From what I've read on the forum, rock (and stick) throwing is fairly common (Correct?)

Well I was thinking the other day....and I was wondering if anyone's ever brought back some of the objects thrown and tried getting finger prints off of them (or even just checking to see if there's a giant muddy BF hand print or something)

HAHA, The reason no one answered this thread is one of two reasons.
1. They don't believe BF throws rocks (i fall in this category)
2. The people that do believe it, are afraid to check for fingerprints because they know deep in there hearts that Reason #1 is true.

Actually, while I do think a lot of the alleged rock throwing incidents are dubious, I think, basically, it's a great idea if someone clearly
sees an object thrown and then immediately bags it (bring those CSI gloves, kids). This, assuming that, just prior, an expedition leader hasn't mysteriously
disappeared.

Sac,

Curious to hear why you don't think they're rock throwers?

Personally, I have never bought into this alleged rock throwing or wood knocking to any degree.

Nothing scientific- just an observation.

I dont recall and large volume of accounts where a BF was actually seen throwing a rock or knocking on wood. ( the difference between associating these things with BF rather than him actually doing it)

Then, look at the reported size of these thrown objects ( specifically referring to the wood and rock shown on MQ)- they look like they fit a human hand better.

Now, if these rocks were the size of basketballs- I'd give it a second look

Somewhere there's a thread here discussing this, and if I remember right the conclusion was that it could be done in certain instances, and I think there was a how-to in there somewhere as well. A quick search didn't net me anything, but it's here somewhere if someone has the time and patience to look!

1. For an animal that tries to be so elusive, it would seem to be counter-productive.
2. I see no real evidence that they do.
FYI. For the people that believe they are rock throwers, they should bring riot shields to the field and follow the rocks.

Good points. Do you think there is any reason to believe that a primate such as this would use rock throwing as a means to intimidate a person out of a particular area?

Hominid WA wrote:





Hasn't it been documented that chimps and/or gorillas have been witnessed chucking stones?

Indeed, it has. When it comes to Sasquatch, I don't completely believe it's out of the realm of possibilities.

Perhaps. I just am not too sure if there is any good reason to attribute rock throwing as known behavior of a Sas. Not to say he/she can't throw rocks, just that I don't think they do. I will be the first to eat crow, if I end up being wrong. That goes with wood knocking and tree twists as well.

Has he ever actually hit anybody with one?

I do not see how this would be beneficial in the least. We have found hair, blood, and even tissue. All of the results have been inconclusive because they cannot be matched to any known animal. Though inconclusive they cannot be dismissed. I cannot see fingerprints giving us anything that is more useful than what we already have. Human fingerprints show such variation I doubt fingerprints from a thrown rock could be adequately shown to be not of human origin. Seems to me to be just another way to collect evidence for people to shoot down. I can't help but think that such evidence would just be construed as us grasping for straws to prove that a non-existant animal does exist.

I would think that would be the best time for it to be tested.

I think it's very probable that bigfoot throws rocks given that both chimps and gorillas do and believe this like every other kind of incident needs to be taken on a case by case basis.

If the experts are correct about BF not having an opposable thumb, it seems they would have a hard time picking up a rock. But if they did manage to, I bet with that shaped hand and thier muscles, they could throw one pretty darn hard!

I have heard several stories of rocks, branches and pine cones being thrown at people.

I don't know what North American animal could be gripping and throwing items. Not a Bear, not a Mountain Lion, maybe a crow or squirrel could drop something on you but that is not how the story went.

As for fingerprinting. I know here at my agency people are always asking us to "fingerprint" the rock that broke a window or whatever. This agency will tell you it is way too expensive for a investigation of that kind.

Now Sasquatch it may be worth the money to attempt to extract a fingerprint if the rock or item could be holding one but I really think it very unlikely and more than that, I don't have the money to pay the lab cost, no matter how badly I would like to see this mystery solved. Do you?

Does anyone know where the first examples of squatchy doing rock throwing ever showed itself? Just curious.

Just a Mascot, but that was on purpose.

What about the Ape Canyon incident? If I remember weren't they basically besieged with an onslaught of rocks hitting the roof of the cabin? It was pretty well established in that incident, but that being said I cannot recall any incidents or sightings where anyone actually claimed to witness one in the act of throwing. They didn't "see" any actually throw any rocks in the Ape Canyon thing if I'm not mistaken - but the chain of events pretty much leads one to conclude that the bf creatures were doing the throwing. If you dismiss the rock throwing as questionable you are saying the entire report is questionable which I guess would be another subject altogether.

