Jump to content

Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately January 2006 through early February 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Bigfoot/Archive04. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. DreamGuy 17:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


REQUEST TO BUNCHOFGRAPES AND MORITORI

As respected Wikians, please add to the intro statement that the alleged Bigfoot has many regional names, and that the alleged Bigfoot is seen and reported (allegedly) in China,,Russia, Australia and South America. (Ref. Green, --146,147) this book is in the sources list below in article.

Your goal,I think, is to improve the article and not just be a "reverter".

Bunchofraisins

OK, I've added:
Some believe the same creature may be found around the world, under different regional names — proponents of this theory would argue that Bigfoot and the yeti are one and the same. Sightings have allegedly occurred in China, Russia, Australia and South America. (Green 146,147.)

Thanks for putting together something cogent. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Just stay civil, and keep the hard evidence comming. You have to not let your own paranormal experiences get to you at all. I too have seen some socially unacceptable things myself, but I examine everything as a police officer or a doctor would, so that I can effortlessly follow Wikipedian protocol. It also helps if you ask questions as well. Like that old Radio Shack ad says,"You Got Questions, We got Answers", so is Wikipedia. You got questions, Wikipedia has answers. Martial Law 00:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Do a Google Search of one found in Malaysia as well. Seen it myself on Google. As stated, keep the hard evidence comming, and remain civil. Martial Law 07:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

hard evidence

There is very little. No bones, no body. Just tracks, hairs, human contacts. I can add paranormal accounts, but wiki opponents should NOT take these as proof, since they are not offered as proof. It must be remembered that this is a SOFT SUBJECT, and unproven, and we investigators are trying to make sense of it, such as theory on Bigfoot People with NO knowledge of this topic,keep your sticky hands off the page.

beckjordBeckjord 17:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Malaysian Bigfoot

Go to this link: Malaysian Bigfoot This is a link from a UPI article about a Bigfoot or related creature seen in Malaysia.Martial Law 09:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this credible ? Should I add this to the links section ? Martial Law 10:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

use it.

beckjordBeckjord 17:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep the HARD evidence comming, User:Beckjord. Wikipedia says to VERIFY what you are stating ? Do it in spades. Get the books, the newspapers,TV and radio commentary, the Documentary shows, credible links as well.

Martial Law 10:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just leave out the New York Times. The've been caught in another scandal. Seen the report on Fox News a short time back. Martial Law 10:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't comfirm this, nor deny it, just seen it on the Fox News Network a while back. Martial Law 10:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a investigator myself, thus I cannot place anything even remotely considered "original research" in this format, and, like a doctor or cop, I have to take a NPOV stance as well, and I do really try to be civil here as well, and I do not let my experiences influence me either, thus I'm able to follow Wiki protocol. As to Verifiability, I really go after the sources, even sources of the secondary sources. Martial Law 10:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Right now, Wikipedia has some kind of bug that causes data loss if you're in the Edit mode too long. Martial Law 10:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection

If this article is protected, why is there no protected tag on it? I assume it's sprotected? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Because Beckjord did another one of his preferred-version reverts. android79 22:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
After I re-added the tag, it was removed by Bunchofgrapes. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hm, must have been an edit conflict thing. The initial removal was indeed Beckjord's. android79 22:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Either one of those weird silent edit-conflict bugs you hear about or I had some sort of spasm. Either way, sorry. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah there are more from Johor, Malaysia, my hometown! look at this from The star dated May 25:

"He said two teams of 10 experts from different fields would be tasked to search for the mythical creature.

“Since talk of the Bigfoot started, we have been compiling additional information for the past three months,” said Abdul Ghani after launching the Johor Baru International Orchid Show 2006 at Danga Bay yesterday.

When asked about the publication of books on the existence of the Bigfoot, he said the state government did not prohibit such work.

One of the upcoming books would be by local biodiversity and environment expert Vincent Chow collaborating with other writers.

However, Abdul Ghani said the state government is gathering information from more reliable sources. "

Awesome huh!

Is this....

Is this what you're referring to ? Bigfoot on Animal X

More data to follow. Just remaim civil, User:Beckjord. Android79, this link appears to be zoological in nature. Is it safe to add to the other links ? Martial Law 22:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Is what what who's referring to? That link is meaningless... it's a promo for a video or something that I'd have to purchase to determine if it's meaningful or not. Really, ML, you need to read WP:RS and WP:EL. That's not usable as a source, because there's no information there, and it's not useful as a link, because you have to buy something. android79 22:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Puke,urrrp, YUCK! That is one link that is'nt going anywhere. Martial Law 22:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What of the Cryptozoology link, which is Cryptozoology Homepage ? Martial Law 22:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC) By the way, that was my wallet throwing up, not me. Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 22:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Once again, much of the article lacks reliable sources.

