I do expect that anyone who unwaveringly, unobjectively advocates bigfoot evidence will perceive 'troubled times' given that their beliefs are not commensurate with their evidence.
The "troubled times" had nothing to do with BF evidence, as Kevin has just "dramatically" told you. You assumed too much.
Quite expected is that you dramatically deem Sweaty and Lyndon to be mocked and attacked apparently without provocation.
Especially since the same thing happened to me. I am unabashedly biased on that score. A seasoned member once explained that "baiting" is par for the course around here. I've been much more aware of those tasty-looking flies ever since.
Equally expected is that they don't have the fortitude to endure the response to the crap they let fly.
Oh, they do, but I find it distracting, counterproductive and boring. Some good posters have quit the board because of those kinds of responses. That's the forum's loss, as I see it.
There is a very specific reason why I appreciate your and Huntster's input
Thank you. Stop right there.
I went through a period of thinking Krantz and Green might be lying after reading their books, especially since it seemed nothing more had happened in the county since the events of 1969. Turns out I just didn't know about it. (I've said all this before, BTW.) As I was moving, I had the opportunity to talk with Peter Byrne and an elderly couple with unpublished photos taken on their Oregon farm..
After I moved to NC I thought I'd left all that behind. It wasn't until I finally got on the Internet that my interest was peaked again during discussions on AOL boards ("People who believe in Bigfoot believe in UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster" sort of thing). I was debating evolution vs. creationism and ended up in a filter war with other evolutionists over the "Bigfoot issue".
The Wallace family "exposé" even made the local news out here and that really got me Googling, especially after I was nearly hooted out of my own living room by someone who believes in Noah's Ark, but thinks BF is a "fairy tale".
I found out John Green was by no means dead, and things snowballed from there.
Now, to get back on topic, one thing that struck me about DYs challenge, was that I was expecting to see fakes. I thought the ichnologist was going to produce fakes so good no one would be able to detect them. Then he used the word "obvious", so, in between bouts of coughing, I assumed the fakes would look obvious. So with this preconception in mind, I set out to determine
how the fakes were faked. The heels were a bit of a problem, because they looked real, but, hey, how about some Dr. Scholl's gel insoles? The toes were "obviously" carved out by fingers in the first photo, and a poor job it was, too. I didn't even think about slippage. I then outsmarted myself even further by using DYs criteria, as best I could remember without looking it up, and the sharp edges clearly established the real prints were fake.
So, what I learned was that those who look for fakery will see fakery and those who look for authenticity will find that too, even in the same features. Huntster was absolutely correct. And that's one reason I'm trying to give some background on some of these finds.
Now, while I'm waiting for a retraction and an apology from DY, who will undoubtedly find the proper source for that photo any time now, let me post a gorilla foot with dermal ridges that look just like the "desication ridges" on tube's test cast:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14781&hl=gorilla+feet
The lesions are some kind of jungle rot.
Tissue, Miss Hepburn?
