No evidence? No problem!

I AM THE BLOBSQUATCH wrote:

StankApe wrote:

Take UFO's for example, people claim to see them all the time.Yet the physics alone makes the idea we are being visited from alien beings highly unlikely.

Physics as we understand it NOW. there may be a whole new level of physics we haven't discovered yet, no?

Not really.....the law of the conservation of energy is what it is. the energy required to travel such distances is vast and since nothing can move faster than light, the time and distances involved are massive. (so massive that people have a hard time comprehending it) CHECK THIS OUT!


ONE LIGHT YEAR= 5,878,625,373,183 miles at 1 million miles an hr it would take 671 years to go there

Burden of proof, you either have a chip on your shoulder or you were a very poor science student. Footprints are a very good resource that objects exist out in the forest that arent see in the daylight. There are all kinds of signs that a large bipedal Creature lives in the mountains and around our cities.
As for proof of God there is TONS of proof that God exists. One is Physics. Physics says everything lies at rest until acted upon by a external force. So WHO pushed the first particle in space to have all the other particles hit each other and create the so called BIG BANG theory????WHO? I didnt. Did you?
Second article of proof God exists. If you walked upon a beach and found a Rolex. Would you assume that several pieces of dirt hit each other and BANG there was this complicated time piece that is the Rolex? NO you wouldnt. You would believe that someone MADE the watch. Yet our society our planet and nature are SO much MORE complicated and wonderful that that watch, and you believe no one created all this? The Eye of a eagle is SO Much more complicated that the most complicated Radar on the planet and YOU want ME to believe that NOTHING created that. That it happened by accident? that the particle at rest thousands of years before became active hit another particle and then BOOM there was an Eagle that can FLY and see things running in the grass thousands of feet below him and he can pick it out and then use all his flight computers to attack a rabbit on the run and full airspeed?
Please tell me thats not what you want me to believe. PLEASE.

GT3Paul wrote:Burden of proof, you either have a chip on your shoulder or you were a very poor science student. Footprints are a very good resource that objects exist out in the forest that arent see in the daylight. There are all kinds of signs that a large bipedal Creature lives in the mountains and around our cities.
As for proof of God there is TONS of proof that God exists. One is Physics. Physics says everything lies at rest until acted upon by a external force. So WHO pushed the first particle in space to have all the other particles hit each other and create the so called BIG BANG theory????WHO? I didnt. Did you?
Second article of proof God exists. If you walked upon a beach and found a Rolex. Would you assume that several pieces of dirt hit each other and BANG there was this complicated time piece that is the Rolex? NO you wouldnt. You would believe that someone MADE the watch. Yet our society our planet and nature are SO much MORE complicated and wonderful that that watch, and you believe no one created all this? The Eye of a eagle is SO Much more complicated that the most complicated Radar on the planet and YOU want ME to believe that NOTHING created that. That it happened by accident? that the particle at rest thousands of years before became active hit another particle and then BOOM there was an Eagle that can FLY and see things running in the grass thousands of feet below him and he can pick it out and then use all his flight computers to attack a rabbit on the run and full airspeed?
Please tell me thats not what you want me to believe. PLEASE.

just because you don't understand evolution and the vast amount of time involved (14 billion effin years) doesn't mean you get to put some imaginary fairy tale creature as the cause. Yes it happened by accident. To show you how your own theory falls to pieces. What created the particles that make up God then? did that happen by accident? over a long period of time?

Man made god in his own image, deal with it, or you can grow up and join the civilized world and escape from the middle ages with your boogeyman and fear of the unknown

relic wrote:

Some@$$hole wrote:No pictures of God.

Not even blurry ones.

may I use this?

Of course.

I AM THE BLOBSQUATCH wrote:

Some@$$hole wrote:No pictures of God.

Not even blurry ones.

On the contrary, there are PLENTY of pictures of God. You just have to open your eyes! Faith is a GIFT, but I understand not all people will accept it. but this is a Bigfoot forum, so that's all I have to say about that.

That's faith, my friend.

I won't touch that with a tenfoot pole.

I do admire it in those that gain strength from it, though.