I added {{totallydisputed-section}} to the section on UFO speculation. Unfortunately, I don't have time to comb through the rest of the article; I suggest a liberal sprinkling of {{fact}} tags, and then we can go through them a section at a time. android79 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem we had there was Beckjord tried rewriting huge chunks of the article, adding tons more unverified claims, original research, major violations of WP:NPOV and so forth, not to mention links to himself, duplicated sentences, changed words without regard for meaning, etc... When someone makes that many mistakes and bad contributions all at once, the only thing to do is to revert it all and then go through and add back anything worth saving... which wasn't much. Trying to go back and edit it piece by piece is just a waste of time. The totally disputed tag got lost in the revert, and with that section the way it is after reverting Beckjord's edits, I didn;t think the tag was necessary anymore. Of course there are lots of other unverified bits in there still from before BEckjord even got here. DreamGuy 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot and Wormholes

User:Beckjord may have a point about the alien bigfoot. Just done a Google Search: Bigfoot and Wormholes. There are nearly 10,000 websites and data sites concerning this matter. Three or four are claims made by User:Beckjord, the others are from websites that have independent info. about this matter. Am investigating this one. Martial Law 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC) :o

There are exactly 9,310 websites and data sites about this subject. Martial Law 22:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about how chimpanzees stick blades of grass into worm holes and get the little wrigglers to stick on so they can pull them up and have a snack? Ruby 23:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the show Sliders ? Martial Law 23:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is what User:Beckjord is referring to, so, I had to do a Google Search on "Bigfoot and Wormholes". User:Beckjord may faint. Martial Law 23:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Uhh... Sliders is fiction... android79 00:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Allegedly, it is based on Michio Kaku's work. Go to Michio Kaku's Website for more. Just trying to find out what User:Beckjord is trying to state. Martial Law 01:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I can tell you that. Beckjord's hypothesis:
  1. Inter-dimensional wormholes exist.
  2. <vigorous hand-waving>
  3. Therefore, Bigfoot is actually an interdimensional being that has traveled to Earth via a wormhole.
It's like the Underpants Gnomes of pseudoscience. android79 02:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I get it, Sliders is thinly disguised as fiction. Those of you in the Bigfoot community wink and nod your heads. Ruby 03:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

>>>>No,no, no.... Sliders and a current series that has people jumping thru a round circle of water like material, (forgot name) are fiction that is based on the wormhole THEORY.(Transverse wormholes) (not proven fact.) What is wrong with that? There are also movies based on the Theory of Time travel. So what?

Joe S.

The other is Stargate:SG1. Martial Law 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
At long last, we learn the surname of the fabled DrJoe! Perhaps next week we will be graced with the presence of Jeff Leninkidney.
Come on, Beckjord. Stop this charade. We all know it's you. Use your main account to comment here. I had thought you had decided to drop the sockpuppets and deal with us plainly. Apparently that's not the case.
Evidence of supposedly-disappearing-before-your-eyes Bigfoot or tracks that stop abruptly aren't evidence of extradimensional travel, sorry.

..>>>>>> no, since it is not, since Bigfoot does not stand around waiting for instrumentrs to be set up. But it is a good indicator that the creature went somewhere, not on this Earth, unles it has hidden wings, or a totally silent CIA helicopter. Int is an INDICATOR of possible wormhole travel. What Kaku says about ufos using WH is that it is speculation,

He never said it was proven. You idiots. If it were proven, nobody wouod bnother reading it HERE, they would see in the NY Times.

beckjordBeckjord 06:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Kaku's hypothesis about wormholes lends no credence to your own theory about Bigfoot; you can stop dropping his name as though it means something. (Indeed, Wikipedia's own article on wormholes contains a reference that theorizes that travel through wormholes of this type is impossible. The question of wormholes is far from settled.)

ho ho ho>

AND WHERE DID I SAY IT WAS SETTLED?

I've read your Bigfoot page, Beckjord. It is exactly as I say above – hand-waving. Sure, you offer up the caveat that it's "just a theory", but a theory without any meaningful evidence to back it up is not very useful, and I don't need to "go back to college" to know this. This is the stuff of science fiction.

Get outdoors, do research, then open your mouth. 50% of all skeptics who went Bigfoot hunting became believers.

BeckjordBeckjord 06:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, even if it were a meaningful theory on the origin of Bigfoot, it's still simply original research for you to point to your own website. If you want "equal time" for the Bigfoot-as-alien concept, we need some reputable sources that identify it as a valid theory discussed among mainstream researchers. If that's not possible, we could maybe include a section on fringe theories – but only if you provide some references that explain that a sufficiently large number of people believe it or are interested in it, and that it's been covered in relevant newsmedia or suchlike.
You complain about your edits getting reverted, when all you do yourself is revert to a version of the article you prefer. We've explained countless times why this is unacceptable. android79 14:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

EB has evidence to support his theory. This is in the form of:

1) disappearances in front of witnesses, including separately, EB himself (reference,

Thom Powell in The Locals, listed in the sources area of the Bigfoot article.

2) Tracks that end in snow, as documented by researcher Brian Smith on video, as referenced by the on-agfain, off-again external link disappearing tracks

(also witnessed in separate events by EB, and researcher Shelly Binkleley, and WASH State Highway Patrolman Mark Pittenger (retired).)

3) It is unfortunate that Android and Dreamguy are both non-readers and are knee-jerk skeptics. Their relentless persecution of this article is amazing, based on their total LACK of any reading on the topic. A major flaw in Wiki. The gross bias, (see above comments by Android) is remarkable. They could not be more biased and ignorant if they had tried. Perhaps a year of so in a Jr College? I wonder if they have even read ANY of EB's website, [1] which gets 1000 hits a day, one of the highest of all the Bigfoot websites not counting one run by a fraud artist and hoaxer who happens to be tops in I.T. Run a google search, Android, on Beckjord and you will find thousands of references, some critical, and some fraudulant but most favorable.