Well, it is true that in a criminal case, fingerprints need to be lifted by professionals in a lab setting.

However, if you want to lift prints yourself from porous material (wood, etc) it is quite simple and inexpensive to fume them. All you need is some superglue, a coffee cup warmer, a box, some aluminum foil and a well ventilated area.

Here is how home fingerprint fuming can be done:
http://onin.com/fp/cyanoho.html

Heck if you can fume a whole car, you out to be able to do a few sticks or rocks. Good referencing Violet, this will add to the ability to enhance the possibility of
visible latent prints that something can be gleaned from.

Or they might just be a little concerned as to why something is throwing rocks at them. But personally I've never experienced rock throwing either. Don't have any particular reason is doubt or believe in it.

http://www.sasquatchonline.com/content/view/80/29/

Why would the largest beast in the woods need to throw rocks at people?

To Scare people away? He could do that just by appearing, unless he has some intelligence that tells him that humans are unpredictable and liable to shoot back, in which case lobbing rocks isn't such a good idea either.

Unless maybe he has a sixth sense that tells him to only throw rocks at people it 'senses' will not mobilize and come after him.

The only reason I could see for a Sas to lob rocks, would be to hit people with them (a long range assault in other words), and since there aren't too many reports of that, I'd guess it isn't a Sas or he is the crappiest aim in History, even bad aimers normally hit something eventually.

Bindernagel, in North America's Great Ape, pp. 201-02, describes the stone-throwing behavior of chimps as aggression-displays and speculates that Sas stone-throwing is similar. See also "Stone throwing" in his index for more discussion of this phenomenon.

Hi

This thread is getting all out of hand and off track, It is TOSS rocks not THROW them, BF gently tosses rocks at people to get there attention ( hay look i am over here human) Throwing is for hitting, -------- Let's recap ---------- Toss is friendly Throw is Aggression


Thank you for your time
Peace
Tim

You're welcome. I hope it helps!

You can fume all kinds of things. Even skin.....for example, say you find the leftovers of an animal or some bait food that you suspect a BF was munching on. You could fume a bone, for example, to see if there are prints- as long as there is some kind of reasonably flat surface where a print could reside. I imagine that you could tell BF prints apart from human because they would be GINORMOUS.

Heck, it's worth a shot, even if only to rule out the process as useless. Keep in mind, the fuming process will render the object permanently altered.

If someone is feeling spendy, you can get a pro forensics fuming kit for under $200: http://www.executiveforensics.com/systems.htm

At least he's <allegedly> tossing/throwing rocks and not his own poo like monkeys!

Hi


I always laugh at that Here is a link so Folks know what it is about

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...50&start=50

Peace
Tim

I had forgotten about that Tim.

Hi


Thats ok

Hey if anyone has questions about Monkeys throwing ____ at them i would be happy to tell ya what the impact and feeling is like

Peace
Tim

If a fingerprint were found, its inhumanly large size would mean it couldn't be an accidental human print, but either authentic or a fairly elaborate hoax. So fingerprints would be helpful to obtain.

Presumably this object-throwing behavior originated for use against members of its own species, as among chimps. If so, it would not necessarily have developed with a view to accuracy, but to intimidation. The low frequency of hits thus isn't suspicious.

John Green's Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us described a report of a four-pound rock being thrown (p. 46). Several of these instances seemingly were aimed at chasing people away. On p. 203 a report described a Sas throwing dirt through a car window. A report on p. 315 described being nearly hit by a thrown stone. In a summary of his statistics on p. 338 he wrote:



Bindernagel described rock-throwing by Sasquatches on pages 115-20. Here's are some relevant quotes:

It would certainly be an interesting experiment to try.
Granted, faking a fingerprint is not a very difficult thing to do. Heck, a person could use a big toe as a 'template" to make a large print. But someone would have to be really determined to fool BF researchers in order to bother doing it. Not that some jokester out there wouldn't think of trying.
I would be immediately suspicious of any object that wasn't collected in the field by myself or someone I trusted, under circumstances that indicate the object wasn't planted by someone.