I just don't.

But I digress, back to big furry things...

Skankape, I understand evolution very well. There has been NO proof in your 14 billion effin years that one species has evolved into another EVER.
If you look at the gene experiment of finches (Yes Darwins own) yes they fan out with different Genes but what Darwin didnt show you is that after
a certain number the change fan back in to the parents. Evolution is another theory.
My example of particles was a well used example by Scientists that believe in God. If God has always existed then this didnt happen by chance.
The example was to show there are OTHER WELL THOUGHT OUT ideas on the beginning and that the Big Bang is not the ONLY accepted theory.
But then you didnt seem to understand the point.

Again ATTACK without discussing. Very intelligent.

You lost me at "As for proof of God there is TONS of proof that God exists"

LOL OF COURSE I AM IGNORANT. IF I claimed to know everything which I dont, that would be the pinnacle of arrogance! I guess you do however.
Being a Scientist means I have a tool to learn. It doesnt mean that I know anything or everything and neither do other Scientists. (but you arent a scientist
so you DO know everything LOL)

I spent my whole life in science, and I guess I am more mature than you. But that lifetime in Science just tells me there is much more stuff we dont know
about anything. The more we learn the MORE there IS TO LEARN. Except you of course who knows everything

My God man. Look at the complexity of the SIMPLEST example of nature and tell me that showed up by accident. Go Ahead Explain to me how that happened!
I dont know, but I KNOW it didnt happen by ACCIDENT!!

Plus attacking some one when you dont know the subject of what you are speaking is the epitome of ignorance. Its obvious you must be using your parents computer. After all you are AMAZED by the complexity of a computer network made by man then turn around and tell us that all this on Earth showed up here
by some magical accident. You are by definition ignorant and have a severe lack of intellect.

I dare you to tell us your age. I am guessing not yet 18. I am way past 50. I am a retired Naval Scientist and now run my own company. I am not going to bother with people like you any more. I came over here to talk about bigfoot, now go away little one.

Anony wrote:While there is a mountain of unreliable evidence, there is still a mountain of it. It's only a matter of time before the species is scientifically recognized through DNA or a full body.

unreliable evidence = no evidence.

sightings? unreliable and unverifiable

track casts? not evidence. teacher taught us how to fake them in grade 3

photo/video? not a single one has been verified to be real. ever.

DNA? useless. absolutely no physical specimen to verify it with.

I AM THE BLOBSQUATCH wrote:

Linda Sedlak wrote:I can fill these pages with the published BF accounts from very credible people having encounters with this species. Plus there are pictures, and some are excellent pictures and film taken of this animal. Please do some research. Look up the sighting made by a group of marines out on Night Maneuvers who encountered a Sasquatch, and were forced to beat a hasty retreat because they carried no weapons to defend themselves with against such a creature. Also, watch the program named Bigfootville (IIRC) about 2 policemen who while out camping had an encounter with a BF. Those brave policemen started shaking while discussing their encounter. Please, before you say there is no evidence, look up the pictures, look up the stories, and listen to accounts from citizens who have more to lose by telling their story than by keeping quiet. There are samples from this species, hair and bones that will be revealed when the Ketchum Study is released.

Amen, Linda! Police Officers are often the BEST witnesses, and those two were no exception. There are just too many stories to dismiss this out of hand.

Matthew Whitton, of the Georgia Boys was a police officer.

He put an ape suit in a freezer and passed it off to the world as real.

Just sayin'

Blondie1 wrote:GT3Paul, Blobsquatch and Linda,

I appreciate your comments. You weren't bashing and were trying to have a conversation. Apparently some can't without calling people names. I often wonder if the below events are really happening with the Bigfoot community.

Disinformation- From this source-http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/


18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Nice post Blondie.

