a professional film company now?

[W]hy does Bob Heironimus walk just like Patty?

Does he do it naturally? Is it the way he normally walks? How does it prove he played Patty in the film?

Fantastic! I would love for you to show us exactly where we may see these number of occasions of snarling and changes in facial expressions.

Watch the film. Look at stills from the film. Stop lying to yourself.

Actually, I'd also like to see a reference to where Gimlin refers to this snarling on a number of occasions seeing as it contradicts the detailed account given in the chapter devoted to it in Meldrum's book.

Do you notice everything when you look at a scene, especially when you're excited. We miss details, we don't catch everything we look at. Watching a film distances you from the scene, it loses its immediancy. You can relax and let your attention wander, notice things you otherwise wouldn't.

I'm sold! It was the part about the head. So what about BH's jaw? Do you think Patty has a Gigantopithecus jaw?

You never noticed the jaw, and you call yourself observant. Can't say it surprises me, not when you have difficulty recognizing hostile expressions. Bet your school days were hell.

No, I can't say Patty has a Giganthropithecus jaw. I can say she has a Sasquatch jaw. A deep one too. You could even call it massive. How large is Bob Heironimus' dentary BTW?

Excellent. You're aware of some reliable evidence, then? We'd love to be wrong about bigfoot, you know.

Malarky. you hate being wrong. You will do most anything to avoid admitting error, including misrepresention, distractions, and dismissing evidence out of hand. The evidence is available, but you can't examine it because you're afraid you may have to accept something you hate. You have invested so much of yourself in the proposition that the Sasquatch is a lie that you can't change your mind.

Got news for you, that's not how science works. Science is not about stroking your fragile ego, science is about learning and exploration. Science is about investigations and accepting the results of those investigations. Science is a cruel, nasty bitch who insists you get it right.

No Mr. Behe, you fail as a critical thinker because you rely on the voice of authority and those who agree with you. You have your sacred writ, and when evidence appears that contradicts it, you dismiss that evidence with nary a glance. In short, you exhibit all the probity of an academic Marxist with none of the intellectual accomplishments. We're not talking about the Council of Nicea here, so get with the program.

 

[RayG]

He says that there are no Roosevelt elk in that area...

Rick does seem convinced it's highly iimprobable, though other sources point to the fact Roosevelt elk are found in that area*. It's also puzzling that the BFRO page detailing the expedition, reported Roosevelt elk sign/spoor.

What it apparently comes down to is not the size, but the shape of the impression.

RayG

*do a search for the word 'roosevelt' on each of these pages

http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/recreation/wilderness/wilderness-trapper-creek.shtml
http://www.mtsthelens.net/MtStHelensNet/wildlife.html
http://www.ecotours-of-oregon.com/sthelen.htm
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~volcano/texts/DekMtStHelen.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7830509/
http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/mshnvm/volcano-review/life-springs-eternal.shtml
http://eduscapes.com/mm/trips/columbia/columbia.htm
http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/criticalecologies/volcanic
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1016/is_n3-4_v97/ai_10555214/pg_2
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-14378235.html

 

[RayG]

Watch the film. Look at stills from the film. Stop lying to yourself.

I've watched the film and examined stills numerous times and see no snarling. Stop making things up.

Malarky. you hate being wrong. You will do most anything to avoid admitting error, including misrepresention, distractions, and dismissing evidence out of hand.

Speaking of misrepresentation, distractions, and dismissing evidence out of hand, like in your review, have you read Meldrum's book yet?

The evidence is available, but you can't examine it because you're afraid you may have to accept something you hate. You have invested so much of yourself in the proposition that the Sasquatch is a lie that you can't change your mind.

As someone who's followed this mystery for close to 40 years now, I'd love to know what evidence it is you're referring to.

Science is a cruel, nasty bitch who insists you get it right.

It also insists you replicate your experiments and be truthful. Nothing nasty or cruel about it. From what I've read, I get the impression you're not a fan of science.

Any plans to rewrite your review once you've actually read the book in question?

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

We're talking about a professional film company now?

No, we're not. You are, though. For what reason, I have no idea since a professional film company is not required in creating the illusion of long arms. That's been shown here lots of times.

