Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[RayG]

So................

is to

as

is to

??

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

What exactly do you mean by "I haven't confirmed there was a sighting"?

Nice try, Kevo. Shall we call it bad eyesight, bad reading comprehension, or artless squirming? I said, "Of course you haven't even confirmed that there was a 'their sighting' so you're just making yourself look all the more pathetic." As in confirming there was a sighting by two people as claimed but you've already made clear you have no interest in establishing the facts of your 'evidence'. You're about as sneaky as asparagus, too.

Hey...kitakazeohsoklueless...what name are " large (7 feet at least), hairy man-like creatures" commonly refered to by in reports filed on Bigfoot database websites, like Bfro. Any idea?
Still not convinced she was refering to Bigfoot in her report? Joyce said to me in our conversation...refering to Bigfoot....."OH Yeah...THEY'RE REAL!"

*yawn* Yes, Kevo. It's clear she was implying bigfoot and that you believe her. We all know the worth of your beliefs in BF here.

Yoooooowzaaaa....kaze.....you got it....NO ATTEMPT to talk to her daughter....and none scheduled any time soon.

Thanks for the confirmation. We already know that your phone call to Joyce had nothing to do with an objective investigation of a bigfoot sighting claim but was rather you using the personal information provided in a BFRO report to call a complete stranger long distance, listen to her story that you already believed, and then to tell her why you believe bigfoot exists in an effort to seek affirmation for your beliefs. A nice little woo-capade.

What hilariously makes you the laughing stock is that you admittedly have no interest in verifying basic elements of your anecdote that you think makes it convincing. Face it, this isn't evidence, this is you wanting to take someones word for it. A simple believer uninterested in facts that don't bear out those beliefs.

And you have done absolutely NOTHING to answer the 4 questions I just asked you in my posts from last night.
NOTHING, in this case, says a LOT. Neither you, kitakaze-o-so-klueless nor RayG are able to answer simple questions concerning her report.
And the two of you confirm that with every single one of your posts.

Thanks for the admission of a lack of objectivity. Now who's having trouble answering simple questions regarding Joyce's report? Posts #852, #897, and #915 ring a bell? Could it be that Clever Kevo is back to impetuous child mode and has it 'bass ackwards' again? You give an anecdote, say there are only two possible explanations for it, claim it as evidence that 'isn't paltry', and in light of your malfunct reasoning insist that someone else provide you with other 'probable' explanations.

While most would dismiss your pathetic example outright I investigate your claim and raise points and questions that are necessary to be addressed before more concrete information can be gleaned concerning it while at the same time raising two possible options which are limited due to the lack of information you provide. Instead of addressing the points and questions raised necessary to gain insight on your anecdote you time and again ignore calls to answer them and complain that questions concerning the two options given haven't been answered (though they were addressed).

See how it works? You have questions, I answer them, I have questions, you answer them. Don't get ahead of yourself. Kevin, you truly are an artless dodger and bring it to new lows. #852, #897, and #915... tic, tic, tic.

Maybe you could get Lyndon to come back and support your BF in New York State anecdote... oh, but wait, he doesn't share your beliefs as such. I know, maybe you could spare us your anecdotes and discuss them in the BFF's sightings section where that kind of thing belongs... oh no, scratch that, you can't do that either. OK, I know. Maybe you can get that dialing finger of yours busy and contact Paul J Mateja and see if he can accomodate your woo-capade or better yet try giving Dr. Matthew Johnson a call concerning his report. Heck, I even brought that one out before. Fairly recently I even had trouble remembering a basic element of his report (how many creatures were involved). Isn't memory funny that way?

 

[kitakaze]

I can almost read the website DY's color photo is from - can anyone?

'lll TrapOne.com - Photo Archive lll', I believe. I was going to mention that earlier.

ETA: BTW, Lu, you'll be glad to know I'm having Meldrum's book delivered so I can properly address the ubiquitous 'read Meldrum'.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Now who's having trouble answering simple questions regarding Joyce's report? Posts #852, #897, and #915 ring a bell?

Here's your question from Post #852...

How do you know what if anything was seen?

I don't know for sure that they saw Bigfoot...Joyce could have lied to me.
All I've said is that her report being the TRUTH makes more sense than BOTH her report and subsequent phone call to me being a pack of lies.