Thanks Blondie. If he would have actually READ my comment before he went into attack mode he would have seen I just provided an alternate theory. I didnt say I believe one way or the other. He just TRASHED everyone who believes in a higher entity.
I CAME here to talke about Squatchs. The OP was being POMPOUS too. I was just trying to show that there are OTHER ideas out there and HIS is not the only one. Other wise we wouldnt be here.
Seems like we have a couple of antagonists here, that just want to stir the pot. The OP for instance has postes TWO posts that are basically poking a finger in believers eyes. Then attacks me because I am a Scientist who believes not only in God but Bigfoot. I posted a couple of ancient theories that show an alternative view and both these guys go off on me without even knowing who I am or what I think. I like your thinking MUCH better

If you look at Skanks behaviour he just attacks everyone he posts to. His posts start out usually with "Uhmm NO!" Not a very open thinker. not much of a comprehension expert either. He says if you dont believe his way your stupid. He calls God and Squatch imaginary beings. Why is he here then?

GT3Paul wrote:LOL OF COURSE I AM IGNORANT. IF I claimed to know everything which I dont, that would be the pinnacle of arrogance! I guess you do however.
Being a Scientist means I have a tool to learn. It doesnt mean that I know anything or everything and neither do other Scientists. (but you arent a scientist
so you DO know everything LOL)

I spent my whole life in science, and I guess I am more mature than you. But that lifetime in Science just tells me there is much more stuff we dont know
about anything. The more we learn the MORE there IS TO LEARN. Except you of course who knows everything

My God man. Look at the complexity of the SIMPLEST example of nature and tell me that showed up by accident. Go Ahead Explain to me how that happened!
I dont know, but I KNOW it didnt happen by ACCIDENT!!

Plus attacking some one when you dont know the subject of what you are speaking is the epitome of ignorance. Its obvious you must be using your parents computer. After all you are AMAZED by the complexity of a computer network made by man then turn around and tell us that all this on Earth showed up here
by some magical accident. You are by definition ignorant and have a severe lack of intellect.

I dare you to tell us your age. I am guessing not yet 18. I am way past 50. I am a retired Naval Scientist and now run my own company. I am not going to bother with people like you any more. I came over here to talk about bigfoot, now go away little one.

Why would a creator make everything so complex? Wouldn't it make more sense to just make these systems much more basic and simple in their operation? The FACT that so many different species share so much DNA in common, share bilateral symmetry at such a high level , share organ structures, progress in the fossil record from single cells, to sponges, jellyfish and such, to crinoids to bony fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals ...etc all the way up to humans points towards evolution. In fact it screams it.



Species A doesn't give birth to Species B(well except for hybrids) Species A BECOMES Species B, over long (and somtimes short) periods of time. An lizard didn't lay eggs and snakes came out. No, certain lizards lived in a specific environment where having shorter legs was an advantage, so the shorter legged creatures were better fed and bred more passing their shorter legged genes onto their offspring, over time the legs got shorter and shorter until they lost them altogether. Evidence for this? the Vestigal Pelvic Girdle present on Pythons for example.

an example of evolution in the short term are the Peppered Moth's of Birmingham ,England during the Industrial Revolution. They went from being a salt and pepper color before the coal powered factories arrived to black in less than 50 years. Then after the coal plants were replaced with electrically powered ones, they went back to being salt and pepper again. Due to the lichens dying off (of which they were perfectly camoflagued to match) and the large amount of soot deposits the grey moths became easy pickings, but the darker moths fared better passing their genes along until 98% of the species was dark colored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Evolution is a theory the same way relativity is a theory. They aren't theories in the "i don't know but here's a guess" manner, but in the "all the evidence as yet says that this is true" kind of theories, in fact these two examples are considered to be laws by the scientific world.

StankApe wrote:

I AM THE BLOBSQUATCH wrote:

StankApe wrote:

Take UFO's for example, people claim to see them all the time.Yet the physics alone makes the idea we are being visited from alien beings highly unlikely.

Physics as we understand it NOW. there may be a whole new level of physics we haven't discovered yet, no?

Not really.....the law of the conservation of energy is what it is. the energy required to travel such distances is vast and since nothing can move faster than light, the time and distances involved are massive. (so massive that people have a hard time comprehending it) CHECK THIS OUT!


