Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Where Does Bigfoot Fit In The Food Chain?


The Trail to Bigfoot team found an interesting area where the food chain came together. Where do you think bigfoot fits into all of this?

90 comments:

  1. I think Bigfoot fits in the imagination of some wishful people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fantasy creatures can fit on the food chain too!

      Delete
    2. and both of you fit nicely in the pillock hall of fame !
      Now go shove off and find another blog to troll on. You types are becoming rather tiresome with your skeptical bosh . utter rubbish is all that you try to peddle.
      Cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    3. Fake British Joe, you forgot that Brits are asleep at 5:35 AM.

      Busted, Liar. miss "pillock" "bosh" "cheers".

      Delete
    4. Argh yes!! For thousands of years, there has been a culture hopping secret society of gorilla suit wearing fantasists using their imagination. These fantasists, spanning different cultures, and though finding each others customs undesirable, have imagined the exact same creature with non-human primate features, and its behaviour, when they didn't even know anything about non-human primates, and have in fact managed to fool experts with fake morphological traits that span decades and continents in the process!!

      These people live in such a fantasy world, eh?

      Delete
    5. Liar. Your puppet avatar and masks you reference were made after apes and monkeys were seen in US zoos or in photographs. There were no were writings or recording dating back thousands of years about apemen in the US. The white man conflated his monster idea with a Native American myth. Drawings on rocks look nothing like a "bigfoot". You use this nonsense as fact all the time but it is fabrication. Shame on you!

      Yes, you do live in a fantasy world, ikdummy.

      Delete
    6. (Refresh, refresh, refresh)

      Liar?

      Native Americans allegedly never had any non-hums primates in North America, and still don’t according to denialists. Do you need a reference to support your own drivel now? Even though oral histories are how the indigenous peoples of North America have largely maintained their identity... things like wall paintings and baskets have sustained very clear depictions of these hominins; which are maintained to this very day by the same people to be the case. It is generally accepted that Native Americans have resided in North America for 14,000 years.

      https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f8/13/bc/f813bc6ccf0c628504eb2fcd9c66b788.jpg

      Are we role-playing away the last 50 times you were given anthropological research to prove this? Such a cyber-fantasy world some people live in.

      Delete
    7. Fantasy. No old rock drawings look like the patty costume.

      You're using Native American culture to support your personal need for tall hairy men.

      Delete
    8. But not all Sasquatch descriptions look like Patty. Have you seen the Harvey Pratt eyewitness forensic drawings? I can well imagine that not a lot of people at all look anything quite like you... But that does not invalidate your existence. No, I’m referencing Native American culture to accurately reflect that culture. To essentially be telling Native American peoples what their histories are under the guise of defending it, is pretty sick... but we are talking about a person with pathological issues here. Ever read about the Chehalis Sasq’ets dance? Should be videos on YouTube of it. And even though you think you’re not only controlling the Bigfoot world, but Native American history by your mere words on a blog... Cleverer people than you can read, and use the internet for things other than just exploring your own body.

      Delete
    9. ^sad. Very, very weak. And to think the best thing you have are faked plaster casts.....

      yawn.

      Delete
    10. If it’s weak, challenge it adequately. And actually... the best thing I can reference is plaster casts that have the same morphology over three decades, from different continents... which is now peer reviewed.

      Delete
    11. What's to challenge? An artist draws a bigfoot based on his own or other people's descriptions? So what? The artist is mediocre and forensic training doesn't up your innate talent. Still mediocre drawings of a description, his or someone else's. He could sketch a unicorn based on a description. Who cares...