Gads....the more I learn, the trickier the matter of gathering BF evidence gets!

I guess it depends what your tossing, doesn't it?

Someone tossing a Grenade at your foxhole doesn't exactly exude friendliness

Well thank the heavens bigfoot species isn't known for lobbing hand grenades. If i were going to use a hand grenade though I wouldn't toss it. I'd throw that sucker just as far away from where I was going to be when it went off as possible! Horse shoes are "tossed" salads are "tossed"

two pennies don't get ya much anymore.

Hi

I was listening to the Robert Morgan show one night and he was talking about BF and rock tossing, He had a very good point when he said, If a rock comes into your camp and you suspect it is a BF, Tossing the rock back would be an ok sign that your not aggressive, If you raise your arm to throw the rock, The BF will take that as a threat and move on,

Peace
Tim

From the book

>>>P. 115: Long ago, John Green set himself rigorous standards for the inclusion of reports in his files. In particular, he did not file reports of unusual events in which a sasquatch sighting or track was not reported. Because of this ... reports went unrecorded.

How is this "rigorous"- its speculative. So, every strange event where there is a sighting or track defaults to a BF?

>>>P. 116: Since 1991, many reports of stone-throwing have surfaced and I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to assign this apparent intimidation behavior to wildlife species other than sasquatches.

I'm more interested in how he ascribed this "behavior" TO a BF.

And people wonder.......

It's relatively rigorous. He excluded rock-throwing reports that lacked corroborative evidence. It wasn't absolutely rigorous in refusing to credit a witness lacking absolute proof that his encounter was real. E.g., unless he had an affidavit signed by the Bigfoot that he'd thrown the rock.

It is not "speculative"--it's inferential. And such inferences are a normal part of science and of critical thinking in general. Science is no more a mass of "just the facts" than a house is a pile of bricks. A house is held together by theory (its overall coherence) and inference (the mortar). In other words, at many points in sciences that are not as "hard" as chemistry and physics, like field biology, there are implicit inferences made. A large "bed" found in gorilla's territory is inferred to be used for sleeping by a gorilla. (That's so short a leap it hardly counts--but it's an inference nevertheless.) A newly recorded wood-tapping pattern and bird-cry that matches the unique taps and cries of Ivory Bill woodpeckers (before they went extinct) can reasonably be inferred to be that of the same species. It's not proof, but it deserves to be taken seriously as possibly or probably being true. It's not "rigorous" but irrational to insist that such evidence means nothing because it hasn't been proved.

If the cry and the wood taps were recorded concurrently, that makes it less likely that either was a mere anomaly. The presence of each strengthens the credibility of the other, because it's less likely that two mutually supporting anomalies would have occurred at the same time by chance.

In the same way, if a BF witness (or "reporting person," or RP) claims that his encounter included several elements that other witnesses have reported, such as a terrible odor, a screech, a thrown rock, and a footprint, the context of these strange elements occurring together strengthens the entire report. (Or at least they did when Green was collecting reports, before knowledge of the pattern of a typical encounter report became widely publicized.) The default should not be to say that, since each odd element can be explained away in isolation from its context, the parsimonious thing to do would be to dismiss the entire report. That's "irrational rationalism"--i.e., scofticism.


It's by the same method of "indirect proof," or exclusion of the absurd and impossible, that is commonly employed in logic, math, science, and detective work. (I'll spare you the well-known quote from Sherlock Holmes.) It's what Bill Munns is employing in his analysis of the PGF. E.g., if a suit can be ruled out, or anyway shown to be unlikely, then a creature is, indirectly, ruled in, or shown to be more likely. Likewise, if no known animal throws stones, then some unknown animal is (possibly or probably) throwing stones.


Save it for JREF.

You've apparently never investigated a Bigfoot report. Many of the fake reports include not just one, but several details , that can be found in other reports or single one's that are reported and merged into a Bigfoot collage in an attempt to make the report "seem" more real or viable to a bad investigator or people who want to beleive just a little to badly based on their opinion and not what the facts) or lack of) represent.


And seriously dude. loose the constant "scoftic" remark it does nothing but make you sound like you have no critical thinking skill, and fall back on that as a psychological ploy when anything else you've presented is lacking.