I DO know for sure they didn't see a bear.

Your question from post #897...

could you praytell be so kind as to share with us exactly what fear inspiring knowledge concerning bigfoot you are privy to?

I don't understand your question. Can you elaborate on it?

Questions from post #915...

1) Is Joyce the first person who submitted a report you contacted from the BFRO or another bigfoot related website based on personal information provided in the report?
Yup.

2) Have you since been in contact with Joyce?
NO.

3) Have you examined the list of roughly contemporaneous NY reports I provided?
NOP.

4) Prior to your original contact or at least prior to your first post concerning Joyce's report did you make any efforts to investigate some basic elements of that report?
Naaa.

5) Have you ever considered contacting Paul J Mateja?
No.

What was your reason for asking me those questions?

As in confirming there was a sighting by two people as claimed but you've already made clear you have no interest in establishing the facts of your 'evidence'.

Not ALL the facts...my hostile buddy!
I'm more than happy to say it...I'm not interested in talking to Joyce's daughter, at this particular moment.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

You give an anecdote, say there are only two possible explanations for it, claim it as evidence that 'isn't paltry', and in light of your malfunct reasoning insist that someone else provide you with other 'probable' explanations.

Once again, kitakaze....you're wrong. Like you always are.

I'm not insisting that anyone provide anything.

Neither you, nor Ray, are under any obligation to provide...and support...other LIKELY explanations for Joyce's report and later phone call to me.
If you'd rather not......don't!

 

[kitakaze]

What was your reason for asking me those questions?

Thanks for finally answering those, Sweaty. Those questions were asked in an attempt to conclude whether the points I've raised concerning you and your ramblings were well founded, which they are, and whether or not you've been a complete waste of time talking out your behind, which you have been.

Not ALL the facts...my hostile buddy!
I'm more than happy to say it...I'm not interested in talking to Joyce's daughter, at this particular moment.

Ho ho, OK my creduloid bro. Exactly what facts have you established other than that Joyce Gifford who made a report to the BFRO is a real person and had a conversation on the phone with you in which she told you BF's are real?

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:

Once again, kitakaze....you're wrong. Like you always are.

I certainly am sometimes but not in this case. I can be impetuous, too. Got evidence that I'm always wrong?

I'm not insisting that anyone provide anything.

Got evidence for that? Here's a challenge- try answering that with out going into your typical semantics BS.

Neither you, nor Ray, are under any obligation to provide...and support...other LIKELY explanations for Joyce's report and later phone call to me.
If you'd rather not......don't!

I'd say I've played your little woo-woo game enough and entertained your lame excuse for evidence as far as the facts will allow.

Should I waste more time and ask if you still think Joyce's report should be seriously considered here as supportive evidence for bigfoot? No, I don't think I'll bother.

It'll be interesting given how clearly your inability to be objective has been illustrated to see what your investigative prowess will do with your little 'Patty is a pinhead' presentation. At least you'll have some help there. Should be riveting.

 

[Correa Neto]

It's a regular part of their diet:

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/24543?fulltext=true

The point is, they were thought to be vegetarians until observation proved otherwise.

They've even added humans to the diet:

http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2004/monkeys-attack0human-babies.html

Regular but not major. Not enough to "trigger" adaptations for meat-eating at their teeth.

And still, it does not provide any substance to the claim "bigfeet are real".

Protein would go a long way toward providing the estimated 5000 calories a day they would need. From reports, fish, frogs, deer and even wild hogs (nocturnal, by the way) are part of their diet. One hair analysis grouped them with humans, gorillas and chimpanzees. Two out of three of those hunt for meat.

Oh, yeah... The "bigfoot brings the bacon report"... Very reliable backing for the existence of bigfeet and also for their feeding habits...
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=8547

Did you see the report from Crater Lake's chief naturalist? A retired wildlife biologist had an encounter near Skookum Meadow. I can probably dig up a few more. Wildlife biologists have seen them.

If its the the report I am aware of,http://www.craterlakeinstitute.com/...others-chronology/smiths-chronology-1976.htm:

George Morrison, Chief Park Naturalist, spots a “Big Foot” creature crossing the South Road at dusk, headed into Annie Creek Canyon. With four steps, the up-right creature crossed the road. Because of distance and tree shadows, a description is difficult.