Joe Stalinheart of the editing committee on Bigfoot

It's unfortunate you assume anyone who disagrees with you is a non-reader or idiotic. Frankly, if you tried to pay attention to what people were trying to tell you, you might learn something -- at least about how this encyclopedia works, if nothing else.
Furthermore, as soon as you first showed up trying to get the Erik Beckjord article changed to make you sound better, I actually DID do a google search. The claim that most the references to yourself are favorable is untrue. DreamGuy 01:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot and UFOs

Just did a Google Search on "Bigfoot and UFOs". there are 660,000 websites and data sites that discuss Bigfoot and UFOs. Martial Law 23:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Both Google Searches even indicate that religious fundamentalists believe that these are demons and/or "of The Devil", while the New Age movement says that these are Spirit Guides. It is surprising what is found. Martial Law 23:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile we're still waiting for the DNA of a previously undocumented primate. Even a tuft of hair stuck in a branch of a Hemlock tree will do. Ruby 03:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
If you like that you'll LOVE this: Alien Bigfoot. Someone had found this while in a US mountain range. It appears to be one of User:Beckjord's aliens or some kind of Bigfoot. Martial Law 04:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it appears to be a wolf or coyote, but what is it ? Martial Law 04:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
With the distance, and murkiness of the situation, it is just hard to tell.

But consider the story of the campers along with it. "Wet dog" smell is often found when people begin to tell Bigfoot stories.

Joe Stalinheart

Bigfoot in religion

See...

See the Wikipedia article:Demon, Re.:Demons in the Hebrew Bible, 2nd paragraph, 13th word in italics, the word se'irim, which means "Hairy Beings". It that a Bigfoot ? Martial Law 04:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This may explain why the religious believe Bigfoot is a demon. Martial Law 04:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm religious and I live in Bigfoot country but I don't believe Bigfoot is a demon. In fact, I don't believe Bigfoot is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ruby 15:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I know you don't. There are those that do. Did not mean to offend, just analyzed some surprising data on this creature. Martial Law 20:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Do apologise if I did offend you. As stated, was only analyzing some surprising data. Martial Law 20:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This website favors the position that this creature may be a demon and/or "of The Devil. It is Bible Life Homepage. Martial Law 19:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Here, it is Bible Life's position on Bigfoot Martial Law 19:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC) This link has secondary links to other Biblical sites as well. Martial Law 19:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Both are hairy beings. Did the ancient Hebrews spot a Bigfoot ? Martial Law 04:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
This is some of what I've found while running a Google Check. Martial Law 04:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
This states that, as stated, that those that are religious believe it is a demon. Martial Law 04:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It's just Beckjord's website...it is NOT from a scientific journal, or any of the other sources I have repeatedly stated that would be scientifically credentialed enough to warrant using as a reference source.--MONGO 12:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Attention DreamGuy and Android79 and Bunch of Grapes

It is vital you grasp that I do not say nor claim that Bigfoot is real, nor that it exists as a physical zoological thing. And most field workers also do not claim that Bigfoot is a proven fact. Nor do we say it in the Bigfoot article. (npov) right?

We are TRYING TO FIND OUT what it is. We talk about our searches and our speculations.

By so talking, we do not violate npov.We speculate, we make hypotheses, we make theories. We do NOT state anything is proven.

Do you understand this??????????????

It is all imho, or ioho and fwiw.

Do you get it?

We have never stated in the article that Bigfoot exists, nor that it is a proven fact.

Because it is not proven. We know that. We are working to find proof.

DO-YOU-GET-THAT?

PLEASE REPLY HERE SO WE KNOW YOU GRASP THIS CONCEPT. You think we are trying to force Bigfoot on the readers as a proven thing. This is NOT true. Bigfoot is NOT proven.

Beckjord205.208.227.49 09:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord, can I politely ask you what exactly out of that comment has any place in the article itself? The articles in Wikipedia do not support the incorporation of opinions that have no basis in facts that cannot be cross referenced. It is a violation of Wikipedia's policy of no original research. This is a policy so if you have a problem with that policy then you can discuss ways it should be modified. All contributors to Wikipedia are required to follow policies if they want their information to be in the articles. If you believe that you cannot abide by the policies that everyone else is required to abide by, then that seems a bit unfair, don't you think? You can put whatever you want into pages on your website(s), but that doesn't mean you can put those things here. I'm still trying to help you understand this situation and sadly, it doesn't appear that I am succeeding.--MONGO 12:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You do not get it

I am trying to reach two people, maybe you too, to show them that their feeling that I was trying to sneak in some feeling that Bigfoot was a proven fact, is not correct. I never asked them to use that paragraph IN the article. It is overview, for their brains to absorb. You also.

I think there should be a mandatory and proven educational level required to edit. No BA,no edit. Paper bought degrees not allowed.

beckjordBeckjord 21:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Beckjord, I have a Master's degree. Not that it matters. android79 21:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Need..

They need independent evidence, yet favorable to your position on Bigfoot. My Google search has revealed this evidence. Martial Law 20:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you and your personnel are here, User:Beckjord, do a Google Search on the creature, wormholes, UFOs, religion, Interdimensional, and you'll see what I've found. 3 or 4 data sites refer to your website, yet the rest are from other sources. Martial Law 21:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

ML, quote the evidence, here, and request it be inserted as an edit, by some admin. DO not MAKE THEM LOOK IT UP, THEY WILL NOT TAKE THE TIME. THEY THINK THEY ARE TOO IMPORTANT. MOST OF YOUR WORK HERE IS WASTED, BECAUSE YOU DO NOT ASK FOR SPECIFIC EDITS.

Got it?

BeckjordBeckjord 21:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

For you:Bigfoot and Wormholes ? and
Bigfoot and Wormholes ? Martial Law 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Paranormal Palace Homepage Martial Law 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Who or what...

Who or what is "the Edit Committee" ? Martial Law 21:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The first rule of the Edit Committee is do not talk about the Edit Committee. Ruby 00:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Remember Beckjord claiming to have a group of people here making edits? That's what he's talking about. It's just beckjord using lots of sockpuppets to try to make him seem more important. DreamGuy 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
That's kind of sad if it's true. He might be really in trouble, biochemically. Ruby 01:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

>>>Ruby, DG, why in God's Heaven should I care what you think?

