Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges?

[Correa Neto]

A disagreement over a dollar amount proves Sasquatches don't exist. That kind of argument doesn't make sense.

No, of course it does not "proves" bigfeet don´t exist. Neither it "proves" bigfoot exists. However, it provides evidences that the claim that the "Patty suit" could not be created back at its days, at least by those who filmed it, is not precise.

The people in gorilla suits don't have human proportions? Yes, that is a problem....

Strawman. I was referring to the gorilla suits in the movie Congo. They had no human proportions, contrary to what you claimed.

I don't have Green's book on hand, but as I recall, he showed the film to Ken Peterson who came up with his own conclusions. A spokesman for Universal said essentially the same thing. These were opinions of top people at the time. They knew what their studios could do at the time. I take their opinions over Chris Walas' making a big deal over a natural "line" and everyone who focused on the Gemorra butt and ignored the total mismatch on the rest of the suit.

I´ll try to make it more clear. The real question is- The executives were considering animatronics or a suit when they provided the estimated costs? Note that, despite the suit being the obvious choice, at no moment so far there are clear mentions to the type of solution they had in mind. If you come to, say, an FX specialist that deals with animatronics and asks "How much would cost you to make this?", he/she may answer with animatronics in mind.

Where´s the "the total mismatch on the rest of the suit"? So far, IMHO, there´s a fairly good fit.

I said, Dfoot has experience with actual Morris suits. The claim Long puts forth is that Morris made the suit, although Morris has presented no proof of this and his story contradicts Heironimus' stories, which LOng seems to believe as well. Dfoot did some research on Morris that seems to have been better than Long's. I don't suppose you saw that post.

I'd rather believe people who are experts in biomechanics, anatomy, anthropology, primatology, that sort of thing.

You mean the ones that think PGF could be the real deal.

Note that if you are looking for evidence favorable to bigfeet´s existence (actualy when studying evidence for anything), you must rely on evidence over which there are little if any indications of being fraudulent. This is enough to render PGF as not being a reliable piece of evidence.

There's no evidence that he did, or even that he made one.
Did you mean $186,000? I don't think $186 would have paid for five minutes of Shatner's time.

You think, you assume, you know or you belive?

The U$186,00 figure was provided by Shatner himself in his books and interviews. Read Shatner.

Joining a message board does not make me a member of any circle. I joined this one, didn't I? Does that make me a member of this circle? Membership is a requirement for posting, nothing more.

LAL, you post on BFF, you attend to bigfoot conventions (at least that was the impression I had), you exchange information with people who believe/think bigfeet are real, you buy books etc. on the subject. Isn´t that being part of a circle or community?

...snip...He was one of the first scientists to look into this at all and I know of none who studied it in such detail. He spent considerable time and resources on it, and his career seemed to suffer because of it. He had my respect, but I don't think I'm suffering from hero worship.

I´m not sure of that.

How can you have an opinion on a book that hasn't been published yet?

I am basing my expectatives -not opinions- on the type of data presented and used so far to back the claim that bigfeet are real.
Unless new and reliable pieces of evidences are provided, bigfeet remain as possible but improbable.

I've already posted where he's published "with very good dialogue". He's preparing more articles for publication. Perhaps Nature will take notice someday. I think there's hope with Henry Gee (who said there's hope for "Yeti hunters"), but he's not the peer review process.

That´s not how it works. You submitt a paper to a journal, and the paper is analysed by anonimous members of a reviewers board or comiteé. Nature is among the top scientigfic journals, one of the hardest to get in to, but there are many others. However, with the avaliable evidence presented, chances for the approval of a bigfoot article are slim. That is the main critic we make. And you should understand this, before going any further.

I said they tend to inhabit areas that are roadless or nearly so. I repeatly referred to reports of them crossing roads. It's difficult to get up enough speed on some of those roads at night to even purposely collide with a nocturnal animal. I used to drive them. I know.

Its not a prerequisite for an animal to become a roadkill to be purposely rammed by a car or truck. Even at small speeds, a car is deadly. Even at small speeds, animals become roadkills.

The reports of sightings of these animals near roads, assuming they are real (reports and bigfeet, an assumption that is far from being "proven"), indicate that chances for a specimen being obtained -or good footage- are not as small as you claim.

You blatantly misquoted me and then claimed inconsistancies. That is far from twisting words; it's misrepresentation.