ONE LIGHT YEAR= 5,878,625,373,183 miles at 1 million miles an hr it would take 671 years to go there

The flaw in in Theory is that it was created by a Human. What we know may be completely wrong compared to what it actually is. Science understanding changes from time to time as we learn more or something shows up and disproves what we know. We assume as humans that what we come up with is the correct theory for things. Its difficult for people to think we are wrong in what we came up with. What would happen to the Faith and Science of the world if we do find Aliens or Bigfoot?
The mountain of evidence of UFO's is just as much as the evidence for Bigfoot. We have yet to explore the entire earth enough to understand it in whole.
When i was young i believe I saw what was a big foot it was similar looking to the Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs. This was back in the late 70's early 80's. I recall seeing something of similar size and shape and look. While I was in the wooded, swamp area in my town. When I saw this thing I ran. I didn't stick around. I think that their is so many stories and sightings that something unknown or unidentified is out there in the woods, swamps and mountains of the world.
I like to compare it to the look for dark matter. Science says something must be there so it must be called Dark Matter. The have taken pictures of it. They have done the math before hand and said something must fill in the gap. Why do we accept the theory of Dark Matter with very little pictures of it or stories but we don't accept Bigfoot?

I would state that the plausibility of Bigfoot is monumentally higher than alien visitation just due to the physical limitations of interstellar travel. Bigfoot, is just a critter in the woods. Much higher probability of there being an,as yet undiscovered, critter in the woods than beings travelling light years to visit earth.

That being said, the likelyhood of alien beings existing in the universe is so high as to be almost a certainty. When one considers the vast expanse of space, the sheer number of stars and planets. I would be baffled if one day it was discovered we were alone.

Dark Matter exists because we can measure it's affect on other things. (kinda like how they discover planets orbiting other stars by how their gravity affects the star itself causing it to wobble ). Do we understand Dark Matter completely yet? Nope, but on day we will. Every bit of new knowledge allows us to stand upon it's shoulders so as to grasp the next little nugget, ad infinitum.

StankApe wrote: I would state that the plausibility of Bigfoot is monumentally higher than alien visitation just due to the physical limitations of interstellar travel. Bigfoot, is just a critter in the woods. Much higher probability of there being an,as yet undiscovered, critter in the woods than beings travelling light years to visit earth.

That being said, the likelyhood of alien beings existing in the universe is so high as to be almost a certainty. When one considers the vast expanse of space, the sheer number of stars and planets. I would be baffled if one day it was discovered we were alone.

Dark Matter exists because we can measure it's affect on other things. (kinda like how they discover planets orbiting other stars by how their gravity affects the star itself causing it to wobble ). Do we understand Dark Matter completely yet? Nope, but on day we will. Every bit of new knowledge allows us to stand upon it's shoulders so as to grasp the next little nugget, ad infinitum.

Dark matter exists because science as said well something is causing this to happen and we don't know why so lets create a matter to explain this. Yes we can measure the affects by observation of data. This is the same logic that people use when researching Bigfoot or UFO or Alien visitation. The number of foot prints the number of people affected are much higher than the data behind Dark Matter but it is easier for scientists to believe in Dark Matter but not the other 2? This has always struck me as odd.

You are still thinking in human terms of how long it takes to travel from planet to planet. We may be completely wrong on out MATH or or Science.

But the math isn't wrong see..... When Relativity is used in experiments it is always proven to be correct. This should not be your argument.

The better argument is technological advancement and improvement in energy sources and efficiency have allowed an alien race interstellar travel via large multi-generational ships and all we see are the little observer craft that fly back and forth from the larger one.

I find this unlikely, but it's a much better counterargument to my position.



here is an interesting article about dark matter :

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

StankApe wrote:But the math isn't wrong see..... When Relativity is used in experiments it is always proven to be correct. This should not be your argument.

The better argument is technological advancement and improvement in energy sources and efficiency have allowed an alien race interstellar travel via large multi-generational ships and all we see are the little observer craft that fly back and forth from the larger one.

I find this unlikely, but it's a much better counterargument to my position.



here is an interesting article about dark matter :

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

How do you know our Math is correct how do we know that human math is accurate?
This is the argument, We don't know because their is nothing else to compare too as of yet so we are assuming human math and science is correct. It could be wrong. All out Math could be completely wrong. At present it works for us in the way we expect it to.