BeckjordBeckjord 06:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

First...

First independent evidence of what User:Beckjord is stating ? First independent evidence of Bigfoot using a wormhole ?! Martial Law 01:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If link is malfunctioning, go offsite. Martial Law 01:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Dude. That's GeoCities. Come on. android79 01:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, how about this Bigfoot vanishes Martial Law ? 01:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Question: have you even read Wikipedia:Verifiability and other policies we pointed you too earlier? It's someone who posted on some messageboard citing posts from other messageboards. It is not scholarly or reliable in the slightest. DreamGuy 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have. That is why I'm after independent evidence, other than User:Beckjord's site. Martial Law 01:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Other than what User:Beckjord has stated, there is'nt much out there at this time. Martial Law 01:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Really do appreciate your reminder User:Dreamguy. As stated, just investigating to see if User:Beckjord's hypothesis is correct. Martial Law 03:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Source check please

Paranormal News Homepage Martial Law 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Applicable link is this one:Paranoemal News section: Cryptozoology Martial Law 00:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mongo, can I get this link checked out ? Martial Law 09:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

?!!

WHAT is a beeping Bigfoot ? Sounds like it is a robot or a automatonic device. Martial Law 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe Bigfoot has a cell phone. I wonder if Sprint has coverage up on the Dark Divide. Ruby 02:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Seen this on User:Beckjord's website. Martial Law 02:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Holy flying wombats! It must be true--MONGO 07:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

BEEPING BIGFOOT

noT PROVEN, but researcher Shelly Binkeley of OR, reports it with witnesses, around her camp, and next day BF tracks found in mud, which vanished with no hard ground to jump to. BIRO has copies of sound, which are similar to a backing up truck, but no such trucks can get up a mountan trail.

vincent K

At some point, you're bound to run out of names for yourself...see:WP:NOR, again.--MONGO 20:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the truck was dropped by helo. That's no stranger than wormhole theories. Ruby 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added the link to Beckjord's website since he seems dead set on having it there. He emailed me and asked that I do a number of things but this is the only one I'm doing. If anyone else thinks it doesn't belong here, then expain why and take it out...it appears to be pure speculation, but has a few images of interest to some. What we won't do is support Beckjord using his own article to add information to this page in the article area as that would violate WP:NOR...but his website is only a bit more POV than some of the others listed here.--MONGO 09:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This was one of the very first things we discussed here... It clearly violates the Wikipedia:External links rules on what should not be linked to. This violates the clauses on sites owned or operated by the person putting it there (as you are only putting it there due to Beckjord's insistence). This is self-promotional spam, pure and simple, and it has been one of the major goals of Beckjord since the first moment he found out about this place. If we include the links just because someone insists it belons there then we leave ourselves open for spammers to hit every article and make such demands and be treated the same way. If someone else had put the site there before Beckjord showed up thinking it was noteworthy and had valuable info, that'd be another story, but it didn't happen, because his site isn't considered valuable even by the pro-Bigfoot people who had control of this article for so long. We are iundern no obligations to cave to the demands of someone constantly vandalizing the page and adding his own original research. DreamGuy 13:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I certainly won't revert you...it was my last effort to assume good faith, not even sure why I bothered.--MONGO 13:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

! and bug

Have to go report the same bug again. This thing causes registered users to appear to have sockpuppets. Heading to WP:AN and WP:BUG again. Martial Law 09:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there's also a bug that makes registered users appear to engage in personal attacks. Ruby 22:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL !!!! Almost fell out of the chair. Martial Law 01:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In case numerous editors here have forgotten

PLease add as you wish to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Evidence. I already spammed a few on their talk pages, so let's get this over with please.--MONGO 13:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Article needs link clean up

This article needs some cleaning up, particularly per MOS and OMLTARTTC.

There is also a fair amount of redlinks, which should be removed. I was going to do it myself but noticed some redlinks like John Napier were formatted as if someone was going to go and write an article about the individual but never got around to it.

In any case, I just thought I’d give a heads up and some time for anyone who wants to start an article for any of the redlinks before they’re removed. Regards, --Every1blowz 16:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, words that deserve articles but don't have them yet are supposed to stay redlinked to encourage people to make them, but of course some of these people very likely will never have a real article. The John Napier one was specifically formatted because without the disambiguation part it does go to an article, but to the wrong John Napier.
Scanning the article for redlinks, Ray Wallace (there's no article on him yet?), MacLean's probably should if that really is or was popular (or maybe its spelled wrong or something and an article already exists?), Bossburg, Washington (?), and Esteban Sarmiento (assuming that really is a prominent scientist... but if not it shouldn't be delinked but removed completely) should probably stay, perhaps Napier too, the rest I think can be dumped. DreamGuy 16:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
In any case I took the liberty of starting a few half-assed articles on John Napier, Bossburg, Washington, John Bindernagel and Endau Rompin National Park. --Every1blowz 17:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Edit: Also started article on Esteban Sarmiento. --Every1blowz 05:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Edit: Started articles on Raymond L. Wallace, Samish, and fixed Maclean's as well as Dysplasia. I'm dumping the rest as agreed, DreamGuy. --Every1blowz 11:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Estiban Sarminento

He was supposed to be employed by the NY Museum of Natural History, but they never heard of him. SIR John Napier is dead. Someone add edit "the late Sir John Napoer" also "the late Dr. Grover Krantz of WSU". It is important to let readers know who is current and who is DEAD.