      Then you go on about a dance... You're absurd.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    15. HIGH PROFILE INVESTIGATIONS
      Sirloin Stockade Murders – Roger Dale Stafford, Verna Stafford & Harold Stafford case
      Oklahoma Girl Scout Murders – Gene Leroy Hart case
      Green River Killer – Gary Ridgeway, serial murderer
      BTK (Bind, Torture and Kill) Killer – Dennis Rader, serial murderer
      I-5 (Interstate 5) Killer – Randall Woodfield, serial murderer
      Bobby Joe Long – serial murderer
      Oklahoma State Fair Abducted Girls – Roy Russell Long case
      Ted Bundy – serial murderer
      Joe Fischer – serial murderer
      World Trade Center 1993 Bombings – investigation
      Oklahoma City Bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building – investigation
      Randolph Dial – fugitive
      Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole – serial murderers
      Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot – murder case
      Roger Wheeler Murder – Winter Hill Gang case – James J. “Whitey" Bulger, Stephen Flemmi and Johnny Martorano
      Osama Bin Laden – terrorist (photo alteration)
      Tommy Lynn Sells – serial murderer
      Donald Eugene Webb – FBI Top Ten Fugitive list
      The Weather Underground Organization

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    17. SPECIAL TRAINING
      Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy – 1981
      Southwestern School of Polygraph, Houston, Texas
      U.S. Secret Service Dignitary Protection
      Kobetz’s Dignitary Protection
      U.S. Secret Service Questioned Document School
      Federal Task Force
      Advanced Law Enforcement Certification

      Who you calling mediocre, Stuey? You’ve never amounted to anything in your life, except for criminal online harassment. It’s not remotely qualified to call anyone mediocre. Harvey Pratt is regarded as one of the best, if not the best forensic sketch artist in the country. And his resume puts that into perspective.

      If you knew anything about indigenous culture, you would know that ceremonies, dances, utensil designs like baskets, all these things indigenous people do to pass down historical events, identity and culture. And I suppose it’s just a coincidence that these people performing the Sasq’ets dance are dressed like Bigfoot, eh?

      Delete
    18. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    19. Relax yo. No need for a meltdown. Take a deep breath and take a chill pill dogg. You will never win the argument. I really don't know why you bother. Know what I'm sayin?

      Dingo

      Delete
    20. Stuey... your episode for not being able to answer some simple question has lasted many weeks. And in that time, I can’t reference one instance where you’ve “won” anything. Maybe you should obsess about politics on Marxist blogs... think of the anger you could channel there?

      Delete
    21. I don't know why you replied to Stuey but anyways. Nobody wins the arguments you dope. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. You have the same argument everyday and nobody ever wins. You believe what you want and others believe what they want and it wont change. Its pointless! Know what I'm sayin?

      Dingo

      Delete
    22. IktomiSaturday, October 29, 2016 at 10:54:00 PM PDT
      “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
      - Albert Einstein

      People aren’t stupid Stuey, it’s obvious you know damn well that you get obliterated on various avenues of this subject, to merely repeat them sometimes hours later because you believe it aggravates people. Look how many times in the last couple of months you’ve published the same drivel up top. And the fact that you can publish that comment in light of how many times it’s been published in your direction, pretty much seals that. But it doesn’t matter to me how many times you feel the need to do it... I’m happy to repay myself any number of times to use you for what I need.

      And I do win Stuey, since I can now reference peer reviewed science... and you have nothing but the Three C’s.

      Delete
    23. I don't argue with you. I am not Stuey. I just give my opinion and that's it. After i give my opinion, you decide to try and convince me that bigfoot exists. You cut n paste the same points over and over. I don't care if you believe in bigfoot. Good for you. I personally don't believe in bigfoot and you will never change my mind. Once again i don't know why you bother.

      Dingo

      Delete
    24. Stuey... You’ve cared about Bigfoot more than anything. You’ve cared so much that for almost ten years you’ve harassed people online to prevent them discussing the subject. But that’s ok, if there’s no Stuey then there’s no archetype ignorant to use. People who have opinions to the contrary of Bigfoot’s existence are fine... People who spend their days, 24/7 harassing and resorting to every tactic to intimidate and aggravate people, are a prime example of those with a pathological need for something.

      So don’t give me that Stuart. You’re crackers boio.

      Delete
    25. Stuey psychosis! It's crazy how badly this Stuey bloke has infiltrated your mind. You actually are psychotic. Please get help!

      Delete
    26. Stuey... This blog and I will be on your mind tomorrow, the day after, the week after, the month after... until you are in a box.

      Delete
    27. ^ paranoid obsessive...just look at the posting above from this prIktomi moron

      Delete
    28. You lost the debate... go get some sleep. You’ve been obsessing about this subject for 24 hours straight.

