Talk:Evidence regarding Bigfoot

	This redirect falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
NA	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Cryptozoology Redirect‑class

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Note about article's creation

The initial discussions which led to the creation of this article, and contain many points to consider in it's further development, can be found at Talk:Bigfoot#Bigarticle. If you are wondering how to contribute to this article, you might want to check there first and see what ideas have been proposed so far. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: this is now in the archive here, the link mentioned above is defunct since the archive was created. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clumsy intro

That was me, knocking something up in a hurry. Better than nothing, I suppose... anyway, it looks better now. Totnesmartin 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Quote from the article as of 17 March 2008:

As expected, certain individuals have expressed contradictory opinions, but those individuals are, without exception, non-scientist amateurs who have never seen or examined cast in person. For example, non-scientist Ron Schaffner (an appliance maintenance technician in Ohio, and a former BFRO investigator) suggested that the Skookum impression was made by an elk, not because Schaffner had the opportunity to view or examine the cast in person, but rather because he was never sufficiently persuaded to change his initial, unsupported assumption -- an assumption based solely on his limited understanding of the circumstances, and not based the Skookum cast itself.

This needs to be reworked, it so POV it's silly. I tried to fix it but I couldn't without any sources. I don't want to just remove it though, because it states an interesting point. I'd like to see some sources here. Pipatron (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: "Bigfoot researchers argue that the absence of fossilized evidence is not evidence of fossil absence." (Wiki article)

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." (D. Rumsfeld) —Preceding unsigned comment added by C d h (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there seem to be a few bias problems (going both ways) on this page. The box titled "Pseudoscientific concepts" is a bit dismissive and doesn't seem to have a purpose on the page. I like the part about the skookum cast, but I don't think you can say that all scientists who saw it agree it's real without a citation. Also, the section "Accumulating physical evidence" seems a bit biased. I think it should either be revamped, deleted, or given some citations.Punkrockrunner (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)punkrockrunner[reply]

Smell

The thing does smell like a corpse, rotten garbage, wet dog, shit, carrion, rotten eggs, worse, all combined. Why is that not here? Many Bigfoot reports report the offensive odor. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed smell is not relevant to this page. I don't think even the strongest proponents of a bigfoot would consider a bad smell as evidence. This belongs on Bigfoot. See my response on Talk:Bigfoot. —Fiziker ^t 18:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]