I have done reading on dark matter.
Basically what happened is was scientists were stumped by something. They expected based on the science a particular thing to happen in a certain way when it didn't happen as hypothesized it too they said well something must be affecting it to get the results we see.
So they started to look for the substance they called Dark Matter. So they fit the results they found to fit this dark matter.
Can they be wrong? Sure they can. could their math be wrong Yes it can.
So how is believing in big foot with the evidence any different than dark matter?
why can't science accept that a creature called big foot is alive until someone proves it wrong.
Its what science is always doing creates theories of things till some one proves it different.
Scientists can't even agree on the Big Bang theory. Some actually believe now that it was a series of mini big bangs.

there's a difference, a huge difference. One mathematically should exist , it fits all the models it should explain why certain things act certain ways. The other is an as yet discovered creature . There is no math that says they should exist. Just anecdotes and easily faked footprints. That doesn't mean it DOESN'T exist. But you must admit that no other animal is allowed to be described by a footprint and stories alone. Discoveries must be made.


As far as arguing that math can't be verified so it's all "theory" that's a silly thing to say as everything we know about the universe is dependent on mathematics for verification. If we couldn't hold our discoveries on the foundation of math then everything we know is wrong. It seems unlikely that everyone from Copernicus and Newton to Hawking and Higgs are wrong, and the math just coincidentally happens to verify their discoveries/concepts.

StankApe wrote:there's a difference, a huge difference. One mathematically should exist , it fits all the models it should explain why certain things act certain ways. The other is an as yet discovered creature . There is no math that says they should exist. Just anecdotes and easily faked footprints. That doesn't mean it DOESN'T exist. But you must admit that no other animal is allowed to be described by a footprint and stories alone. Discoveries must be made.


As far as arguing that math can't be verified so it's all "theory" that's a silly thing to say as everything we know about the universe is dependent on mathematics for verification. If we couldn't hold our discoveries on the foundation of math then everything we know is wrong. It seems unlikely that everyone from Copernicus and Newton to Hawking and Higgs are wrong, and the math just coincidentally happens to verify their discoveries/concepts.

But see this is where Math Theory changes. What was once Factual Theory changes when something new comes up. I am not dismissing things, I am just pointing out that a majority of science bases facts on what they think they know.
Lets look at the "god particle" just recently possibly discovered. It was a Theory that this particle exsisted right. No solid proof of this particle just the theory of it. They said something must be causing others particles to react this way. So what do they do they create a theory on little evidence. On a HINT of such a particle. So now they spend all this time specifically looking for this Particle. They finally think they may have found what they believe may or may not be this particle. Its still not validated hell they could have found something completely different.
We spend all this time looking for this particle based on a theory yet people have a hard time believing in Big Foot with "evidence and stories and sightings" of such a creature. To me this is the most confusing side of Science skeptisms when they say PROVE to me. Yet they are perfectly willing to believe in a particle that they can only see the affects of.

Again all science and math is based on Human knowledge. How do you know we are correct? Give me solid proof that what we came up with is universal across the Universe?
This is the same logic that many people say about big foot or ufo's. We are humans so we only view the universe in human understanding which is always changing and we are always correcting.
Example you mention Copernicus right

Kepler and the Elliptical Orbits
Unlike Brahe, Kepler believed firmly in the Copernican system. In retrospect, the reason that the orbit of Mars was particularly difficult was that Copernicus had correctly placed the Sun at the center of the Solar System, but had erred in assuming the orbits of the planets to be circles. Thus, in the Copernican theory epicycles were still required to explain the details of planetary motion.
It fell to Kepler to provide the final piece of the puzzle: after a long struggle, in which he tried mightily to avoid his eventual conclusion, Kepler was forced finally to the realization that the orbits of the planets were not the circles demanded by Aristotle and assumed implicitly by Copernicus, but were instead the "flattened circles" that geometers call ellipses (See adjacent figure; the planetary orbits are only slightly elliptical and are not as flattened as in this example.)

