You free to trade now ? <| sep |> hahahhaahahaha oh my gosh that car ! !!! OMGGGG im seriously freaking out right now . Ive been trying to remember that car game i used to play years ago wow . Rip me <| sep |> Oh , it ' s very wet actually my wettest nonflex pen , especially for a medium nib . Makes for nice shading on good paper . <| sep |> Where in the world is Sean Murray <| sep |> So what you ' re telling me is , while you profess it is absolutely a man in a suit , you can in no way back that claim up . You are making a claim here . If you were to say there is not sufficient evidence that it is bigfoot . I would agree with you . But to go further and say you do know what it is , that ' s a claim and you have to back it up , regardless of claims by the original con men another claim you have yet to back up . You ' re acting like you have the intellectual highground here , but your behavior is anything but scientific . When a scientist sees inconclusive evidence , they don ' t make baseless hypotheses to the contrary . For instance , let ' s say a video of a supposed chupacabra arises . Scientists review it , but it ' s quality is not enough to say what exactly it is . Do they suddenly say This is obviously a hairless dog . No . They say simply the evidence is inconclusive and does not support the existence of chupacabra . So while you ' re putting on false airs of logic and reason , you ' re only making a joke about yourself . For the record I ' m not saying it ' s bigfoot in the patterson footage . I ' m saying its a video of something , we don ' t know what it is . If you have some evidence as to what it is , please share .