Does he do it naturally? Is it the way he normally walks? How does it prove he played Patty in the film?

Apparently, it's just the way he naturally walks. Does it prove he was in the film? No, it doesn't. It just means all the footers who went on and on about how a human couldn't possibly reproduce the gait shown in the film look really silly.

Watch the film. Look at stills from the film. Stop lying to yourself.

Translation: "No, I will not. I can't be bothered to provide evidence for my bizarre claims so I will tell you to do it for me and say you are dishonest."

Nice turtle job. Once again, where in the film are the numerous occasions of snarling and varying facial movement? I've seen the film countless times and have my trusty LMS DVD to refer to and I've never seen any such thing.

Do you notice everything when you look at a scene, especially when you're excited. We miss details, we don't catch everything we look at. Watching a film distances you from the scene, it loses its immediancy. You can relax and let your attention wander, notice things you otherwise wouldn't.

So, that would be a 'no, I don't have any reference of Bob Gimlin referring to the film subject snarling on a number of occassions'? Not to worry, just point them out in the film.

You never noticed the jaw, and you call yourself observant. Can't say it surprises me, not when you have difficulty recognizing hostile expressions. Bet your school days were hell.

I'm special that way. Still waiting for you to provide evidence of your claim of Patty snarling on a number of occasions. Bit of a nit-pick but where did I call myself observant? Not that I don't try to be.

No, I can't say Patty has a Giganthropithecus jaw.

Nothing has a 'Giganthropithecus' jaw. It's ok, I mispelt 'coif'.

I can say she has a Sasquatch jaw.

You can say it but that doesn't make it anything other than bum wind. Unless, of course, you're aware of some sasquatch jaws we can examine for comparison to the film subject.

How large is Bob Heironimus' dentary BTW?

Stunning. This is supporting a real creature and ruling out a suit how?

Malarky. you hate being wrong. You will do most anything to avoid admitting error, including misrepresention, distractions, and dismissing evidence out of hand. The evidence is available, but you can't examine it because you're afraid you may have to accept something you hate. You have invested so much of yourself in the proposition that the Sasquatch is a lie that you can't change your mind.

Got news for you, that's not how science works. Science is not about stroking your fragile ego, science is about learning and exploration. Science is about investigations and accepting the results of those investigations. Science is a cruel, nasty bitch who insists you get it right.

No Mr. Behe, you fail as a critical thinker because you rely on the voice of authority and those who agree with you. You have your sacred writ, and when evidence appears that contradicts it, you dismiss that evidence with nary a glance. In short, you exhibit all the probity of an academic Marxist with none of the intellectual accomplishments. We're not talking about the Council of Nicea here, so get with the program.

Nice rant, especially coming from the guy that hasn't even read Meldrum's book. Now you just look silly. I was a proponent that examined any and all claims of evidence that I could. That's how I became a skeptic. Were the day to come that bigfoot was discovered I wouldn't waste two seconds before jumping up and down with joy. Such a bug-eyed diatribe as yours above is obviously that of someone who's got things a bit mixed up, to put it mildly.

 

[mangler]

kit,

Did he really say that?

"Noll absolutely rules out elk as a source for the Skookum cast. He says that there are no Roosevelt elk in that area and that elk lie in wallow in summer for bug relief and during rut to lie in their urine to attract females. The cast was made after rut."

Although Rocky Mountain Elk are the most plentiful in and around Big Meadows they certainly are not the only of the three species that frequent it. The Roosevelt which of course is more plentiful on the west side of St. Helens is not much of a stranger to the Flats area (area between Mount Adams and Mount St. Helens). Then of course you have to mix the two and come up with, that's right a hybrid. He got the wallowing right although I'm certain he does not understand the whole picture. As far as the rut goes, again he is simply wrong. Pre-rut can start as early as the second week in August with some of the older bulls, and the rut continues till mid Oct. within most the elk herds of WA. State. Rut times vary so this estimate is ballpark (from my personal experience) for this herd. Weather as well as latitude will cause fluctuation in rut start/stop times. The difference in latitude may not be much within the entire St. Helens herd but when you study the sub herds you can notice a slight difference from the N. end herds to the S. end herds, ballpark sixty miles.