I have not " blatantly misquoted" you. You have been caught by inconsistencies inherent to your claims and arguments.
No it is not. Neither it is word twisting.

The first post I saw on this forum started with "Look what the hoaxers are up to......" My first post was that it was obvious they hadn't been doing their homework; my impression was they were all about 15 and had little knowlege ofthe subject. This doesn't necessarily mean I think nobody here does homework, but on some other boards even the sceptics are familiar enough with the subject to debate well and raise interesting points without resorting to mockery and attempted character assassination.

So, show us you superior knoweledge. And you claim not to be arrogant?

[QOUTE]Originally posted by LAL
I bow to your superior knowlege on the Amazon, but you seem to know little of the PNW or other likely habitat in this country. I quoted from authoritative sources and, to my knowlege, made no mistakes. You can't seem to admit you could be wrong, even about sedimentation in an area that's practically made of basalt.[/QUOTE]

No, LAL, it´s you who has an issue when it comes to admiting being wrong. An example? The claim that PNW is made mostly of basalt. Cascades volcanoes´s eruption products are mainly lavas and piroclastic material of andesitic composition. I´ve pointed you links on the issue. Yet, you seem to have ignored the issue, as well as others

Originally posted by LALI was going to post an article that is exactly that - emotional rejection....snip...People seem to balk at the idea of an unidentified hominid in a country as advanced as the United States. I've heard people accept the idea of Yeti, safely in Tibet, but reject totally any idea there could be something like that here.

I don't think the data is nearly as bad as you think. Have you seen the enhanced version of the PGF? I've seen it (and others) on a high res screen. They're impressive.[/QOUTE]

LAL, what´s being questioned here here is the quality of evidence. There´s no reliable evidence for bigfoot or yeti. The evidence is far from being enough to label these "species" as real. Possible but improbable is as far as the presented evidence allows to go.

Originally posted by LAL
Nope. Dr. Fahrenbach based his conclusions on some 2000 reports. One article, even if a bit of a stretch, doesn't discredit the whole site. And he may be right.
...snip...
It's possible the French site isn't as wacko as I think. My Italian is worse than my French. I'll have to check it with Systran one of these days.

LAL, reports of sightings are unreliable evidence. Would you please point us why a bigfoot sighting report has more credibility than an UFO or ghost sighting report?

Would you please tell us why the PGF film is more reliable than the pictures of UFOs and ghosts?

Oh, please, no "I don´t discuss UFOS" evasive maneauvers.

So, you are now considering that site not as wacko as you thought before. A site that backs a supposition that neanderthals are the origin for the myth of the fauns. Very good source handling.

 

[tube]

Has anyone here seen primates close up? Most likely, it would be at a zoo. Here in Seattle we have the Woodland Park zoo which has a number of primates including gorillas and orangutans. The great apes are separated by a glass partition from the public, and they seem by and large comfortable being close to people. Thus it is easy to study these apes up close, and for extended periods.

The last time I visited the zoo I studied the feet of these apes at length. I was struck by something that does not seem to be addressed in the world of Bigfootery; ape feet are much more coarsely textured than humans. There has been so much attention paid to the "dermals" in Sasquatch casts that a whole category of surface texture is forgotten; creases and wrinkles. The creases and wrinkles on a great apes foot are vastly more deep and coarse than those of a human. So coarse in fact, that I believe we should be seeing these wrinkles and creases almost all the time. I don't believe you need particularly fine soil to capture texture this coarse, but then again I have not tested this. I am throwing this notion out there simply because I have not seen it addressed before.

Jeff Meldrum proposes that the Sasquatch has a "mid tarsal break". Not an unreasonable speculation at all, I believe. If it is that case that the Sasquatch has a mid tarsal break, then shouldn't it have a major "hinge" type crease in the foot pad, something like the creases that run across a human's palm? Where are the casts that exhibit this feature? Or in fact, exhibit any creases at all?

For some photos of the wrinkles on great ape feet take a look at http://www.seattlechatclub.org/Bigfoot.html

 

[LTC8K6]

I guess I didn't catch up, although there was practically no posting over the holiday. Someone claimed a hoaxer would have less chance of being discovered in a remote area, but I thought that statement was too lame even for you. Are you referring to some other post? Do point me to your erudite explanation of how the Powder Mountain tracks were faked. Are you blaming that on Wallace too? Did he fly to B.C.? Take the little lady?