PLEASE ADD EDITS.

felix

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Didn't you just tell us, "people not famil. w/ literature may not edit" ? Ruby 22:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Talking Bigfoot" ?! / Who are the "Skeptics" ?

'What is a "talking Bigfoot" and who are these "Skeptics of Bigfoot" ? Martial Law 00:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, I think I've heard/seen it all. Martial Law 00:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Martial Law, FYI, there has been some individual's claiming that they have a recording of bigfoot "talking" in Ohio. MarcusTCicero 03:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Some Commentary

There are a group of serious researchers out there who are trying to do serious research and studies into this subject of bigfoot. There is evidence out there, if you are willing to look for it, of the possible existence of a animal called Bigfoot or Sasquatch.

I know those people and used to share their views

But after 5 yrs, I learned that their POV was untenable. Other alternatives became more tenable.

And Marcus -- 99% of those people DO NOT GO OUT OF THE HOUSE. I know them. 90% of them. And of those who do go out, 99% never saw Bigfoot, ever. Call me and I will explain. 415-289-=2277.

BeckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of the "Armchair Researchers" out there. MarcusTCicero 16:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


There are those who believe and have accepted that it is a flesh and blood animal.

Not interested in what they "believe"

They HAVE NO BASIS. Show me a dead body.

BeckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Not like some who believe it is a alien, a robot, or even a shapeshifter. I believe that where this line of "research" comes from is a mixture of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of facts and what is seen and not seen.

I have not misunderstood anything, nor have my associates of like mind. And they have names, unlike you.

beckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

People start looking into the native american legends and lore and see or read more into it than what it really means.

Research shows the Indians are largely correct.

BeckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

We apply the standards of today into something that you must put into perspective of the time it was written. People thought and spoke differently than what we do now.

They say the same in 2006.

beckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

They tried to make sense out of what they saw with the limited knowledge and understanding of the incident.

They were largely accurate. I tested it. What right have you to "talk down" to my Indian friends?

BeckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not "talking down" to anyone. Actually I have found the native american naratives to a great resource to my own research. So, please do not accuse me of that. MarcusTCicero 16:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


What our friend EB is trying to do present a side of the story that is not widely accepted by most of serious researchers out there.

NO NO NO

What is a =SERIOUS RESEARCHER=  ?

Someone who never saw a Bigfoot, usually.

This is getting amusing.

beckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should explain this a bit more. A "Serious Researcher" to me is someone that is willing to look at both sides of the fence. Pro's and Con's of a given subject. Sometimes a researcher can get locked into a idea, theory, or whatever that they tend to lose sight of their original objective. If you let yourself get bogged down in the little details then you lose perspective of the larger picture. It is not about what they have done or seen but how objective they are in their research. Nothing is bad about toying around with a idea but it can only go so far. Does it sort make sense? Always remeber that a good researcher has perspective of what they are researching. Because sometimes you might find or miss a clue to what you are looking for. MarcusTCicero 16:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


It is hard to argue with someone who believes rather than someone who is skeptical of the topic at hand.

..>>>>> i NEVER SAID I "believe". I simply offered a theory.

You do not read what I say correctly.

beckjordBeckjord 07:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok you got me on that one, my mistake. However, I believe the statement, "It is hard to argue with someone who believes rather than someone who is skeptical of the topic at hand"., is true. It is harder to have a rational discussion of a topic with someone who "believes" rather than being very "skeptical" of the topic, wouldn't you agree? or the information?. MarcusTCicero 16:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I am skeptical

always was, and found the zoological idea was NO GOOD.

Have you ever talked to me? Hey? Do you know me? No.

Call me and discuss. 510-633-2526. Got BASIC BALLS TO TALK ON PHONE? Most do not, are afraid to even say who they are. Only 2% of all wikians list their real name.

beckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Erik, I have talked to those you sometimes vilify in your statements. I know of your reputation. And, yes, you and I have had a discussion once before. I have the upmost respect for your opinions and views, even though I might not subscribe to them. You do make some valid points and I must respect that. There is no need to talk on the phone. And I rather enjoy my anonymity here and elsewhere. MarcusTCicero 16:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


I think the Admin's here are doing a fine job in trying to keep a neutral point of view here.

rotten job

They do not understrand NPOV at all. Cannot apply it, cannot read it where it rises. beckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That is what is needed because the average reader can draw their own conclusions or seek the information elsewhere. MarcusTCicero 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Your people

User:Beckjord, you and your people will have to be civil. Some of the editors on here are women, such as User:Ruby, and they don't need to see that kind of language. You're too much of a gentleman and a MENSA member to be using uncivil language. I'm only being truthful, no more, no less. Martial Law 05:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone is using your computer to "cuss out" someone, such as User:DreamGuy, remind them that uncivil matter is not permitted on Wikipedia. Someone doing that can reflect badly on you. Martial Law 05:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Apology

You and your people should apologise to these editors, and you and your people need to refrain from using vulger language like that. A apology now could go a long way here. Martial Law 06:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Links, incl. Bigfoot PIXES

These are:

Can I get these checked out ? Two have some interesting bigfoot pixes. Martial Law 05:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
If links are malfunctioning, go offsite. Martial Law 05:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
ATT: Links may have "expired". Martial Law 06:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot sites

New Bigfoot website. Martial Law 05:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Sasquatch , Bigfoot Sounds

Can any of these links be used ? Martial Law 05:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Psychic Bigfoot ?