The irony noted above lies in the realization that the difficulties with the Martian orbit derive precisely from the fact that the orbit of Mars was the most elliptical of the planets for which Brahe had extensive data. Thus Brahe had unwittingly given Kepler the very part of his data that would allow Kepler to eventually formulate the correct theory of the Solar System and thereby to banish Brahe's own theory!

these two things aren't even the same sport though. Scientists looked at the "evidence" for Bigfoot and found nothing there, some have continued to look into it , like Meldrum, Krantz and others. HOWEVER, the long term real world benefits to mankind are much greater with a better understanding of particle physics than it is if we find out Bigfoot is real. The technological possiblites are endless, it could lead to new energy sources, development of new and interesting and useful things. Bigfoot, if proven to exist, would be an interesting thing sure, but there isn't much there to advance society into the future.....

The Higgs Bosen was more than just a theory, the standard model of particles said it SHOULD exist. The problem was developing the ability to find it. Which, apparently, we have. The biggest problem facing Bigfoot is that it has been a long time and a lot of eyes out in the field and yet there physical evidence is limited to alleged footprints and lousy video/photographs....

To sum all this up, there is no incentive for mainstream scientists to spend grant money and time and resources chasing a creature that may or may not exist when they have all of these other things they could be doing. If some good evidence pops up, they will be all over it.

BurdenOfProof wrote:So if you are a believer or someone that's had a "sighting" is it not extremely disappointing that there is absolutely no evidence for this species. I mean you and 50000 other people had an encounter right that was simple enough so why when people come up with absolutely zero evidence after decades of searching is that not a problem? It should certainly make you reconsider what you thought you saw that's if you are not one of the liers.

I realize this is a very old post. Any one can believe there is no evidance; yet, when a person experiances this phenomina it will only be evidance to that person. Personally it was difficult for me to believe as I had never seen one before; eventhough, I lived for many years out in a wooded area of British Columbia. Their is evidance out there even if those sceptics rant that there isn't. Many things are covered up and I can only say from my experiance and experiance of others we need no dead body to prove this grand creature is not a tale for liars. In the end it probably is a good thing many believe there is zero evidance(not); because, one then would realize there are more liars then us poor folk that have stuck our head on the line for telling the truth. Peace to those so called non-existant grand creatures and may the sceptics some day realize we are not alone.

StankApe wrote:

I AM THE BLOBSQUATCH wrote:

StankApe wrote:

Take UFO's for example, people claim to see them all the time.Yet the physics alone makes the idea we are being visited from alien beings highly unlikely.

Physics as we understand it NOW. there may be a whole new level of physics we haven't discovered yet, no?

Not really.....the law of the conservation of energy is what it is. the energy required to travel such distances is vast and since nothing can move faster than light, the time and distances involved are massive. (so massive that people have a hard time comprehending it) CHECK THIS OUT!


ONE LIGHT YEAR= 5,878,625,373,183 miles at 1 million miles an hr it would take 671 years to go there

uhhh actually now they think there might be faster than light. A black hole's gravity suck in light (How they know this, I have no clue but it's just another of these things science claims to "KNOW" when there is more evidence to the existence of Sasquatch). In order for this to happen, then the gravity coming from a black hole is actually sucking faster than the light particles can move. Secondly, if particles are traveling faster than light, we would not be able to see them.

P.S. Just an FYI, but modern science doesn't even know if gravity pushed down or pulls in... Just saying

As far as "No evidence"...

If it is true that there is NO evidence, then Ted Bundy should not have been executed nor arrested to begin with. Jeffery Dahmer should not have been killed in prison because he also should not have been arrested because he was never proven guilty. nor was Albert Fish, John Wayne Gacy, Henry Lee Lucas or any of the most vile serial killers we ever caught... They were never proven guilty because there was no evidence. DNA, Witness Testimony, fingerprints and footprints do not count. None of the Nazi's should have been charged with war crimes either because all the Jews who were sent to these concentration camps did not actually witness these atrocities as they were actually at a theme park and mistook their torture with fun...

Do I have the jest of it?