Who said the tracks were faked, Lu? Why are you making things up? I would have thought you got enough out of my actual posts, without creating posts I didn't make.

How hard can it be to find my post?

Let's see.....I think I will just search for "powder mountain" in this forum.

What do you know! 4th post down on the results page.

It would have been the first one that popped up if a timely search had been done.

Whew! I'm tired.......that was hard.

Takes Lu by the hand.......

Here you go ma'am. I wouldn't want you to strain yourself.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1871038480#post1871038480

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here's another contradiction from the LMS DVD...

Has anyone seen a purported print or cast from Bluff Creek ( or anywhere, for that matter ) that looks anything like this drawing ? !

Translation = ' This is what we want the foot to look like . '



Hey, when you make stuff up, you can do what you want.


( For what it's worth, the other prints seem to be genuine .. )

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, the little toe is a mile long, and the toes are nearly straight. Certainly not this one from the Bluff Creek film site.

 

[RayG]

Yeah, the little toe is a mile long, and the toes are nearly straight. Certainly not this one from the Bluff Creek film site.

What are the two horizontal lines on the foot? Is that supposed to be the midtarsal break?

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

Is that supposed to be the midtarsal break?

I hope not.

I believe the top one here is supposed to be a cast of the famous midtarsal break track.

 

[Thurkon]

And there's nothing to indicate Wallace faked any tracks at Bluff Creek.

Except track castings that are identical to his wooden clown sandals?

But any similarities are due to the fact that Wallace must have designed his clown sandals from the original casts?

He must have. You know this. You also know that Wallace couldn't possibly have faked any tracks. Not one. Couldn't possibly. No possible way. He must have created the clown sandals to walk around the house with. Yep.

You're insane, Lu.

Honestly. You're nuts. You're chasing unicorns through the forest and trying to justify it with science you don't understand.

 

[Thurkon]

There are no Wallace casts in his collection and that isn't a Wallace cast. He wasn't fooled by a much better fake than anything Wallace produced for his souvenier shop. It took him less than a minute to spot it and determine how it was made. Trying to portray Meldrum as a half-wit isn't making your wits look too whole, IMO.

He is a half-wit.

He spent a large chunk of time chasing Matt Moneymaker through the forest to find the ass tracks of an epileptic Bigfoot.

His brilliant idea of gathering evidence of said Bigfoot consisted of leaving a pile of fruit in a mud pit.

To entice the Bigfoot they played sound clips of screeches which they have no evidence whatsoever even come from a Bigfoot.

Brilliant.

He has Wallace sandal prints on his website. You can keep denying it, but punch it up...and there they are, in all their double-balled glory. Solid evidence of Wallace clown shoes.

Lu...every field, every college, has a few scattered professors and scholars and researchers that are not mentally sound. They have crackpot theories. The UFO abduction group has quite a few more for them than Bigfoot even...a few Harvard professors and so forth.

It's unimportant. What D. Jeffrey rambles on about is unimportant.

What is important is what the majority of scientists, scholars and researchers conclude.

Science is built upon the tried and true method of gathering knowledge, testing it, and retesting it. Checks and balances.

Despite what a few wackjobs like D. Jeffrey say, the field of anthropology is not about to accept the reality of a new North American primate based on a collection of damn footprints.

So come back to reality, already.

 

[William Parcher]

The UFO abduction group has quite a few more for them than Bigfoot even...a few Harvard professors and so forth.

Who is John Mack, M.D.?

Jeopardy awards me $800!

 

[LTC8K6]

Okay, let's play the game as William Parcher puts it.

Let's say that Meldrum has no Wallace tracks on that page.

He does have tracks that are flat as a pancake, and he has tracks with huge midtarsal breaks, and he has half tracks on flat ground.

How does bigfoot make both flat tracks and tracks with huge midtarsal breaks?

How does bigfoot make a half track on flat ground?

Why doesn't bigfoot do much other than walk in a line?

Where are the side by side prints where he stood around goofing off, or eating tree leaves, or whatever?

 

[William Parcher]

Okay, let's play the game as William Parcher puts it.

Let's say that Meldrum has no Wallace tracks on that page.

He does have tracks that are flat as a pancake, and he has tracks with huge midtarsal breaks, and he has half tracks on flat ground.

How does bigfoot make both flat tracks and tracks with huge midtarsal breaks?

How does bigfoot make a half track on flat ground?