Thought I had seen it all. I was incorrect. Martial Law 06:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk NPOV and NOR and using experts on Wiki here

I've finally read these items, and I find the so-called violations by me, are really minor errors on wording, such as how one must say (says NPOV)

"except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to "

So, I'll try it. (just one of many points I will raise)

I can say: "Beckjord (using 3rd person, as per NPOV) argues that the so-called Bigfoot may be a strange life-form and not a zoological species, and that therefore both skeptics and zoological adhereents may be incorrect as to what these creatures may be."

I can then quote from one of the publications or websites where this is published, as a source.

This is legit.

Further, since none of the editors who appear here are credible,and have no open names, nor degrees, none can decide what publications are reputable or credible, except experts like myself or others who may appear, with names and credibility and degrees.

Note from Wikipedia:encyclopedia

"However Wikipedia's articles are not necessarily peer reviewed and many of those articles are of a trivial nature. Legitimate concerns have been raised as to the (validity of the writing)."

Further, "Traditional encyclopedias are written by a number of employed text writers, usually people with an academic degree, "


NOTE: ACADEMIC DEGREE. Not high school drop-outs and pizza boys with no names. 

and the interactive aspect of the Net does not, does not,

make it OK for just anyone to edit. That is a major, bigtime fallacy of Wikipedia. Most of you do not know beans about the Bigfoot topic, and you ought to back off. Especially DG and Android who show, imho, a biased and mal*cious intent, perhaps misguided.

IMHO, you people do not understand NPOV nor NOR. Maybe I did not either, but now I am rewriting my edits so they fit into NPOV. And yes, I CAN quote my own research, as long as I quote a spource where it was published, in print or on the web.

Once again, DreamGuy and Android79, get the H*ll out.

Now, re experts:

Wikipedia says:

QUOTE:

"Experts:

The role of expert editors "No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes experts. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite publications, and may not use their unpublished knowledge as a source of information (which would be impossible to verify). "

So, I, as an expert (30 yrs) CAN quote my work if it is "verifiable", which means written down somewhere in a journal, a newsletter, in private communication to another expert, or a website, INCLUDING MY OWN. All I need to do is use 3rd person.

GOT IT?

beckjordBeckjord 06:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Erik, I found a link that may help you concerning the NPOV. I was digging around and found a link to this section, NPOV tutorial. Found this too, Words to avoid. I do not know if it will help or hinder. Good luck MarcusTCicero 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Beckjord, the key word you are missing in the above is reputable: If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. Your website is not a reputable publication, sorry. You can't just say, "Oh, this is true, as an expert, I vouch for it", post it on your website, and then cite it on Wikipedia as a source.
And all this about "rewriting your edits"... if you're rewriting them, why are you simply blindly reverting to a preferred version of the article? android79 14:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks

will look. Now, Marcus, go visit http://www.bigfoot.org OK? \


beckjordBeckjord 07:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

IF..

If you lay off the obscene language, follow Wikipedia protocol, this link is for you: Sasquatch Research Center. This links to other Bigfoot links. I may also use this as a external link, once I get it checked out as well. Martial Law 08:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I get these two links checked ? Martial Law 09:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

and any that list Coleman have to be bad.

98% of all BF sites have NO AUTHOR.

Trust no one who does not exist. Even ML. Mongo has email, why not ML?

edit committee.

E-mail examined today. Awaiting results of examination. Prelim exam found some things that would violate Wiki protocol if stated. Martial Law 09:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Earliest estimate maybe in one week to attempt to use it. Martial Law 09:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Beckjord, ASAP, I will E-mail you. Just awaiting either a "go" signal or a "no-go" signal. Reason it was out is this: Spam overload. I know you often get this mess in your E-mail as well. Know of any anti-spam protocol ?
Martial Law 09:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

RE.:Edit Committee

How would the Edit committee react if I had found a really good pro-bigfoot site ? Just did. See Re.: about a John Green. Martial Law 10:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sasquatch / Bigfoot and Native Americans' Designations for the creatures

Can I get this link checked ? It is Native American Designations for Bigfoot/Sasquatch Martial Law 08:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot map

And, this one:Map of US locating Bigfoot/ Sasquatch Martial Law 09:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Beckjord, do you know of a John and Mary Green ? They run the above site. Martial Law 09:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Martial Law, please do not associate Mary Green with John Green. They are two very different people. MarcusTCicero 13:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

John Green here

Site is this John Green's Bigfoot Information Project Can I get someone to examine this site as well ? Martial Law 09:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Beckjord, This appears to be John Green's website. Enjoy. Martial Law 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Website not by John Green

He is quoted there, but it is run by total newbies who do not do field work. Their owner is a guy in UK who deletes aLL TALK OF ANY ALTERNATIVE THEORIES from his forum. No advanced post-1968 thinking at all.

95% of all BF websites are run by anonymous nobodies who do not do research. This is not a field like beer making or steel making. It is a weird field full of idiot teenagers. Virtually none have any competence. Learn this, ML.

Jackson __________________________________

IF link is malfunctioning, go offsite. Martial Law 10:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If this is a bad link, Google search: Sasquatch/John Green. There is a lot of Bigfoot info there you may be interested in. Martial Law 10:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed this link for you man. As earlier stated, my E-mail is OUT OF ORDER. The link above is a real bombshell. Martial Law 10:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

>>>>>ML - stop the l*es. You can make a new email in 45 sec with Hotmail or Yahoo. Stop lying. Mongo and Zoe can email to people, so can you.

Jackson

Martial Law, the author of the site, Bigfoot Information Project is someone I know and is a valid site. I know the person who authored the website and everything you find there is valid. John Green is the journalist who has written some books, one that is prized by the Bigfoot Research Community is "Sasquatch, Apes among us". He has been keeping a record of sightings and information related to Bigfoot for a very long time. He is well respected by the Bigfoot Research Community. MarcusTCicero 13:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No, not valid.

