I have always maintained that footprint evidence is not reliable evidence because it would be too easy to hoax, just as has been done throughout history. I've said how I would do it if I were to replicate prints made in the distant past, as well as how I might do it if I were to want to produce more realism than has been seen in some of the historical prints. Sort of along the same lines as the PGF, where Patty's appearance in the film is not evidence of a real creature, but of a something hairy walking along a sand bar, and that regardless of whether Patty was real or not, it should not be that hard to produce a similar looking subject, a suit on a human, with similar proportions, similar movement, similar everything. That I say flat out that I could make convincing prints, or that I could make a Patty suit, has put me under the microscope. I say that prints could be faked easily, I live in the area, and so on.
Also, in jest, following the prodding of another BFF member, I posted something that said I made the London tracks, wasn't exactly happy with how they turned out, so I came up with a better process for making feet, and then made the Elbe tracks, and once finished with those went back to making my Patty replication suit. It was a bit of an elaborate post, spinning a broad yarn, and I mentioned at the end that it was fiction. Apparently Moneymaker was pointed at it, which led to his posting what he posted on Twitter. It's truly been an inconvenient soap opera for me, which is why I tend to avoid commenting on it.