Oh ya then there is this,

September 2000 Skookum Expedition
Gifford Pinchot National Forest
Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Adams Region

Native mammals & spoor observed during our stay included: Black-tailed Deer, Roosevelt Elk, Black Bear, Mountain Lion, Coyote, Townsend's Chipmunk, Hudsonian Pine Squirrel, Porcupine, White-footed Deer Mouse, Pine Martin, Bushy-tailed Woodrat, and possible Sasquatch.

Need I say more?

m

oops guess I'm a bit behind here. I bow to you RayG

 

[LAL]

I'm the one who suspended SweatyYeti and LAL for the sarcastic remarks. I don't remember exactly how that happened, but I think I suspended both of them and then PMed Melissa to tell her I'd done it. The sarcastic remarks just to be rude or condescending pushes my buttons.

My jokes were meant to lighten up a thread that seemed to be dying and were not directed at anyone. SY responded in kind. They were very brief and took up a small part of the posts. Neither of us saw your comment ("sarcasm?") as a warning and I see nothing in the guidelines that says I can't be my cute, sarcastic self on that, or any, board.

SY and I have seen paintballers, costumes, backpacks and ponchos suggested for the MDF. What's wrong with bushes, laundry and potato sacks? Was that any worse than cookie baking and casting artifacts?

I didn't mind the 48 hr. suspension, but a 10% warning? I haven't been back except to check for PMs. With only 9 wisecracks to go, I figured I'd better quit while I was ahead.

BTW, a suspended poster can't read a PM, so you might want to send e-mails instead. I was advised I was suspended by friends who e-mailed and PMd me, basically saying, "You got suspended for that?"

It's my first and only warning. I've been blooded.

 

[tube]

The May issue of Bigfoot Times, containing the infamous "Skookum Hokum" article, has now been posted with Perez' permission on Bigfoot Forums:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=24927

 

[Teresa.Hall]

My jokes were meant to lighten up a thread that seemed to be dying and were not directed at anyone. SY responded in kind. They were very brief and took up a small part of the posts. Neither of us saw your comment ("sarcasm?") as a warning and I see nothing in the guidelines that says I can't be my cute, sarcastic self on that, or any, board.

SY and I have seen paintballers, costumes, backpacks and ponchos suggested for the MDF. What's wrong with bushes, laundry and potato sacks? Was that any worse than cookie baking and casting artifacts?

I didn't mind the 48 hr. suspension, but a 10% warning? I haven't been back except to check for PMs. With only 9 wisecracks to go, I figured I'd better quit while I was ahead.

BTW, a suspended poster can't read a PM, so you might want to send e-mails instead. I was advised I was suspended by friends who e-mailed and PMd me, basically saying, "You got suspended for that?"

It's my first and only warning.

I'll be happy to discuss this with you privately. No need to clutter up this forum with the baggage from another. My post was not directed at you it was clarifying that I was the one who suspended you and SweatyYeti. That's all.

I've been blooded.

That's a bit melodramatic, isn't it? As far as your warning level, nobody knew that until you just told them. You're the only one who can see your warning level.

With only 9 wisecracks to go, I figured I'd better quit while I was ahead.

If "wisecracking" and sarcasm is all you have for us, then you probably made the right decision.

 

[LAL]

I'll be happy to discuss this with you privately.

I won't. I thought of appealing (there's a right of appeal, yes?) but with Melissa backing you up I saw no point. As it is, the whole thing was too 7th grade for me.

I think an apology and a retraction are in order.

No need to clutter up this forum with the baggage from another.

Then why mention it at all? I certainly didn't bring it up.

You're not a moderator here, so you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot say.

My post was not directed at you it was clarifying that I was the one who suspended you and SweatyYeti. That's all.

Yes, but you made it clear you thought we were rude and sarcastic. That was hardly the case. He's not here to defend himself, but I am. I'm the resident "woo".

Isn't it interesting the news got all the way over to this forum and I never breathed a word about it?

That's a bit melodramatic, isn't it?

"Blooded" is a foxhunting term. It's a mark of honor.