      Delete
    29. Stuey keeps coming back for more verbal spankings ! it's the same troll playing different roles but the ending is the same- he keeps getting owned by iktomi big time 24-7 ,365 days of the year ,every year !
      oh and 12:21- we do get up early for work, you know, the thing you wouldn't know about but hey, you can celebrate soon when your welfare payment comes in the mail
      cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    30. How ironic that the person obsessed with alleged Bigfoot role-play spends his entire life role-playing different personalities on a blog.

      Delete
    31. ^ paranoid obsessive -


      YOU FUCKING IDIOT HAHAH HAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHA

      Delete
    32. ikdummÿ thinks that if a forensic artist drew someone's description of a unicorn it would make the unicorn real. It doesn't matter how many cases the guy worked on, drawing a bigfoot doesn't make it real.

      I know what forensic art is, you monkey.

      Delete
    33. Nobody is seeing unicorns... and the evidence for unicorns certainly isn’t being peer reviewed.

      You klutz.

      The evidence makes Bigfoot real. And if something leaves evidence, it is generally seen, and things like forensic sketching is very important.

      You klutz.

      Delete
    34. What does a forensic artist drawing a bigfoot based on someone's description prove, ikdummy?

      More stuff that doesn't prove anything but you can talk about?

      Delete
    35. A forensic artist should quickly draw all of your 450 UK bigfoot based on descriptions to make them real.

      Delete
    36. 9:38, it proves that ikdummy got such a raging boner when he first encountered the word “forensic” that he decided he’d have to repeat the word about 1,000 times ever day! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    37. ikdummy posts all of the forensic artist's cases to bolster the legitimacy of his bigfoot drawing. HAHAHA!!

      His drawings of bigfoot must mean bigfoot is real because he drew pictures of criminals based on people's descriptions. LOL What logic you've got there, ikdummy.

      Delete
    38. It proves an accurate depiction of what the person has seen. And since there is reliable evidence for the existence of the creature being seen, there is no reason to doubt the witnesses. Especially that these people went through multiple screenings before hand.

      There is no physical evidence for what is commonly referred to as Bigfoot in the UK. There is too much of it in the US. And Stuey... When you’ve quite finished taking to yourself, may I remind you that I’ve got plenty more of the word “forensic” until I’m done. Sorry it burns.

      If you don’t like it (which I can gather by your man comments, sockpuppeting and fake laugher), it all boils back down to your burden on the evidence.

      Delete
    39. ikdummy had another Patty melt. 4 removed comments and 1 whited out.

      What if Picasso and Sherlock Holmes both drew pictures of bigfoot based on people's descriptions? Then bigfoot would be really, really really real, right? HAHAHAHHA!!!!!

      Delete
    40. “Forensic art is any art used in law enforcement or legal proceedings. Forensic art is used to assist law enforcement with the visual aspects of a case, often using witness descriptions and video footage. It is a highly specialised field that covers a wide range of artistic skills, such as composite drawing, crime scene sketching, image modification and identification, courtroom drawings, demonstrative evidence, and postmortem and facial approximation a*ds. It is rare for a forensic artist to specialise in more than one of these skills.

      The skill of facial approximation is closely associated and related to forensic anthropology in that an artist specializes in the reconstruction of the remains of a human body. Generally this discipline focuses on the human face for identification purposes. The forensic artist can create a facial approximation in a number of ways to include 2D (drawings), 3D (sculptures) and other methods using new computer technology. Forensic artists generally can add greater character and make their subjects come back to "life".
      - Wikipedia

      Delete
    41. It proves he drew a picture of what someone SAID they saw. Nothing more. Posting an artist's resume doesn't make the person who says they saw a bigfoot credible. You are on the idiot level. The crazy leaps in logic that you take...

      Delete
    42. So the accuracy of the “forensic” drawings prove that the witnesses are accurate and the witnesses’ accuracy proves that the “forensic” drawings are themselves accurate!

      Therefore, the magic wand of circular logic is waved and POOF! Bigfoot now exists! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    43. 8 years and no proof of bigfoot is why he's melting down :(

      Delete
    44. How does posting a definition of forensic art make bigfoot witnesses more credible?

