If I were talking with people from any other group, I would be starting to lose patience over the lack of evidence and the constant claims of "scientists are all liars." Unfortunately this seems to be most creationists' M.O.

CTD, your method of reasoning appears to run this way:

One or a few scientists were caught using a picture which was cut-and-pasted from another article about the same creature. Because these one or two people are liars, therefore all scientists must be liars.

It doesn't take a genius to see the logical fallacy here. But moving on from this, creationists here -- and their sources -- have been shown a number of times to be wrong about a number of things. For example, Kent Hovind thinks the sun burns by combustion. By your own spurious logic, because this one person was wrong (or possibly lying) about one thing, therefore all creationists are wrong and/or lying. If you're going to use this particular system to explain the world, you ought to at least be consistent in how you use it.

I'm also not sure why you seem to think that no hominid foot fossils exist, or why this is so crucial. We can learn important things from other fossil parts, such as the skull (brain size) and the pelvis (method of locomotion). I'm guessing that you've been reading more 20-some-years out-of-date creationist sites stating that there is no "missing link" and that homid fossils are exceedingly rare and mostly incomplete. Science has moved on, discoveries have been made.

Just at random, Googling hominid foot fossils, I found this site, which appears to refute what you've just said. It took a few seconds to find. There are many other sites which also discuss hominid foot fossils.

No one seems to be answering the questions I've been posing, and seeing as how you brought hominids up here, I'll ask again: which fossils are 100% monkey according to you, which are 100% human, and where do you draw the line? Also, how are paleomagnetic, ESA, and uranium analysis dating "wishful thinking?" How are they supposed to be "fooling" people? Or does your entire position here, like Bex's, simply hinge on nothing but this claim that all scientists are liars?