As far as your warning level, nobody knew that until you just told them. You're the only one who can see your warning level.

Suspensions usually carry a warning and everybody knows that.

If "wisecracking" and sarcasm is all you have for us, then you probably made the right decision.

Obviously, it wasn't, as my multitudinous posts have shown. If you think that's all I have to offer you must have been skipping a lot of posts. I did try to join in on the chocolate, but it's really not my style. My sense of humor is a little more sophisticated than that.

I was invited to the board and everything seemed fine before you started yapping at my heels. I invited quite a few people, including Lori Pate's father. I thought he'd be a trove of information on the MDF. As it was, the thread was closed and the poor old guy virtually run off. Much as it pained me to agree with SG, I had to admit he's right, that that kind of overmoderation stifles debate. This "everybody be nice or else" stuff gets really old really fast.

I've been pretty vocal about mods and admins getting emotionally involved in the discussions and then using their power to slap down the people they disagree with or don't like. I've seen it happen a number of times on BFF. I was really hoping it wouldn't on SFB. I think mods should stay neutral or stay out of the discussions until they learn how to moderate.

 

[carcharodon]

Does he do it naturally? Is it the way he normally walks? How does it prove he played Patty in the film?

mythusmage,

As you well know, Bob H doesn't walk 'just like Patty' even when he is putting it on. I have no idea where this myth comes from that he walks 'just like Patty'.

Look here. 'Just like' Patty? Er.....nope:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCzRBzBmUjE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emid%2Damericabigfoot%2Ecom%2Fphpbb3%2Fviewtopic%2Ephp%3Ff%3D6%26t%3D4

Ol' Bob can't even get it right even without having to wear a cumbersome costume and fake feet. There he is in his every day gear and he still doesn't walk 'just like Patty'. Look at how his right leg locks. LOL.

I also find it interesting that despite the obvious fact that Patty is at least TWICE as thick and bulky as Bob H is, he claimed the suit had no padding and he just wore his clothes underneath. Back in the 1960s, Bob H was even thinner than he is in this clip. So how on earth did he manage to increase his bulk by 100% if he wore no padding??????? Is Bob H a shapeshifter??? Just look at the difference in thickness in the thighs, arms and torso. Not even close. I won't even touch on the mega huge problems caused by Bob H claiming he wore a helmet under the mask. There is just NO WAY around that one.

Now we move onto Bob H actually in a suit. Conveniently, we are not allowed to see the actual moving footage of the comparison because that would obviously give the game away. Instead we can just look and laugh at the stills. Go on, knock yourself out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMPm...ericabigfoot.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4

That is one fat arsed, shapeless, undefined and downright ridiculous Patty 'replica' isn't it?.

Here it is again in close up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYuS...ericabigfoot.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4

It really is highly amusing how the misguided fools here STILL bang on about Bob H being the man in the Patty suit despite the fact that his claim has more holes in it than a second hand dart board and despite the fact that he doesn't walk 'just like Patty' nor do his body proportions match up with Patty's and despite the fact that claim has well and truly had the last nails banged into it a long time ago.

All there is to Bob H's claim is anecdodal evidence. Anecdotal evidence that has been PROVEN to be incorrect, false, inconsistent and contradictory in very salient aspects of the story. Yet still the old buzzards here cling to it like a life preserver in a stormy ocean. If it wasn't so hilarious it would be pathetic.

 

[RayG]

All there is... is anecdodal evidence.

You've hit the nail squarely on the head, no matter what side of the fence you're hammering from.

RayG

 

[Teresa.Hall]

I won't. I thought of appealing (there's a right of appeal, yes?) but with Melissa backing you up I saw no point. As it is, the whole thing was too 7th grade for me.

I agree and you were the one posting 7th grade sarcasm.

I think an apology and a retraction are in order.

I agree, and any time your ready we'll accept your apology.

Then why mention it at all? I certainly didn't bring it up.

If you'd been following the thread you'd see Melissa was mistakenly thought responsible for suspending you and Sweaty. I posted to clarify.

Honestly LAL, get over it.

 

[LAL]

Thanks for posting the links, carch. I'm awaiting instructions for embedding the images for those who can't seem to click on links.