Its at least questionable...

However, I live in an area that has a strong tradition of story-telling. A friend of mine is a professional storyteller whose great-grandfather brought the Jack tales from England. There are no myths about hairy giants in these stories (Jack and the Beanstalk would be the closest, and that's not close).

Not exactly.
Europe (British Islands included) do have its share of wild hairy men from the woods. Woodwose, maybe the green men...
http://www.canterburygreenman.fsnet.co.uk/GreenManKent.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodwose

Ok, they are not giants, but human-sized. My point is: Wildmen myths are very common, it seems variants can be found at all continents. There´s no need for real non-human templates for them. Their source may quite well lie within our psique.

There seems to be little in the way of Bigfoot mythology here but there are credible sightings, especially in the western Piedmont.

Maybe because bigfeet are a modern myth spreaded by information media...

Did you see my post on the error in the box? Meldrum does not support the idea of an opposed thumb in his book. ...snip...

Conclusions on bigfoot hand anatomy at least partially based on casts provided by Ivan Marx, a known hoaxer?
Very reliable, LAL... Very reliable...

 

[Correa Neto]

Thank you, I think.

Science is finally getting around to this one, a mere 40 years later:

[qimg]http://forum.hancockhouse.com/images/articles/20061126231539445_2_original.jpg[/qimg]

It helps to have a skull.

They do have a body... As well as DNA and trail cam pics.
They have reliable evidence.

Evidence obtained at the tropical rainforests of Congo, a war-torn country. Am I supposed to think working at the PNW is harder than at Congo?

http://www.karlammann.com/bili.php
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0414_030314_strangeape.html
http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/Primates1.htm

Where's the reliable evidence for bigfoot?

Plaese, don´t waste time trying to sell
-Casts from Ivan Marx
-A film that may (quite probably is IMHO) be a hoax
-Blobfeet
-Casts that may be hoaxes or misidentifications
-Sighting reports
-Disappearing body parts
-A hand found at a dumpyard
-The cast of an elk lay
-Interpretation of myths
as reliable.

 

[Melissa]

Wrong again LAL!
Take a look at the photo of that track as it is discussed in the Pennsylvania section. It's there. I promise. The fat guy with the Chicago poster is associated with it as I recall.



Completely untrue. Volcanic ash (bentonitic clay) sits at the surface until it either is carried away, or is burried. That's how we have 100s of millions of years old ash beds. I tell you this as a geologist. The roads in Bluff Creek were cosntructed by scraping away (grading) the topsoil and exposing the underlying ash-rich soil. Simple. End of story.

So...back to how all those BF "experts" confidently identify tracks...
I say it's all b.s.

Hi DY I knew you couldn't leave the Bigfoot world for long, I figured you would pop up again somewhere. LOL

So, now you claim to know more about Soil than the Scientist I spoke with who works with Cornell University (and 20+ years of experience)? Interesting DY. I would appreciate your not taking my words out of context - I said very specifically there is no volcanic ash. Tube refers to the use of "Virgin Volcanic Ash" in some of his most recent tests - although I can not find a supplier of such an item in the State of Washington or Oregon... This seems puzzling to me.

I also stated specifically the clay content of this soil is very high - which is a by product of volcanic ash once it breaks down (source USGS Volcanologist working on Mt.Saint Helens). I was told specifically by more than one person, volcanic ash breaks down in as little as 2 years into these other deposits you speak of - yet that does not mean it is volcanic ash, stop misleading people, is the truth to hard to take?

If Tube is right - he should have been able to duplicate his work using the soil from Onion Mountain - question is, why cant he? Can you answer that DY? I doubt it. Why don't you try to be a little objective in your thinking for once and ask yourself - why hasn't Tube duplicated his work, or why haven't I been able to? According to him it shouldn't be that difficult, so why is it?

My work at least proves one thing - creating these dermals is not half as easy as Tube would like us all to believe, if that were the case I would have admitted defeat by now - and happily, as I am frankly tired of having dirt and casting agents in my apartment..

Dont you have a paper to publish?? Hows that going?