Why doesn't bigfoot do much other than walk in a line?

Where are the side by side prints where he stood around goofing off, or eating tree leaves, or whatever?

You forgot one...

So where the hell is Bigfoot?

 

[LAL]

The U$186,00 figure was provided by Shatner himself in his books and interviews. Read Shatner..

Now it's $18600? You've posted $186 and $186,000 previously and who cares? Star Trek's budget is really irrelevant to what was available at the time the PGF was made. Patterson certainly didn't have money like that and there's no evidence he made, bought or otherwise had any suit. Gimlin has denied through his attorney a suit was used, and until someone can come up with some proof of a hoax there is no reason to assume there was one.

LAL, you post on BFF, you attend to bigfoot conventions (at least that was the impression I had), you exchange information with people who believe/think bigfeet are real, you buy books etc. on the subject. Isn´t that being part of a circle or community?

I post on BFF. So what? I post here too, more than on BFF. I posted much more on EvC and Human Fossils boards. I have never been to a convention. I went to one Bigfoot Daze in Carson, Washington, which was more of a party than a serious gathering, although there were some casts on display. I bought three books in 1968, all Green's (they were cheap), and two books and three DVDs about a month ago - nothing in between except the LMS video and tape. I've bought more books on wildlife in North America than I have on Sasquatches, and that's not many. I exchange information with people who think they aren't real, too. I occasionally correspond with a member of one of the organizations who has commisioned two paintings from me and I'm going to be spending time on that instead of so much time on this board. I have a deadline.

I am not part of any circle or community.

I have not " blatantly misquoted" you. You have been caught by inconsistencies inherent to your claims and arguments.
No it is not. Neither it is word twisting.

I showed you where you did that.

So, show us you superior knoweledge. And you claim not to be arrogant?

Well, maybe it's a Latin male thing. I'll try to be more tolerant.

[QOUTE]Originally posted by LAL
I bow to your superior knowlege on the Amazon, but you seem to know little of the PNW or other likely habitat in this country. I quoted from authoritative sources and, to my knowlege, made no mistakes. You can't seem to admit you could be wrong, even about sedimentation in an area that's practically made of basalt.

No, LAL, it´s you who has an issue when it comes to admiting being wrong. An example? The claim that PNW is made mostly of basalt. Cascades volcanoes´s eruption products are mainly lavas and piroclastic material of andesitic composition. I´ve pointed you links on the issue. Yet, you seem to have ignored the issue, as well as others

I thought I mentioned andesite. (The rocks on the land I owned were primarily basalt and andesite.)

"Practically made of basalt" was a deliberate oversimplification to try to illustrate the very rocky nature of the area I was referring to, specifically Skamania County, and the lack of sedimentation sufficient to cover so much as a gnat. The issue was fossilization, and I'm still maintaining conditions just aren't right for the fossilization of forest dwellers in that sort of habitat.

LAL, reports of sightings are unreliable evidence. Would you please point us why a bigfoot sighting report has more credibility than an UFO or ghost sighting report?

Would you please tell us why the PGF film is more reliable than the pictures of UFOs and ghosts?

Oh, please, no "I don´t discuss UFOS" evasive maneauvers.

I refuse to discuss UFOs.

If all eyewitness testimony is unreliable, we might as well bag the criminal court system. The PGF is clear enough to show muscle and tendon movement, finger movement and a tissue anamoly and proportions that are clearly not human. Why is everyone ignoring the shoulder width?

Many sightings have multiple witnesses and track evidence to back them up. Why aren't people seeing dragons......... or unicorns?

So, you are now considering that site not as wacko as you thought before. A site that backs a supposition that neanderthals are the origin for the myth of the fauns. Very good source handling.

I didn't even read that. Do you have evidence that Neandertals weren't the origin of the myth of fauns? There was considerable overlap in time and territory with modern humans; there's some new evidence of coexistance. Possibly some stories did get passed down to relatively modern times.

The article that lost me was on aquatic apes and "Homo pongoides". The Minnesota Iceman's nose was crushed, which was why the nostrils were upturned. The article claimed it was an aquatic adaptation, complete with illustration. I don't know the policy of the site, but in the interest of free inquiry, even erroneous ideas should be presented, even if only to be shot down. I've already told you the site came up in another debate as the only source a poster could find on one of Heuvelmans' articles. I haven't been back to it and I haven't read it all, especially in Italian. There might be something else interesting on it. I don't judge things I haven't read.

