Jump to content

Talk:Bigfoot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.163.112.128 (talk) at 03:59, 31 December 2007 (→Monster Quest is a joke). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives


Request for "tweeking" intro paragraph

Please rework the intro paragraph to this article if you are talented in that ability. It seems that the intro paragraph sets up the idea of Bigfoot as being only forklore and no validity to the potential that this is a hominid or primate that either existed or remains in North America. My Great Grandmother, who was full-blooded Cherokee, used to tell me about Bigfoot and that he was/is known to our people. I am pretty much your average college educated "white-guy" (with only 1/16th? Cherokee blood) now and my "Mawmawl" has passed on to be with our Ancestors so I can't go back to her for more detailed info but I do believe her and think that the Native American experience in this land (10,000+ years) probably is more significant than the few hundred years that Non-Natives have been settled here and are now naysaying all the Sasquatch legends from All the tribes that were here long before the arrival of Columbus (I'm not touching the Viking exploration possibility though for sake of being brief). The bottom line to my request is this: would someone please make a more objective introdutory paragraph that would be acceptable to skeptics and believers alike. Sorry about the grammer/composition/spelling/etc- the Wife is hen-pecking me and I have to go before proofing. Thank you ahead for your contribution. P.s., I noticed that the description left out that there are blonde Bigfoot reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.68 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the intro paragraph should not be "reworked", because there is zero evidence of the authenticity of a bigfoot being a real creature. Mk1888 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. There is plenty of evidnce, in the form of footprint castings, tissue samples, eyewitness accounts, etc. What there is "zero" of is conclusive proof, however to have the opening paragraph indicate that the subject is simply folklore is a blatant double-standard. There is even less evidence for the existence of subjects such as dark matter, yet their Wiki entries aren't dismissive of the subject. It would be wise to have the intro altered to reflect a more neutral stance, rather than the dismissive one presented. Kt'Hyla 23:40, 05 Dec 2007 (EST)
You really don't understand how evidence works. The footprint castings are only proof that people can make casts of faked footprints. That isn't evidence. There are NO tissue samples that haven't been conclusively proven to be something other than common REAL animals such as bears. The eyewitness accounts are poorly documented, unreliable, or otherwise uncredible. People claims to have been abducted by aliens; that doesn't make their testimony evidence.71.182.187.74 (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting

Seen all references to THIS matter, so I went hunting and found THIS: hdbrp.com/Shooting%Cases.htm - Police, hunters shoot at Bigfoot. Where can THIS be placed, since it referrs DIRECTLY to people shooting at these things ? 205.240.146.131 05:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Deleted. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot is not gigantopithecus nor erectus.

Hi. I read a book that attempts to classify cryptzoological primates. Gigantopithecus is listed under "true giant", erectus is listed under "erectus hominids", and bigfoot is listed under "Neo-giant". The book's ISBN is 0-380-80263-5 , by the way, so should this be mentioned in the article? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 22:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation of original author, is not well disquised

fuck From page 1 "Bigfoot is one of the more famous examples of cryptozoology, a subject that the scientific community tend to dismiss as pseudoscience because of unreliable eyewitness accounts, lack of scientific and physical evidence, and over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation. Most experts on the matter consider the Bigfoot legend to be a combination of folklore and hoaxes."

This is how it should have been constructed. "Bigfoot is one of the more famous examples of cryptozoology, a subject that the scientific community is afraid to discuss openly for fear of retribution. Normally unrecordable audio evidence is readily available through field observation that most anybody can obtain in the woods nearest them. Physical evidence is much more difficult to obtain, due to Bigfoot as well as dozens of other little people, existing primarily in dimensions that are once, twice and three times removed from our own. Although thousands of eyewitness reports are on record of which hundreds are from highly reliable sources, those that are uncomfortable with the thought of an 8 foot tall hairy person living in the near vicinity, all work together to refute their existence so that they can live in denial. The few experts on the matter are normally driven out of town and into public disgrace, through clever plots of blacklisting, harassment, and slander. Although amaturish and shaky video hoaxes are on the upswing, there are several good recordings of legitimate Bigfoot that are owned by private citizens. They are the Patterson-Gimlin film, the Redwoods footage and the Freeman footage. Although children today are far more familiar and comfortable with the scientific fact of people moving in and out of other dimensions, as learned through their video games, their non-game playing parents normally write it off as complete nonsense. Bigfoot used to be common knowledge on the West Coast of the United States, back in the 60's. But societal pressures all but wiped out the finer points of their supernatural existence. But it certainly did not and could not wipe out the Bigfoot, because their U.S. population appears to number in the millions today, with the smaller interdimensional people sporting even higher numbers. Yet societal discrimination still prevails, as the interdimensional nature people, that are all generally benevolent, go unnoticed and underappreciated. Except by the few experts of course, who continue to have contact, communication and great fun with all the interdimensional nature people." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.166.121 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, your motivations are much more disguised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captaintim (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific community "dismisses"