Oh and P.S. - When the road crews with the Six Rivers National Forest do their "Grading" they put as much of the remaining soil back into the road - to keep the minerals in that specific area. The Geologists see to that, as they want the mineral content of the soils to remain the same, and not be influenced by humans and their need for roads (or as much as possible). Yeah, they told me that themselves. The "Grading" is also only about 2 inches into the top of the road - it is not as destructive as you might want these people to think. I have actually spoken to a person with Six Rivers who knows all about this very area, and the laying of that initial road - yep, I found someone --- have you or tube even tried? So, I think my information is pretty good I am quite the little detective, bet you didn't know that, LOL. Hell, I even know where the documents are that specifically discuss the construction on these very roads - its not that hard to figure out, if you really want to know, but I challenge you to figure it out, if I can - so can you.

Give people good information and let them make up their own minds.

 

[kitakaze]

Where's the reliable evidence for bigfoot?

What do you mean by reliable? Like 'not crap' reliable, 'can withstand scrutiny' reliable, or maybe like 'always there when you need it' reliable.

You want reliable, some clown over there wants 'persuasive', a couple of guys I know want 'verifiable' whatever that means, and some turkey round the way was even going on about 'conclusive'. Whatever, nutballs, lemme see what we got here...

Plaese, don´t waste time trying to sell
-Casts from Ivan Marx
-A film that may (quite probably is IMHO) be a hoax
-Blobfeet
-Casts that may be hoaxes or misidentifications
-Sighting reports
-Disappearing body parts
-A hand found at a dumpyard
-The cast of an elk lay
-Interpretation of myths
as reliable.

...Oh yeah, we got lots of that. Won't change your mind? It's going cheap. Can I interest you in a bonafide fuzzy picture? No? I got a parrot here that may have learned to mimic bigfoot screams. Hey now, where you goin'? No wait, an anecdote! I got an anecdote! It's yours, on the house... Aw man. That's it! I'm going back to the homeopathic dandruff/goiter/Lupus wax. People were buying that crap. *sigh* Woe is me.

 

[desertyeti]

Melissa!
How nice of you to show up guns a-blazing!
My publications (a manuscript and 2 abstracts, not BF-related) are going well, thank you. And yours? As you can imagine, I've been quite busy with a variety of work-related fieldtrips and projects.

Time for Geology 101:
Some of your post above stresses that volcanic ash deteriorates into clay.
True (as I've said before) unless it's made out of SiO2 (quartz or "glass") or other minerals that are not clay-forming (like the micas and feldspars are). So some ash breaks down, some doesn't, as I'm sure you know already (geez--and you imply I'm hiding the truth ). It's still called "ash" by us real-life, professional geologists whether it's weatherd or not (pun intended), and if it's a clay-rich ash, it contains one or more of the following: smectite, kaolinite, illite, bentonite, etc. (as I've said before). I'm sure you know that soil scientists have different entirely terminologies than sedimentary geologists, being the self-proclaimed "detective" that you are. Bentonite used for Ar-Ar dating for example from the 80 million year old Steele Shale in Wyoming is called: "an ash layer" or "an ash bed" or simply "ash" by us geologists. But I'm sure I'm telling you nothing new.

And I simply must disagree about how dificult it is to make casting artifacts. I've found them to appear readily in several substrates (as I mentioned in previous posts). Ash isn't needed, only a material that's a dessicant (as Tube's already stated many times). This can be dry sand, calcite-rich soil, carbonate-rich matrix, whatever...But science isn't about agreeing with each other on forums, is it?

Wow, so your contact has 20+ years experience. Very nice.
I myself have been doing geological fieldwork and lab work for just about 17 years (since the summer of 1990), so I'm sure we'd have plenty to talk about.

As for taking your words out of context, well, I was responding to LAL's assertion of what a soil scientist told you, not your words (since you were simply passing on information that someone else provideed). And I'm sure your careful re-reading of posts will reveal that I nowhere "claim to know more about Soil than the Scientist I spoke with who works with Cornell University." Incidentally, I'm a University of Wyoming geologist myself, and would argue that we have a stronger strat/sed program (as would others).

