Since CF and you have an apologist for some reason I'll go one step further than above;
His illiteracy is inconsistent and suspect: As in: he's a scammer and if you're defending him, figure it out......
I know I said I retired as apologist, but I have to say I have similar problems myself. I just edit the hell out of my posts and proofread, proofread, proofread. I'm perfectly capable of being able to write today and cranking out gibberish that makes no sense tomorrow. It could
easily be the result of some sort of undiagnosed neurological problem. That's just one of the things that happens when your brain doesn't want to work right any more. The fact that I could read and write extremely well before I started having neurological problems helped me stay coherent after the fact. However, I had to resign my job as a technical writer

such is life. Anyway, for obvious reasons, I've always felt that his occasional incoherence was our
worst evidence for Creekfreak's dishonesty. We've got plenty of other reasons to doubt him.
I feel like we should apologize to DW for letting this drag on so long...
Well, I apologize DW. Perhaps if we had nipped this in the bud like we should have, you wouldn't have been put in this position.
Well to be fair to us, we
did try. I don't think anyone could disabuse Creekfreak of his notions.
I honestly feel just terrible for Darkwing. He's been badly used in this thread. The good news is he
has done a lot to move Bigfoot research forward in that he's shown that Bigfoot enthusiasts
are capable of using critical thinking to debunk a phony or a pic that's just too unclear to show anything (blobsquatch). If I see Darkwing in the future, claiming he has a picture of a real Bigfoot, I'm less likely to dismiss his claim out of hand, because he's already shown me that he's not a full-on kook that lacks any critical thinking skills whatsoever. In my mind, that's a huge leap in credibility.