This has to be Brian Brown called Bipto, who does no field work. He is an IT guy in Minneapolis, and the fact you know him is meaningless. He lets newbies run riot on his forum and intellectuals are pilloried.

Marcus, you may mean well, but you are deluded by the wrong people, and you actually think the __majority__ has to be right. The majority does not leave the house! Personally, Brian Brown is an uptight j**k like the bad guys on this page. His forum is a huge exercise in repression. Don't care how nice he is to you over coffee, on the net he becomes a Hitl*r.

Jackson

The Bigfoot Research Community

and who is that? We know the major players, and 90% of them do not respect him. Also, 98% of the ACTUAL researchrs, not just emailers, have NEVER SEEN BIGFOOT.

I think I know you, from Bipto's forum. You like to talk about the "Research Community" as if every kid with email meant anything. There are only about 150 or less people who do any research at all. The 3000 kids on Bipto's forum are NOT a research community.

Jackson

___________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Citations For World-Wide Sightings

1. http://www.bfro.net/gdb/ 2. http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/zhou.html 3. http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/groves.html 4. http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/abominable.html 5. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/sbs.html 6. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/other.html

References

I've begun adding {{fact}} to statements that don't have sources (and, in some cases, to statements that did have sources, but were unclear). I've focused on statements that are probably the most contentious; ideally, every statement would have a reference, but some of the more "obvious" or common-knowledge facts can do without for now.

I did this up until the "Evidence" section. This section needs a major re-write, as does most of the rest of the article from that section on. It reads far too much like a point-counterpoint between skeptics and believers. Instead of offering "for" arguments and then countering them with "against" arguments for each separate concept, we should synthesize the arguments from both sides into a coherent paragraph or two. Thoughts?

I would try to keep them separate yet equal to each other. I think it would be a little difficult for the average reader to differentiate the two. MarcusTCicero 15:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


We should also decide on a consistent method/style of citing sources. As it stands now, there are footnotes and references and several different styles of citing both. android79 14:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, this cleanup I just did was completely nullified by Every1Blowz, who apparently was working off of an older version of the article; this went so far as to reinstate the sprotected tag. Please try to reconcile your changes with mine. android79 15:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've combined our edits. --Every1blowz 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Wow, you're quick! android79 16:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

More Citations

For "Researchers point out that these common factors indicate patterns of a living species occupying an ecological niche, as opposed to hoaxed sightings" under eyewitness reports - http://www.texasbigfoot.com/habitat.html

For the odor citation and description/appearance citation: http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=585

For the vocalizations citation: http://www.texasbigfoot.com/vocalizations.html

Yet more blind reverting from Beckjord

Once again, Beckjord has blind-reverted all changes back to a preferred version, with the edit summary "Newbies to Bigfoot should discuss their edit issues with me before going ahead. In email, or talk page. I am not going away, face it, and I am the only expert in Wiki on this." Beckjord, along with a few edits you may have found objectionable, you also reverted countless formatting and spelling corrections. You do not own this article. android79 20:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord server is down. Here is email mssg from him re new plan for edits

" I only revert when uninformed people revert first, as Android did. It is HE who wasted the other people's work. Basically, EDIT, do not revert. (Bonk!)


I assume some of you work on good faith. I believe a few of you do not. You know who you are. It pains me to see the edits of good faith editors get ruined by reverts by the bad guys, who are just flat-222 lazy and find a total revert just easy to use.

I want to work with the good faith people, and if they have some edit issue, why not discuss it HERE, as we are supposed to do, or else email me, as Mongo does, at rudy@stealthaccess.net . I am not against aLL new edits. Some are good.

But I will ask you this: "If you do a lot of work, edits, and then find ten in later somebody with no expertise in the topic, (an encyclopedist is SUPPOSED TO BE AN EXPERT, not just anyone) has doine a total revert back to __his__ version, well, what is one likely to do? Let it be? No way, Jose. So reverting like that is simply an invitation to revert back.

>>>>>>Got it?<<<<<<<<<<

So let the two j*rks here memorize that.

I am a professional, I am an expert of sorts, I have 30 years in this topic as a field worker, I run sevceral websites and discussion groiups on this topic, I am published, and you would be best advised to work with me, because

>>>>I am not going away<<<<<<

So discuss issues here, or in email. Reverting is an insult. - EB "

sent by Jim Jackson

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Okay, Beckjord, I'll bite. Which one of these edits of mine today were bad-faith?
  1. [2], in which I remove the {{sprotected}} tag, which you restored in an earlier blind revert
  2. [3], in which I remove a reference to your website and to a "reference" from a publication mill -- a reference we discussed some time ago
  3. [4], in which I restore the "folklore" wording and remove the unsourced laundry list of various researchers who "support" Bigfoot research -- each of these folks needs a reference
  4. [5], in which I change citation information -- I don't know which reference this is supposed to point to
  5. [6], in which I do a little grammatical cleanup and add some {{fact}} tags
  6. [7], in which I do a little rewording (without losing meaning) and add a {{fact}} tag
  7. [8], in which I do a bit of minor spelling/formatting cleanup
Not one of these edits could be considered a revert, and most contain uncontestable spelling and formatting corrections, and yet you remove them all with a single revert to a version of the article you prefer. Which one of us is the "bad guy" again? android79 20:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
My edit consisted of nothing more than removing redlinks, removing some internal links, editing the references section and correcting some spelling and grammatical mistakes per Wikipedia guidelines. I did not remove ANY information (until Android and I had to combine our edits). Even then, the little which was removed was not in any way vital to the article. However, I did spent some time polishing up the article and I’d hate to see it go to waste because some people here can’t get along.
Beckjord, please stop selfishly reverting back to an earlier version. Adding in some information to the current version would take you not more than 5 minutes, but Android’s edits coupled with mine probably took several hours. -Every1blowz 03:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Publication Mill-- I asked him

He says Wiki says:

"Hyperlinking between conceptually related items is also a significant benefit. On-line encyclopedias offer the additional advantage of being (potentially) dynamic: new information can be presented almost immediately, rather than waiting for the next release of a static format (as with a disk- or paper-based publication)."