      Apparently the word "forensic" is new to ikdummy. ikdummy finally just caught an episode of Forensic Files. LOL

      Delete
    45. It's crazy, ikdummy, but I've never seen artists draw criminals before. Thanks for pointing that out. That makes Bigfoot real.

      Delete
    46. Oh but Stuey... Where in this entire comment section have I claimed that his drawings prove the existence of Bigfoot? You’re so desperate to deny anything that comes with any credentials behind it... that you will inadvertently put words in people’s mouths and distance yourself from any actual statement made. It also doesn’t help that you can’t read properly.

      Like I said, klutz, it proves an accurate depiction of what the person has seen. And since there is reliable evidence for the existence of the creature being seen, there is no reason to doubt the witnesses. Don’t like it? Debunk the evidence. I haven’t been commenting here for 8 years Stuey. You have though... did you debunk anything yet?

      Delete
    47. The definition of forensic art knocks any attempt to lessen its significance to mere “drawn pictures”, out of the ball park. Also, the witnesses also have to go through multiple screening processes by someone who’s had an extensive career in law enforcement, before Pratt even sits down with them. What makes Bigfoot real is the evidence... And that’s what makes the witnesses even more credible.

      I’m sensing that a forensic artist with the credentials of Pratt has hit a nerve a little?

      Delete
    48. 10:06, 10:08, 10:09, 10:11, 10:14...

      A little bothered by something there Stu?

      Delete
    49. ikdummy, it proves that the artists are making a drawing of what a person SAID they saw. You're taking a leap in logic supposing the person saw what they claimed. You're also taking another leap in logic suggesting that the drawings are always accurate. They're not taking photos, years go by without high profile criminals being caught, despite circulated drawings.

      Delete
    50. ... And what the person SAID they saw has peer reviewed science behind it. I’m happy to make a “leap”, when I’m educated on the data that supports the entire concept. I can also make the call that his sketches are always accurate, because not only does his resume suggest that, but some of his work is on google images for everyone to see.

      Go learn something.

      Debunk the evidence.

      Delete
    51. ikdummy: "... And what the person SAID they saw has peer reviewed science behind it."

      No, it hasn't. You don't even have a specific person in mind but you're saying that what they claimed they saw is related to faked prints in an entirely different area. Goofy Joe from Wales. LOL

      Delete
    52. Um... Yes it has. Do you know what “science” means, Stuey? Do you know what “anthropology” is, Stuey? Do you know what “peer review” is, Stuey? That’s the science behind this subject. Don’t like it? Do something about it. Your uneducated vomit piles of circular logic don’t cut it.

      Delete
    53. ikdummy logic:

      “There is a human-primate, nearly twice the size of average people, with the exact same widely reported anatomy.”

      “But not all Sasquatch descriptions look like Patty.”

      “Exact same anatomy” but “not all” are exactly the same? Thank you for the crystal clear explanation! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    54. ikdummy's fail safe hedging but biggest lack of confidence in his own beliefs was when he declared bigfoot a Homo sapien, which covers him whenever "bigfoot" dna is shown to be human.

      The “Exact same anatomy” but “not all” are exactly the same...and they are not only the genus Homo but the exact same "sapien" species as modern humans. So sez ikdummy.

      Delete
    55. Oopsies!

      “There is a human-primate, nearly twice the size of average people, with the exact same widely reported anatomy.”


      Joe F*tzgeraldTuesday, July 15, 2014 at 2:49:00 AM PDT
      We have two district hairy bipeds described to this day in the US; the ape like with long arms and the human/native faced with limbs in proportion (you do have occasions when both characteristics appear to blend).