I'm sure if you have anything actually relevant to contribute to the thread topic (Can anyone actually discriminate between known forgeries and known authentic prints?), everyone would be most appreciative. Otherwise, I hope you're having a great 2007!

p.s. Want to try the challenge? I have plenty of other photos!

 

[kitakaze]

Hello Melissa,

Wow! I had no idea that you had previously posted here. I see you came here at a time when I was MIA travelling for a while. Welcome (and welcome back) to the JREF. I'm pleased that your here to personally comment on much of the things we've been discussing. I'm looking forward to becoming more familiar with your efforts regarding dermatoglyphics claims.

I'll be blunt, I'm of the opinion that of everything we've seen so far, of the small number of casts that are claimed to be displaying dermatoglyphics, that none of these features were the result of a sasquatch imprint. I say this not as a dismissal based on the lack of evidence supporting sasquatch in general but rather on the quality of the dermal claims themselves. I hope this won't lead you to disregard any questions or comments I may have as being biased. Of the small number of proponents that post here I have a particular kind of appreciation for Huntster and LAL's contributions if obviously not always in agreement with them. A couple of others, not so much as I'm sure you can see. It was from LAL that I first learned of your efforts to address Matt Crowley's findings.

Before we get too far into a detailed debate concerning soil types and 'this expert told me this and that expert told you that' subject I wonder if you might have any input on a point that I've been raising lately regarding dermal claims that has yet to be answered. You see, my signature (not the Donnie Darko one) is an abbreviated form of this point or question to be more specific. I'll give you the unabbreviated version:

Regarding claims of casts of alleged sasquatch prints displaying what are interpretted as being the dermatoglyphics of that creature can anyone anywhere demonstrate two casts of separate prints of a successive trackway displaying matching (not similar) dermal patterns?

This seems to be one of the simplest and most basic questions regarding these claims yet one that has thus far been unanswered. I look forward to any input you have to offer on this.

Kitakaze.

 

[Correa Neto]

What do you mean by reliable? Like 'not crap' reliable, 'can withstand scrutiny' reliable, or maybe like 'always there when you need it' reliable.

Yeah, pretty much the above.

I would add "not suspected to be a hoax" to the list of criteria to required to define a piece of evidence as "reliable". Note that pieces of evidence such as those produced by Marx and Freeman, as well as the PGF will go down the drain as soon as this criteria is applied. Some persons wrote something like "X was involved in some hoaxing, but he produced interesting evidence that was not proved to be hoaxed" or "he made it to spice things up, but he presented good evidence before". This is an example of unbeliavable naïve wishfull thinking. Or self-deception. Or dishonesty. I saw similar "excuses" being used by paranormal and UFO scammers and their followers. Its just unacceptable.

Repeatibility is as important as the former. Some will claim sightings fullfill this requirement, but given the many perviously discussed problems such type of evidence has, this is not enough. How this repeatibility would show up? Here´s an example:
-Someone filmed or took snapshots of a bigfoot at site A. Someone else, preferably unrelated to the first individual, repeats the feat later.

Once again, this is what I would consider as being "reliable evidence" for bigfeet as real creatures:
-Fossil remains of a bipedal primate (not H. sapiens) from North America within a time frame coincident with human colonization (maybe even a non-bipedal chimp-sized ape of the right age and place would do);
-DNA analisys from blood, hair or scat samples pointing towards an unknown primate of the Homininae or Ponginae subfamilies at North America;
-High-quality stills or footage from a reliable source (biologist or wildlife photographer whose reputation would be ruined if caught involved somehow in a hoax). Depending on the circunstances (for example, someone else manages to take more pics or footage) it could even be "proof".

A (recent) specimen would be "proof".

Unfortunately, none of the above is avaliable. So, given the (lack of) evidence avaliable, as well as some other reasonings discussed ad nauseaum here, I say bigfeet as real creatures are possible but highly improbable.

I will gladly change my position if reliable evidence shows up. Or, of course, if I come face-to-face with one and conclude it could not have been a case of mistaken ID, prank, false memory, daydream, etc. And still, I would acknoweledge that by no means it is a reliable piece of evidence, given the many issues with sighting reports. I could be wrong in my evaluation that I saw the "real deal", after all...

But my guess is the two above options will never happen.

People were buying that crap. *sigh* Woe is me.