Hi

Just wanted to help out here, Pretty big word i had to look it up, ( parsimonious )

excessively unwilling to spend; "parsimonious thrift relieved by few generous impulses"; "lived in a most penurious manner--denying himself every indulgence"

And some stuff about being stingy, (characterized by or showing parsimony; frugal or stingy. )

parsimonious was Word of the Day on October 1, 2002. http://dictionary.reference.com/wordofthed...2002/10/01.html



Peace
Tim

I realize that. That's why I stated,:



Until 2008, I was pretty sparing in my use of scofticism. Your claiming that I use it constantly is false--it's merely a sneer.


"Make you sound like" implies that it sounds that way to everyone, and that you're speaking for some sort of silent majority here. I doubt it--and I think it's magnificently presumptuous of you to say so. As for what it makes me sound like TO YOU, or to a scoftic, why should I care?


Was it your wonderful critical thinking skill that led you to ignore my inconvenient qualification above?


I do not throw the term scoftic around as a mere "boo-word" when I have no argumentative substance. That's what scoftics wish were the case. Nor do I usually employ it as a direct attack on some other poster. (The exchange here is an exception.) Rather, I usually employ it in an educational sense, when illustrating argumentative tactics that are part of movement-Skepticism's bag of tricks. In my post above, I stated that the attempt to rule out indirect proof is "irrational rationalism," which it is. (That was Robert Anton Wilson's term for the phenomenon. I like my briefer neologism, scofticism.) Most "skeptical" criticism of Bigfootery is foolish (irrational), knavish, or both, and deserves to be exposed for what it is--scoffing in sophistical disguise. This exposure is more important than anything to do with Bigfoot.

Roger, I'm going to be polite but firm and simply give you a REALITY CHECK and a short primer on how REAL science and REAL investigations work.

>>>It's relatively rigorous. He excluded rock-throwing reports that lacked corroborative evidence. It wasn't absolutely rigorous in refusing to credit a witness lacking absolute proof that his encounter was real. E.g., unless he had an affidavit signed by the Bigfoot that he'd thrown the rock.

Its ABSURD, UNPROFESSIONAL, UNSCIENTIFIC and downright HEARSAY( and in certain circumstances would even be CRIMINAL) is what it is. The ONLY thing that would "corroborate" a report of a BF throwing an object is either.
1) SEEING the BF throw the rock
2) having a rock with DEFINITIVE PROOF on it that can be traced back to a BF

All the rest of that "excuse" is simply wishful thinking trying to turn junk science into the real thing. If I tried to present such a thing to a scientific body, I would be blackballed.

Thats like me taking a report of hearing a GUNSHOT and finding an ARROW leading to the discovery of a STEAK in a grocery store ( dead cow) and ARRESTING you for MURDER as a result. ( after all, according to this new standard of "relatively rigorous" method documented in the BF science course- I have a report of violence, I have a weapon, I have a dead body and a suspect and it all "fits" into my belief. Lets go to trial) On second thought, Mike Nifong actually DID that when he prosecuted Lax players for a false rape claim. ( look what happened there) OK, so maybe that is the standard in BF science and Durham NC but not in the rest of the world.

>>>It is not "speculative"--it's inferential. And such inferences are a normal part of science and of critical thinking in general. Science is no more a mass of "just the facts" than a house is a pile of bricks. A house is held together by theory (its overall coherence) and inference (the mortar). In other words, at many points in sciences that are not as "hard" as chemistry and physics, like field biology, there are implicit inferences made.

Its junk is what it is! In science, one doesnt infer unless there is EVIDENCE ( something tangible or specifically relative) that its probable. Just like in your example above- suppose the "house" in question was made of WOOD and thus no bricks or mortar. ( see how that works?) Things have to be defined in terms and linked- not ASSumed for assumptions sake.

>>>A large "bed" found in gorilla's territory is inferred to be used for sleeping by a gorilla. (That's so short a leap it hardly counts--but it's an inference nevertheless.)

Thats a decent analogy because gorillas are KNOWN to exist,make beds etc and if such a bed big enough to be used by a gorilla in an area they were KNOWN to be in- thats logical

>>>A newly recorded wood-tapping pattern and bird-cry that matches the unique taps and cries of Ivory Bill woodpeckers (before they went extinct) can reasonably be inferred to be that of the same species.