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2014/07/why-no-bigfoot-bones.html?m=1

      Delete
    56. 10:47- it would make sense that as with many other animals there are differing species that do not look similar (like all primates) and it would go to assume bigfoots do not all look the same depending on which area of the country you are talking about . such a bloody ding dong !
      i often wonder how is it that Stu finds all the time to comment on here and then i remember...
      The welfare cheque is in the mail !
      Be a good lad stu and don't overbuy the mountain dew and cheetos this month
      cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    57. Stuey... but that’s about as illogical as our own species as an example. We have a lot of different descriptions of homo sapien sapiens across the planet, but fundamentally all our anatomy is the same. Maybe you should try and actually do what’s demanded of you as an obsessed critic of the evidence, as opposed to focusing on mere word play, you klutz?

      Every time biological evidence for Bigfoot is sequenced for DNA, it comes back human. Human DNA doesn’t confirm Bigfoot’s classification because the majority of the people observing those results are expecting a new non-human primate’s DNA. 12 morphologically congruent hair samples, one directly linked to a report by government employees, that yielded track impressions of the same creature whose physical evidence was peer reviewed... Is the reason why in my opinion Bigfoot is an archaic homo sapien. If not, then something so close to us in the genus homo that it requires more testing to establish.

      “An analysis of a complete 1.8-million-year-old hominid skull found at the archaeological site of Dmanisi in Georgia suggests the earliest Homo species – Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis and so forth – actually belonged to the same species.”
      http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-dmanisi-human-skull-georgia-01474.html
      ... This is a prime example of morphological diversity in the same archaic species. And I don’t agree with the “shorter armed” type anymore. That’s one thing that my own personal research did away with a little while ago.

      So much for “oopsies”, eh?

      Delete
    58. I get it, the descriptions are the “exact same” sometimes, but at other times “we have a lot of different descriptions”! Oopsies! Ha ha ha!

      Just keep talking ikdummy, I don’t have to say a word!


      If you don’t agree with “shorter armed” type

      Delete
    59. If you don’t agree with “shorter armed” type anymore, how do you explain all the reports with that description? Role playing perhaps??

      Delete
    60. “The exact same widely reported anatomy...” as in its feet, in line with what the physical entails, being repeatable. Shall we now apply an incoherent conspiracy theory as an answer for respeatable data?

      Delete
    61. Right on cue!

      And how many reports of “shorter armed” Bigfoot can you list, Stuey?

      Delete
    62. ... or are you role-playing someone who knows anything about the actual reports?

      Klutz.

      Delete
    63. So the native oral traditions going back centuries have detailed descriptions of the “midtarsal break” and the “double convexity”? Ha ha ha!

      Like I said, just keep talking!!!

      Delete
    64. That’s utterly irrelevant... Though they’ve been aware footprints a plenty, it would take someone with an academic career in evolutionary bipedalism to recognise the aforementioned.

      What’s next?

      Delete
    65. Oh no, I know nothing. Only what you tell me:

      “We have two district hairy bipeds described to this day in the US; the ape like with long arms and the human/native faced with limbs in proportion (you do have occasions when both characteristics appear to blend).”

      According to you, they were being “described to this day in the US”! We’re they not being described then? Or were they being described and the witnesses were wrong?

      Delete
    66. https://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/996025.jpg?495

      “The first two images (top) on the right show the foot, from below and above. The third images shows the foot in the hands of a lady museum curator. The last image shows what the complete foot possibly would have looked like--the bowl portion on the front end has been duplicated, placed upside-down on the lower end, and the toes deleted. The length of the foot is about 8.8 inches, as is. Adding the lower portion, a shown, would make the total foot about 12.3 inches, although there may have been a more extended heel.”
      https://www.sasquatchcanada.com/first-nations-sasquatch-references-gallery.html

      Delete
    67. I based that theory on but a few reports. Eyewitnesses make missidentifications regarding key information of an incident, they rarely make missidentifications of the actual incident. For example, multiple witnesses to a giant hairy human stepping out into the road may make missidentifications regarding weight, height, whether it had hair on its face... long arms... But not that the giant hairy human stepped out into the road.

      Delete
    68. Let’s keep talking, Stuey... it’s fun teaching you a few things!

      : )

      Delete
    69. I have to go ikdummy, but I’m quite pleased that some of our past conversations have caused you to modify your crazier ideas. See, we are making progress — before long, you’ll be a bigfoot scofftic!