Hey, I´ve got some real estate to sell!
Cheap. Pretty cheap. Very cheap!!! Interested?
I´ll send you details from my Nigerian e-mail account....

 

[tube]

Seattle Pottery supply labels their pumice as "volcanic ash". When I say "virgin" I mean that I don't re-use the same sample twice.

I NEVER said that Onion Mountain was volcanic ash. Chilcutt did though:

http://www.normalpeoplelikeyou.com/article_assets/sasquatch.htm

"Oh, I might mention too, that Northern California cast, the best one with the clearest dermal ridges-- that's not even a "big" foot, it's just 13 inches. It's from a juvenile animal. If you're gonna hoax a bigfoot, you better make it BIG. 16 or 17 inches."

Also: I think one of them...was in volcanic ash dust, and it's the clearest actually, it's the best print. The best cast."

I don't know, Melissa, if you really believe that selling volcanic ash (pumice) is illegal, then I would suggest to you that you contact the FBI field office in Dallas at 972-559-5000 to report this egregious crime in progress:

 

[tube]

As far as I know, John Green took black and white photos of the Blue Creek Mountain - Onion Mountain trackway. Another individual, Doreen Hooker, took some color photos. Here is one of them.

Common sense tells us that a roadway under construction is not going to be the same as an undisturbed roadway. Indeed, the color of the soil in Hooker's photo is markedly different than the color of Moskowitz soil sample:

Yeah, it's fun to talk about the geology of Onion Mountain, but the bottom line is that the cast textures speak for themselves. To assert that the desiccation ridge process did not happen is to assert that these are not desiccation ridges:

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

Or, of course, if I come face-to-face with one and conclude it could not have been a case of mistaken ID, prank, false memory, daydream, etc.

Here are some pointers, Correa, that might help you if you should find yourself face-to-face with one of them Bigfoots.
To avoid...
1) Mistaken Identity.....Look closely at the creature's snout. Bears have a REAL BIG snout, while Bigfoots have noses that are much more humanlike.

2) Prank....pull HARD on the creature's hair. This will give away a cheap suit everytime.
WARNING: If it's NOT a suit...be prepared to run fast.

3) False memory.....keep a notebook handy. As SOON as possible, make note of the fact that you've just seen an ape-man hominid....before you forget.

4) Daydream.....While you're still facing the beast...pinch yourself all over...and DON'T forget to take out your notebook.

 

[kitakaze]

Correa Neto wrote:

Here are some pointers, Correa, that might help you if you should find yourself face-to-face with one of them Bigfoots.
To avoid...
1) Mistaken Identity.....Look closely at the creature's snout. Bears have a REAL BIG snout, while Bigfoots have noses that are much more humanlike.

Is that a fact?

2) Prank....pull HARD on the creature's hair. This will give away a cheap suit everytime.
WARNING: If it's NOT a suit...be prepared to run fast.

What if you aren't within grabbing distance? Or even within a close enough proximity to rule out a man in a suit?

3) False memory.....keep a notebook handy. As SOON as possible, make note of the fact that you've just seen an ape-man hominid....before you forget.

4) Daydream.....While you're still facing the beast...pinch yourself all over...and DON'T forget to take out your notebook.

Or better yet, make an online report or maybe contact the media right away.

Is this some of the sage wisdom you learned from your Joyce experience, Sweaty?

I will gladly change my position if reliable evidence shows up. Or, of course, if I come face-to-face with one and conclude it could not have been a case of mistaken ID, prank, false memory, daydream, etc. And still, I would acknoweledge that by no means it is a reliable piece of evidence, given the many issues with sighting reports. I could be wrong in my evaluation that I saw the "real deal", after all...

Yes, Correa's being very unreasonable, I can see how you'd take issue with that.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Is this some of the sage wisdom you learned from your Joyce experience, Sweaty?

No...it's just common sense.

I think it's a good idea to make some quick notes when you happen to see an "unknown" species of hominid (apeman) walking by....because you never really know which memories will stick in your head and which ones won't.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I certainly am sometimes but not in this case. I can be impetuous, too. Got evidence that I'm always wrong?

No....I'll retract that statment. You're not always wrong....but you have been plenty enough.