Thats ABSURD,(Paredolia actually) because unless the IBW has a DISTINCTIVE "tap"- it cannot be reasonably attributed to it alone. ( define a metric by which one birds "tap" can be distinguished from another- or from a hammer tapping a tree for that matter)

>>>It's not proof, but it deserves to be taken seriously as possibly or probably being true. It's not "rigorous" but irrational to insist that such evidence means nothing because it hasn't been proved.

Whats irrational ( and downright FOOLISH) is to take anecdotal evidence which can have 10,000 DIFFERENT explanations and zero in on ONE simply because it fits an individual worldview ( and excluding all others)

>>>In the same way, if a BF witness (or "reporting person," or RP) claims that his encounter included several elements that other witnesses have reported, such as a terrible odor, a screech, a thrown rock, and a footprint, the context of these strange elements occurring together strengthens the entire report.

Is that like the "context" of saying that since a jet and a helicopter have wings- they must be birds? Or the direct context of since birds build nests- thats "proof" they have the ability to use tools and employ complex analytical thinking skills?

>>>It's not "rigorous" but irrational to insist that such evidence means nothing because it hasn't been proved.

Its even MORE irrational to "infer" that such that such "evidence" points to a specific conclusion that cannot be DIRECTLY linked to the body of evidence.( kinda like Nifong and the Duke case- the alleged victim HAD DNA present[ from several men] and it did NOT match ANY of the 46 tested but lets charge 3 of them anyway because he "believed" her story)

>>>The default should not be to say that, since each odd element can be explained away in isolation from its context, the parsimonious thing to do would be to dismiss the entire report. That's "irrational rationalism"--i.e., scofticism.

Quite the CONTRARY. Thats called the process of TESTING and elimination.( thats how the TRUTH is derived and FACT is separated from FICTION) Do you really want to do a line by line dissection of "irrational rationalalism" as its used specifically in BF "science"? OOPs, wait a minute- I guess that really IS "blood" in the creek and that really IS a gunshot wound. Call the DA and lets put Gimlin on trial so he can "have his day in court" and prove his innocence. After all, the body of evidence as presented "fits" the theme of the report so it "must" be true. ( why would we want to throw out such a report that contains so much "evidence" that supports the conclusion?- it does look like blood, it does look like a possible wound, those do look like backhoe marks etc- it has to be correct)

"DAMN the investigation- full speed to the COURTROOM" ( reminds me of Nifong again- those time stamped pictures dont matter, the witnesses establishing alibis dont matter- I have a victim)

>>>It's by the same method of "indirect proof," or exclusion of the absurd and impossible, that is commonly employed in logic, math, science, and detective work.

Oh BULLSH#T!!!!!! ( you do realize you are talking to a former INVESTIGATOR and scientist who has done this in the REAL world?)

>>>It's what Bill Munns is employing in his analysis of the PGF. E.g., if a suit can be ruled out, or anyway shown to be unlikely, then a creature is, indirectly, ruled in, or shown to be more likely. Likewise, if no known animal throws stones, then some unknown animal is (possibly or probably) throwing stones.

LOL, heres how this really works. There are 2 possible facts

1) patty is a suit
2) patty is an animal
Theres no 3rd option. The evidence available is not capable of making an accurate determination of #1. So one now must look at all the ancillary evidence and make a reasonable determination on the total body of evidence. ( like your rocks, how did you EXCLUDE the possibility of the witness lying or being mistaken? this rock being thrown by a HUMAN or kicked up by a vehicle UNSEEN to the witness? fall out of a tree?) you see how that works? You cant cherry pick the answers you want unless and until you examine ALL possibilities and systematically eliminate ( or not) them individually. Whatever is left ( ALL of them) becomes the basis of the functional theory(s)

>>>Save it for JREF

Is your position so weak that it cannot withstand the methods and scrutiny of the same "science" you claim to use to support it? Or do you just want to hear what you want to hear? I have effectively dissected your position with REAL science- can you do the same with mine? ( if not, prehaps you would profit by doing some introspection on how you derived your conclusions)

>>>I do not throw the term scoftic around as a mere "boo-word" when I have no argumentative substance. That's what scoftics wish were the case. Nor do I usually employ it as a direct attack on some other poster. (The exchange here is an exception.) Rather, I usually employ it in an educational sense, when illustrating argumentative tactics that are part of movement-Skepticism's bag of tricks.