      Also, could you explain the difference between something being just “irrelevant” and another thing that is “utterly irrelevant?” Is that some special type of irrelevance? Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    70. It’s just his way of communicating like a 13 year old girl. He frequently misuses words like “remotely” and “literally” as well.

      Delete
    71. Stuey... You won’t be going anywhere, you’ll be back very soon because you haven’t had any satisfaction from this comment section. And I know little victories are as elusive as your role-playing empire, but giving yourself credit for my evolving research is just a wee bit cringey.

      Oh... and you need capital letters for names and places, you klutz.

      “Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!”

      Delete
    72. stuey has to go down to the local mart and re stock his dwindling supplies of junk food so he can continue this epic marathon where he gets schooled after each comment. He's either a super lonely lad or he enjoys the punishment , quite the Masochist Stu has turned out to be
      constant drubbing is the theme of the day !
      cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    73. Harvey Pratt needs to draw the UK bigfoot into existence, pronto!

      Hang in there ikdummy, Harvey's credentials will breath life into all 450 UK bigfoot sightings so that you'll have more to talk about. A few cartoons, a filmed costume, faked prints, some stories... pretty soon UK bigfoot will be real, mate.

      Joe

      Delete
    74. Told you!

      No satisfaction!

      It’s a shame your little list can’t be applied to the evidence in the US, eh? It’s ok... You’ve always got your conspiracy theory to fall back on.

      Delete
    75. At least 2 different posters, ikdummÿ, not that reality matters to you.

      Bigfoot tv shows can hire dozens of credentialed artists to draw bigfoot, then it will become even really realer than realzy realz! You sap. Ha!

      Delete
    76. No Stuey... There is just you.

      Maybe you should spend some time reading the Wikipedia extract up top. Take your time now, there might be a couple of biggies in their, but I’ll be along in the morning to help you out.

      Night!

      Klutz.

      Delete
    77. In “their”? And you’re calling me a klutz? Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    78. You do realize we aren't giving out gold stars to the students that are over 60 Stu. We save those for the children.

      Miss. Green (kindergarten teacher)

      Delete
    79. IktomiSunday, March 25, 2018 at 11:59:00 AM PDT

      Insults don’t cut it.

      Delete
    80. ikdummÿ, why don't you paste every credentialed resume of anyone hired by a cable tv bigfoot show and eventually bigfoot will credentialed into reality.

      Delete
    81. Stop crying because you can’t ad hominem... You were making a fool of yourself demanding the credentials of anonymous peer reviewers just a day ago.

      Credentials make the world go around... and one of the best, if not THE best forensic artist in the US sketches for Bigfoot eyewitnesses.

      Deal with it, klutz.

      Delete
    82. Did you finally realize you were using ad hoc incorrectly and are now switching to ad hominem? Latin phrases typed by a bigfoot role-play chimp named Joe. LOL

      Delete
    83. Sorry Stuey, but both apply to you... And you only ever comment on the concepts others use when you’ve learned them, so I guess we can expect to see that used anything up to ten times a comment section for a while.

      “An Ad Hoc fallacy is when a person gives an explanation for an event and the explanation is written or said as an argument for the event. When a person poses an explanation that is disputed by evidence the person has to resort to untestable answers to salvage their claim.”

      That’s you and your loony conspiracy theories, you klutz.

      Delete
    84. ^ Believes that there are 10,000, 10 foot tall 1000 lb. hairy apemen perpetually hiding in US Woods...

      and has role played being a cut and paste scientist/debater on this blog for 8 years, arguing every comment anyone posts questioning his mythical fantasy monster man. Shame on you, ikdummÿ.

      Delete
    85. I have no need for mere belief... I have peer reviewed evidence to be convinced that 10,000, 10 foot tall 1000lb hairy apemen are perpetually hiding in US Woods.

      As a counter claim to that, you apparently have 100 “role-players” who don’t appear to have a single bit of coherency in their alleged methods... who have impossibly low numbers to achieve all the activity and evidence around the US, who are in cahoots with PhD’s, who nobody reports seeing, and who dodge loaded weapons all year round.

      One of us has the scientific method... the other has circular logic, conjecture, contradictions and conspiracy theories (the 4 C’s).

      Delete