 

[LAL]

That tracing is really interesting. Unlike any other tracks we've seen before..

Yet another species ?


So you still think Wallace carved out a model of a real track, right down to a longitudinal crack in one of the heels?

An unexplained line showed up in one of hundreds of photos of the Blue Creek Mountain trackways. There's a crack, evidently, in the heel of one of the fake feet. Coincidence.

 

[LAL]

Except track castings that are identical to his wooden clown sandals?

But any similarities are due to the fact that Wallace must have designed his clown sandals from the original casts?

He must have. You know this. You also know that Wallace couldn't possibly have faked any tracks. Not one. Couldn't possibly. No possible way. He must have created the clown sandals to walk around the house with. Yep.

You're insane, Lu.

Honestly. You're nuts. You're chasing unicorns through the forest and trying to justify it with science you don't understand.

No, I'm not nuts. Wallace faked casts to sell to tourists. There is nothing to indicate he faked tracks at Bluff Creek or anywhere else. As Green put it, "Location, location, location. Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense." He noted Ryerson. Ever hear of him?

Your ad hominems are about to get you filtered. If you'd like to debate like a gentleman, I'll refrain from doing that, but unless you can stick to the issues, I see no point in reading any more of your posts.

The sandals are by no means identical to actual track castings. Measurement shows that.

 

[LAL]

Who said the tracks were faked, Lu? Why are you making things up? I would have thought you got enough out of my actual posts, without creating posts I didn't make.

How hard can it be to find my post?

Let's see.....I think I will just search for "powder mountain" in this forum.

What do you know! 4th post down on the results page.

It would have been the first one that popped up if a timely search had been done.

Whew! I'm tired.......that was hard.

Takes Lu by the hand.......

Here you go ma'am. I wouldn't want you to strain yourself.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1871038480#post1871038480

You quoted Barbara Wasson, that's all. I guess I'm so used to you coming up with hoax scenarios, no matter how farfetched, it didn't occur to me you would actually endorse something as silly as the old melted animal tracks idea. That was tried with snow leopard pugs on the Shipton print. Didn't work there either.

"Judging from this photograph alone, without taking into consideration any of the total event, we should evaluate what we see. Considering that the expected track from a hairy hominoid would be in great part like our human track, looking at these brings up immediate questions. Granted this photograph is not an excellent one. "

She evidently didn't see the photos I've seen. Note she didn't try to identify the animal, at least in this excerpt.

 

[LTC8K6]

There is nothing to indicate he faked tracks at Bluff Creek or anywhere else.

Now that is unbearably obtuse Lu.

This is just an unbelievable thing for you to say.

Unbelievable.

I wonder if flat out lying repeatedly is enought for a suspension?

 

[Correa Neto]

Now it's $18600? You've posted $186 and $186,000 previously and who cares? Star Trek's budget is really irrelevant to what was available at the time the PGF was made. Patterson certainly didn't have money like that and there's no evidence he made, bought or otherwise had any suit. Gimlin has denied through his attorney a suit was used, and until someone can come up with some proof of a hoax there is no reason to assume there was one.

LAL, 186,00 was a typo. In Portuguese, "," are used as "." in English. I made a confusion. Sorry, you have not caught me in contradiction.

If the issue is irrelevant or not, I´ll return to the point later on this pots. I have already pointed you the relevance, but its seem you missed it.

You wrote
"Patterson certainly didn't have money "
You think he didn´t, you belive he didn´t, he told he didn´t or what?

I post on BFF. So what? I post here too, more than on BFF. I posted much more on EvC and Human Fossils boards. I have never been to a convention. I went to one Bigfoot Daze in Carson, Washington, which was more of a party than a serious gathering, although there were some casts on display.
...snip..
I am not part of any circle or community.

Then your definition of community is different from mine. Must be a language issue...

Well, maybe it's a Latin male thing. I'll try to be more tolerant.

I´ll be more tolerant and take the above statement as a flawed humor attempt and not as a demonstration of prejudice.

I thought I mentioned andesite. (The rocks on the land I owned were primarily basalt and andesite.)

"Practically made of basalt" was a deliberate oversimplification to try to illustrate the very rocky nature of the area I was referring to, specifically Skamania County, and the lack of sedimentation sufficient to cover so much as a gnat. The issue was fossilization, and I'm still maintaining conditions just aren't right for the fossilization of forest dwellers in that sort of habitat.