This line seems rather weaselish, as are many other words. First of all, the scientific community is not one entity, and to say that something is dismissed from science implies that it didn't get rightfully considered. The burden of a claim is not on scientists in its refute but in the claimants to prove. Failure to establish an idea under science is not science dismissing anything. Otherwise, I get to make awesome claims like that the scientific community dismissed the idea that I'm ten feet tall and from another planet.--Trypsin 13:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. The scientific community never considered your claims to be tall, they have no place talking about them. The scientific community did, however, consider claims relating to Bigfoot, and their consensus has been to dismiss them as not being scientific.Esdraelon 18:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Quest

See this on the History Channel Wendsday. First episode: Sasquatch Attack. Appearantly, it left DNA behind as it attacked someone. The show implied that the DNA results are "in". 65.163.112.104 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only been one death related to sasquatch, back in the Roosevelt days, and modern-day attacks are few and far between. This creature is mostly docile unless you decide to punch it in the face, then it will be mostly hostile until you're ripped to shreds. My point is that the Discovery Channel beefs things up to get more viewers on the edge of their seats. There probably was no real attack.DallasOConner 16:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It didnt attack someone. The guy left a board with a bunch of screws in it infront of his cabin door during the winter. He did this becuase something broke into his cabin and trashed it, I mean trashed it. After an expret reveiwed the tape of the after-math and he said that IT WAS NOT a bear that trashed this guys cabin. So when he came back after another winter something had stepped on the screw trap, and leaving a size 16 foot "print". They tested the hair, tissue and blood sample. After some problems (they had to take the galvinised (sp?) stuff from the screws out of the sample) the DNA came back to be a cross between a human and a chimp. They are going to run more tests to confirm that the hair and tissue have the same DNA, and also they want to get a full DNA sequence so they can fully classify it. However all of that will take a year or longer to complete. Its on again on Friday and this weekend, so if you missed it, you gotta see it. THIS IS THE REAL THING HERE PEOPLE!!! Gundam94 16:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The show was total overblown bullshit, about on a par with Alien autopsy. If you haven’t seen the show yet, don’t waste your time watching this utter crap!
The mitochondrial DNA that they tested turned out to be human mitochondrial DNA. The reason they somehow concluded that it wasn’t human was because one single nucleotide pair (out of 16,569 nucleotides in human mtDNA) was different from the map of human mtDNA that they were using.
Humans don't all have exactly the same mtDNA. The mtDNA of two randomly chosen humans will differ by about 50 to 70 nucleotides. There is no mapping of mtDNA available that exhaustively lists all possible variations of human mtDNA. Suggesting that the mtDNA was partially like that of a chimp because one single nucleotide matched the chimp map they were using instead of the human map is just jaw-droppingly bad science. If the mtDNA was really, say, halfway between that of a human and a chimp, it would differ from human mtDNA by a heck of a lot more than one nucleotide. MrRedact 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Monster Quest is a joke

Referring to woo-woo tabloid shows like "Monster Quest" for evidence for bigfoot is on par to citing "The National Enquirer" for proof of aliens living among us. Puh-lease....

Agent 16, the CIA says that kind of thing is to be SECRET.

Dead body ?!

Would a DEAD BODY satisfy the "skeptics"? I've heard this each and every time this matter is discussed, especially on the Discovery Channel and the History Channel. Anyone got a .44 Magnum cal. revolver and/or a .410, AR-14 ? 65.163.112.104 05:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would satisfy the skeptics, but you would be forever famed the worst person that will ever exist by each and every sasquatch enthusiast across the globe. Prove it lives by killing it?DallasOConner 16:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and by the way, these things have been shot at before. Listen to the Westmoreland, Pennsylvania recordings of one after it'd been shot at and wounded. Doesn't sound to me like this thing is going down with three shots from a .44 Magnum. And it's not gonna sit around and let you pop off at it.DallasOConner 16:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask a "skeptic" and they'll say "Bring in a body", especially the likes of CISCOP and Skeptical Inquirer". Blame it on them, not me. 65.163.112.104 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bourne?