"One of the things that Morris is quoted as saying is that the way to make the arms in the suit look longer than human arms is to extend the gloves of the suit on sticks. Many people have noted that the arms of the creature in the film look unusually long, almost as long as its legs. Some, including myself in 1968, have published estimates of their length. No one went on to deal with the question of how human arms could be extended to match the extra length and what such an extension would look like.

There is no way to establish for certain if any of the dimensions estimated for the creature in the film are accurate, but what can be established with reasonably accuracy is the length of the creature's legs and arms in relation to one another. From that ratio, which anatomists call the "intermembral index," it is simple to calculate how many inches must be added to the arms of a man of known size in order to make his arms long enough to fit the supposed suit. In my own case the answer turns out to be about 10 inches.

But in order for the arms to bend at the elbow, which they plainly do in the movie, all of that extra length has to be added to the lower arm. The result, in my case, is about 12 inches of arm above the elbow and 29 inches below it — almost as much of a monstrosity as Edward Scissorhands. The creature in the movie has normal-looking arms. It cannot be a man in a suit."

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/thoughts.html

 

[SweatyYeti]

LAL wrote:

Teresa.Hall wrote:

Quote:
If "wisecracking" and sarcasm is all you have for us, then you probably made the right decision.

Obviously, it wasn't, as my multitudinous posts have shown. If you think that's all I have to offer you must have been skipping a lot of posts. I did try to join in on the chocolate, but it's really not my style. My sense of humor is a little more sophisticated than that.

I was invited to the board and everything seemed fine before you started yapping at my heels. I invited quite a few people, including Lori Pate's father. I thought he'd be a trove of information on the MDF. As it was, the thread was closed and the poor old guy virtually run off. Much as it pained me to agree with SG, I had to admit he's right, that that kind of overmoderation stifles debate. This "everybody be nice or else" stuff gets really old really fast.

I've been pretty vocal about mods and admins getting emotionally involved in the discussions and then using their power to slap down the people they disagree with or don't like. I've seen it happen a number of times on BFF. I was really hoping it wouldn't on SFB. I think mods should stay neutral or stay out of the discussions until they learn how to moderate.

Well said, Lu. And in a level-headed, unemotional way.

Teresa's comment..."If "wisecracking" and sarcasm is all you have for us.."
is so far "off the mark" it's ridiculous.

It's disrespectful of the time and energy Lu puts into her posting.

Anyone who's seen Lu's contributions to the discussion boards she posts on KNOWS that her posts contain a wealth of information.
She's contributed more to the discussion and analysis of the evidence for Bigfoot than just about anyone I've ever seen, on any board.

I'm not saying that "she's right, and others are wrong"....just that she contributes in an intellectually honest way...without the game-playing that so many of the skeptics on these boards engage in...such as refusing to answer questions, running away from a debate, and engaging in personal attacks.

In sharp contrast....kitakaze declined to discuss the concept of "reliable evidence" with me on the SFB board....not because it had been "thoroughly discussed elsewhere"....but because he can't. Melissa's strict posting guidelines won't allow for the evasiveness and game-playing that this board allows for.

If you'd like to prove me wrong, kitakaze.....then discuss it with me over on Melissa's board. Or are you afraid to???

My guess is......you never will.

 

[LAL]

I agree and you were the one posting 7th grade sarcasm.

It was pretty mild sarcasm, IMO, and was probably at least sophomoric.

"Sarcasm refers to a humor that is at once cutting and bold in both in a mocking fashion. Sarcastic humor would never be described as gentle or endearing, but rather as caustic and bitter, describing situations, persons, or things in a derogatory way in order to be funny. Appropriately, the derivations for this brutal form of wit come from the Latin 'sarcasmus," which stems from the Greek "sarkasmos" and "sarkazein" which means literally "to bite the lips in rage." "

http://www.sarcasmsociety.com/sarcasm/

I wasn't biting my lips at all. At the time, Drew was seeing paintballers in the bushes again and I was getting a little tired of citing Diane Priebe of the BLM.