Well, you didn´t. And it also is usefull to show that you are building biased points of views. The data points on your neighborhood may not be a reliable statistical representation of the whole data set.

Cascade´s geology is way too much complicated than your deliberately (massive and mistaken, I must add) oversimplification.

And how many more times I need to say that since bigfeet -assuming they are real- the PNW is not the only place where its remains past or present could have been found? So, sticking to PNW is a flawed argument.

I could go on and pinpoint another error you just commited, but I will not bother to, since it would degenerate in another OT digression.

I refuse to discuss UFOs.

And again, an evasion.

Evidence for UFOs and bigfeet is of the same quality. Please demonstrate why the pictures, sighting reports and "physical evidence" for bigfeet are better quality. Why I must dismiss UFO reports and pictures but accept Bigfeet pictures and sightings.

That would be a nice homework for bigfoot investigators.

If all eyewitness testimony is unreliable, we might as well bag the criminal court system.

What are the differences between an eyewitness´ testimony in court from a bigfeet report?

In court, eyewitnessess´s declarations are evaluated, contradictions are pinpointed, accuracy is checked. Physical evidence are comopared to the declarations. The proccess of gathering the physical evidence and its interpretation are also evaluated and checked for reliability. Here´s where the Star Trek budget discussion enters, for example, in case you have not realised.

The process is very very far from the investigations that ends up labelling as a "Class A report" the sighting of a bigfeet female hunting hogs and jumping from tree to tree like the incredible Hulk.

The PGF is clear enough to show muscle and tendon movement, finger movement and a tissue anamoly and proportions that are clearly not human. Why is everyone ignoring the shoulder width?

Nothing in PGF is as you describe. The muscles and tendon movement are as clear as is that Jesus´ image on a toast. Shoulder width is not an issue, its easy to alter proportions in a costume.

Many sightings have multiple witnesses and track evidence to back them up. Why aren't people seeing dragons......... or unicorns?

Track evidence? Please...
Why people are not seeing dragons and unicorns? Maybe because they are not modern myths. BTW, how can you say they don´t? People do see Nessie, don´t they?

I didn't even read that. Do you have evidence that Neandertals weren't the origin of the myth of fauns? There was considerable overlap in time and territory with modern humans; there's some new evidence of coexistance. Possibly some stories did get passed down to relatively modern times.
...snip...There might be something else interesting on it. I don't judge things I haven't read.

LAL, Neanderthals had goat legs and horns?

Ain´t that enough to be suspicious?

 

[LAL]

Now that is unbearably obtuse Lu.

This is just an unbelievable thing for you to say.

Unbelievable.

I wonder if flat out lying repeatedly is enought for a suspension?

Why don't you join Loren Coleman's board (if he'll let you on) and read Green on this. Green was there; you weren't (neither was I).
I've quoted Green, paraphrased Green and referred to Green; this is not lying - it's using an authoritative source. Green had it from Hodgson that Wallace wasn't even in the area at the time the Crew tracks were found (the ones his family claimed he faked, in 1958).

Green has plenty of reason to stand up for the authenticity of those tracks and all others he's investigated. He was onto Wallace long before Bluff Creek.

You seem to have nothing but your own belief all those tracks couldn't possibly be the tracks of an unidentified hominid, therefore you're willing to accept the preposterous explanation that Ray Wallace was running all over Northern California in fake feet rather than the obvious, that he was inspired by real events when new logging roads were going in and then tried to capitalize on it, mostly in Washington State.

This thread seems to have degenerated into little but ad hominem attacks. I have better things to do than respond to insults, so I hope you all will excuse me if I don't post much on it any more.

 

[RayG]

Originally posted by LAL (in sig line)
...skeptics have attempted to refute the matter because they really know nothing about the subject and so can speak of it with the most authority.

One could also say... "believers tend to support the matter because they really know nothing about the subject and so can speak of it with the most authority."

Either way it's just as correct.

It's hard for anyone to know a lot about an undiscovered, unproven, uncatalogued, unidentified, biped.

Show me a bigfoot proponent who can speak with authority about any of the following:

eating (when, how often, amount, etc.)
sleeping (when, where, how, etc.)
mating (method, gestation period, etc.)
range (migration, nomadic, static, etc.)
definitive physical details (foot structure, thumb/finger relationship, facial appearance, etc.)

RayG