Since thats directed to me specifically( based on your own admission in parentheses) and is by YOUR words a "direct attack"- allow me to fire back.

Your use of the term scoftic is unsupported by fact, ad hom, indicative of a complete and total misunderstanding of all things science and the ramblings of a fool. Your reasoning is fatally flawed at EVERY level. Your "facts" are not. Your deductions are bogus and unsupported and the entire premise of your argument is based in FANTASY. If you ever wonder how and why BF "science" is in the gutter and has the WELL EARNED reputation of same- refer to this post.

>>>Most "skeptical" criticism of Bigfootery is foolish (irrational), knavish, or both, and deserves to be exposed for what it is--scoffing in sophistical disguise. This exposure is more important than anything to do with Bigfoot.

OOOOOOOOOOOOk- for every action, theres an equal and opposite reaction. ( let me reword your statement as a counter argument)

ALL "anecdotal" blind acceptance of the "facts" in bigfootery is foolish ( irrational),knavish or both and deserves to be exposed for what it is-- kool aid drinking by disguising pseudo and junk science as the real thing. This exposure is equally more important than anything to do with BF.

Excellent post, Longtabber. I ripped off a quote for my new sig line.

Ok lets look at your supposed disclaimer then for a minute. Which I didn't ignore, but you seem to think that I did. What criteria are you using to determine even your disclaimer, do you have a specific date in mind? And since it's your own argument that you're trying to save without the supportive facts to back it up, how are you determining when something became common knowledge regarding alleged Bigfoot incidents?

Are you going by the criteria of Pre-1970 reports ? Earlier? Or basing it on published works alone by Green and others ?
You have to keep in mind that several of the reports at that time that are published in both the Media and book format came in through written correspondence ( mail service) as is noted at several points in the published material throughout the books.

So no, Roger I didn't ignore it at all. On your part it's just a very weak argument , and one that you've made before ( more than once) when the facts you attempt to introduce do not fit the facts or reality of what really occurred or what was actually written in the text. That's one of the reasons you are supposed to , for the sake of clarity, quote the entire text and bold the parts that you take issue with. It helps to keep it grounded in truthfulness and in context.

Using the search on the forum and eliminating the last six months from the equation indicates that you used the word or a derivative of it ( Scoff/scoftic etc.) for nearly four pages worth of posts. Hardly sparing usage at all by my count. That's also not including the base word of skeptic or skepticism that you tried to derive scoftic from which was used in a negative fashion toward counter arguments when your attempted facts could not be supported.

Could you point out where exactly I said I spoke for anyone else but myself? I think it's magnificently preposterous of you to infer that my words stated I did or ever have. Sooo glad we have you arguing for the pro-Bigfoot side of things. Were you not the one who brought it up in the first place ? So if I'm understanding this sentence right , your musing are only for those who "believe " both what you write as factual or in the reality of Bigfoot already? See Roger two can play at the word game as you did above. In this case it would look like I'm assuming that is what you meant , but in my case I'm basing it on what you actually wrote in reply, instead of what I wanted it to mean because I had a weak argument.

Uh, Pretty much, yeah you do. See above regarding nearly 4 pages of usage or it's like. Or use the search function yourself and verify what I said was accurate and factual. I think you'll find that it is. Regarding the bolded part, ( See? To keep it in context with the entire sentence. ) Isn't what you're doing the exact same thing , just on the pro-side of Bigfoot ? You can call me skeptical, "scofftical" or lump me ( or anyone) in wherever you want , but the truth of it is that there are a great many reports and other evidence ( term used loosely) that does not stand up in a lot of cases to even the most cursory scrutiny when it is looked at. That has been proven time and again by Tube, Wolftrax, Desertyeti and several others that have dared to look at the so called evidence or experiment with the parameters and likelihood of it being factual.

So that being the case should the opposite of "scofftic" be : Intellectual bullshitter? Because for most of what you are arguing for it fits.

And regarding the original intent/ question of this thread to try and keep things somewhat on topic. I know of only one person who has asked/attempted to lift prints from an alleged rock incident. I do not think it worked though, which still leaves the matter at ground zero as far as value other than interesting or one more thing in a great many "possibles" or "could be " category with no facts or proof to back it up.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good."

Good will never be good enough.

Put your best bigfoot forward and may the best team win