If I'd told Drew he's a bloomin' idiot for clinging to his paintballer idea after it's been shot down so many times, I'd have deserved a warning, but I didn't do that, and I wasn't suspended for the bush lift comment, which was the only one that could be construed as being pointed at another poster. It's okay for opponents to see helmets and guns in the footage, but it's too blurry for proponents to see what they see. Got it.

Just where did I violate the guidelines?

And it could be a camper running across the hillside with a sack of laundry en route to a portable laundromat located at the precise location of the gate. I have a friend who still thinks that's a wall tent.

You'd said you were with me a bit earlier, so I relaxed and thought it was okay to crack a joke. It's not the first time my sense of humor has gotten me into trouble, but I'm not going to give it up and become grim just to satisfy people on message boards.

I don't think all this started on that thread. I'd be interested to know what I ever did to you.

I agree, and any time your ready we'll accept your apology.

For what? Joking around with a cyber friend? Any time I think I owe an apology, I'll be sure to do that.

We? Shouldn't Melissa be speaking for herself?

If you'd been following the thread you'd see Melissa was mistakenly thought responsible for suspending you and Sweaty. I posted to clarify.

Honestly LAL, get over it.

She okays all warnings, suspensions and banishments, yes? I was over it, as a matter of fact.

I posted to clarify as well. It was a joke, son.

This is the entire incident for those who may not have been lurking and don't know what the heck we're talking about.

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.php?showtopic=27&st=120&p=3546&#entry3
546

I did read your post before you'd edited out 3/4 of it. Am I still on ignore?

 

[LTC8K6]

When a well-trained examiner uses a polygraph, he or she can detect lying with high accuracy. However, because the examiner's interpretation is subjective and because different people react differently to lying, a polygraph test is not perfect and can be fooled.

Melissa, you left that bit off, and failed to show any evidence that a polygraph is actually measuring a reaction to a question. You just linked to an explanation of how they supposedly work, which is the common story told.

It's highly accurate, unless it's not...

 

[RayG]

Mr. Green summed it up quite nicely when he said, "there is no way to establish for certain if any of the dimensions estimated for the creature in the film are accurate".

I'd say that would extend to his measurements from 36 years ago.

RayG

 

[LAL]

Well said, Lu. And in a level-headed, unemotional way.

My other hero! Welcome back. You've sworn off joking for the duration, I trust.

Teresa's comment..."If "wisecracking" and sarcasm is all you have for us.."
is so far "off the mark" it's ridiculous.

It's disrespectful of the time and energy Lu puts into her posting.

Anyone who's seen Lu's contributions to the discussion boards she posts on KNOWS that her posts contain a wealth of information.
She's contributed more to the discussion and analysis of the evidence for Bigfoot than just about anyone I've ever seen, on any board.

I thought that bears repeating, so I repeated it. Thank you.

I'm in the top 20 on BFF, right up there with billgreen.

I can't hold a candle to the likes of Gigantofootecus, Roger Knights and DDA, though. Those guys really know their stuff.

I've put considerable money into it, too.

My collection of books and DVDs on the subject is weighing down a couple of shelves with more on the way. I even have a copy of Long's book. I don't think I owned anything except possibly LMS when I started posting here. (I've read Krantz, folks.) I was driving the librarians crazy with my requests.

I'll never catch up with Kathy and Bob collectionwise, but I'm doing my best.

I upgraded my computer, got a DVD burner, a better scanner and new software just so I could join the .gif and jpeg parties. I recently got a laptop and I might be able to check the boards a bit from work before the signal starts breaking up at 11:00 AM.

I'm also getting out there with the snakes and the chiggers. Since someone dubbed me a field researcher, I decided I'd better live up to it. The forests are gorgeous this time of year anyway, and I've been a nature nut since I figured out there's more to life than concrete.

It's given me a new appreciation for the work some of the groups are doing and for the difficulty in spotting something, anything, in all that light and shadow.

Prints? Forget it. There's fine dust in one of the areas that captures detail so nicely you can read the brand on a running shoe, but animals seem to avoid places like that, except for occasional deer, who leave no other sign of their passing. They must be browsing, but where are the stripped branches and chewed off grass? 'Tis a mystery.