I think in the section about Gigantipithicus we need to have an introduction as to who Bourne is before simply stating what it is he thinks about bigfoot. I was reading it, and saw Bourne, and tried to scroll up thinking "who on Earth is this fella?" but he was not introduced anywhere in the text. My guess is that he was there at one time, but the paragraph that introduced him was part of a section that was deleted. Perhaps someone would go and find out who Bourne is and create a breif introduction so that his credibility on the subject is well-established before his opinion is introduced. Something like... "XX Bourne, a [insert his credibility here], writes that..." Wouldn't take more than a semi-parenthetical note, really :-). Anyway. just a suggestion.Esdraelon 18:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Bigfoot and Sasquatch are capitalized all throughout the Article. Would you capitalize Elephant or Dog? How about Trees and Rocks? I doubt It. Unless this Article is about one Sasquatch in specific named Sasquatch, It shouldn't be capitalized, because It's not a proper Noun.DallasOConner 16:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

    I think in this case it is appropriate to capitalize Bigfoot and Sasquatch since they are technically names given to a creature, rather than just an elephant, for example. Scwilder 22:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!!!! Bigfoot is REAL !!!!

See Re.:Monster Quest above. 65.163.112.104 23:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary data says this thing is REAL. All because it stepped on a board full of screws. 65.163.112.104 23:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the "skeptics" say this is all fake. After all it is THEM that want a DEAD body. 65.163.112.104 00:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quit censoring comments. Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED. 65.163.112.205 05:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Description

Bigfoot's strong musk odor and wide shoulders should be mentioned. Also, bigfoot's commonly reported behavior should be added: nocturnal, howling, stone throwing, wood-knocking, etc. Most importantly, the reason he is called bigfoot is not present: for the large footprints discovered. That should be mentioned first. The Humboldt Times in Eureka, California, coined the term "Bigfoot" in a 1958 story. [1] Before that, bigfoots were called hairy giants, devils, and the Sasquatch, a word from the Coast Salish Indians meaning "crazy man of the forest" or “sesqec” which means “wild man.” Other Native American bigfoot names: Gekelemukpechuck, Ot-ne-yar-hed, Shookum, Hoquiam, Oh-mah, Nik’inla’eena, Pahazo, Seo-ah-tik, Toki-Mussi, etc.76.81.194.199 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add information to the the "sightings" paragraph

While listing sightings, can it also be mentioned that there are databases including www.bfro.net which record sightings and sounds from all over the US and Canada. It also has an introduction by Jane Goodall. They also classify and follow up on their sighting reports, which can also be read. It keeps the article balanced (it is real or is it not?) and would indicate more sightings than shown on the article.ArLeeKay3 (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)CE[reply]

Sexy Bigfoot

Should it be allowed that the porn sites, porn books and magazines refer to this thing ? Example:

"The woman stripped naked by the monster, her P*** lines itself up to Bigfoot's telephone pole sized D***, then it C*** all over her". then she c*** all over the monster."

I've been told that these kind of sites, books, etc. explicitly have this on them, in them, like a female Park Ranger forcibly stripped and raped by this thing. I'd list one or two that were given to me, but Wikipedia may frown on including stuff like that here. 65.163.112.205 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not generally opposed to pornographic themes when they are appropriate. Just a little bit of browsing the encyclopedia will show you that. But mentioning Bigfoot-related pornography in the Bigfoot article would not be appropriate, because it's not a very significant aspect of Bigfoot. (If Bigfoot-related porn starts becoming widespread and highly popular, then it probably would warrant mention in the article, provided that the increased popularity were well-documented by reliable sources, etc.) It has famously been said that there is porn based on every conceivable theme (see Rule 34). It wouldn't be practical or useful to put a little blurb in every single article that says: "And, oh yes, there is porn of this." Dave Runger (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Sightings ?!

Who or what says they're "alleged" ? IF "YOU" see one, are "you" going to call it alleged ? No wonder people are looking for it, and I don't mean with a camera. IF someone brings in a body, will the "skeptics" finally accept that it is real ? According ot the show Monster Quest, someone got some Bigfoot DNA via some kind of booby trap. Some people I met are using "hot loaded" .44 mag handguns and other "hot loaded" caliber weapons. A "Hot Load" is a charge of powder in a shell that comes pretty close to blowing up a gun, yet does not, and sends more kinetic energy into the target, in the case of Bigfoot, a centermass or a headshot will certainly kill it. 65.163.112.205 05:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credulity in the face of complete absence of credible evidence is incredible. The answer of course is that we want you to produce the body; we long for it; we plead for it. In its absence, we ask for something, anything more than anecdote. Until then, to paraphrase Bertrand Russell, we will continue to find it undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it to be true.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bigfoot&oldid=181125055"