This means websites can be listed as references. As for a "mill", you have no expertise to decide that. Get a name, (and a life) first. Your statements and judgments have no merit. I do not accept you as an authority on anything."

so sayeth the master.

Jackson


Bigfoot Wiki war

there is no working things out with you maniacs.

We on the commitee will return in rotating shifts, and undo all you did. Over and over and over. You will "win" only five in or 30 min at a time. then, BINGO, back it goes.

Make edit suggestions in talk pages, and we may approve some. Then WE will put them in. And yes, we do own this article.

Jackson

In that case, I have semi-protected this article. android79 22:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

General Encyclopedia

Wikipia is a general encyclopedia, not a scientific journal and not a scholarly encyclopedia.

This the reputability of references is not as strict.

Remember this Android79.

Paul Jones

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would you please stop throwing in lines of exclamation points and other symbols? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Lost E-mail

Lost your E-mail user:Beckjord. Martial Law 00:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That message would be much more appropriate at User talk:Beckjord. This isn't Beckjord's page, no matter what he may think. Please don't treat it like it is. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Will comply. Martial Law 01:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi protected-Again ?!

Semi-protected again ?! I need a tylenol the size of Bigfoot. Martial Law 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If we had Bigfoot poop as big as a Tylenol even, we'd be on to something. Ruby 01:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Re.:War

Call off this new war, or the Admins may permanently lock down the article. This is the Wikipedia version of Martial Law. In this, only the Admins may edit this article, and other editors, such as myself will have to beg them to accept any suggestions, and hope that they'll add them to the article. Martial Law 01:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I do apologise to the other editors for any inconviences this may have caused. Martial Law 01:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you're wrong. This article is semi-protected. Any sufficiently "old" registered user may edit this article. android79 01:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Is Full protection similar to what I've indicated ? Martial Law 02:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Just what is full protection like ? Martial Law 02:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No one except a sysop or higher can edit.--Toffile 02:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
But generally, under normal full protection, sysops aren't supposed to make content changes either. Instead, discussion proceeds on the talk page until whatever dispute causing an edit war is resolved. In theory. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Alert

Anti-Troll Law is in effect

The anti-"Troll" law may be in effect. Rumor has it that a $250,000 fine is imposed, and/or a two year prison sentence is also imposed. Do a Google search: Anti-Troll Law. Am investigating this matter. Martial Law 03:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT a rumor. wikipedia has material on the article Internet troll. Being a troll is now a FEDERAL criminal offense, and a felony. Martial Law 03:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Still investigating. Martial Law 03:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Bigfoot. This is the discussion page for Bigfoot. Focus. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
10-4. Martial Law 03:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
-Will comply. Martial Law 03:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Unless Bigfoot is a real troll. Ruby 04:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL ! Fell out of my chair -- again. :)

Stephen I. Rosen

Hey, I did some poking around to figure out what school was meant by "University of Maryland" (there are five schools with this name). It turns out, nobody at any of the five has any record of this person as either faculty or student. Further, when I clicked the citation, it went to a 404. I strongly suggest this reference be removed as it is, unequivocally, bogus. -James Howard (talk/web) 03:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you at least tell me where the comment is, in what section as I couldn't find it.--MONGO 04:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Near the bottom of the 1970s section. -Every1blowz 04:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the link and the associated information. There was nothing to support the entire paragraph and it smacked of POV anyway. I also googled Stephen I Rosen, Stephen Rosen, and University of Maryland in different combinations and came up with nothing. I attended the U. Of Maryland in College Park, the largest of the campuses and I never heard of him, but it's a big school. Somebody needs to find a scientifically published paper that has been peer reviewed, if they want to make a statement that DNA on any hair samples from anywhere in the world belongs to an unknown primate. Good luck.--MONGO 04:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Rosen

1970s anthro professor at U MD College Park. He did work with Ellis Kerly.

see website magazine article that Bishonen keeps deleting.

http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/b&h.html Frontiers of Science Magazine re BF hairs.


zuzy q

How was this blood sample obtained ? Someone shoot one of these creatures ?! Martial Law 06:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You are supposed to read the article in link

BF tried to break into a house, broke a window and cut himself, and left hair as well.

zuzie

Dr Stephen I. Rosen, author

"Introduction to the primates, living and fossil"

Prentice Hall, 1974,

ISBN 0134934601

zoozie

New Wikipedia discussion forum

Insiders view of Wikipedia.

http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/170755

GIve your views.

Kent

_________________________________________

?!

?! Martial Law 06:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Military Reports

Since the US military controls several kilo-hectares of land, don't like any intruders, are there any military related encounters on record ? Martial Law 06:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)`

Military Account

Found this: Soldier's Bigfoot account in Viet Nam War Martial Law 04:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Where do I place military personnel's encounters w/ Bigfoot in the article ? Martial Law 04:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Since the sighting was by six men, readers are forced to take the soldiers’ word for it if we’re to believe it, but then again people imagine things and people lie. I’m aware that the article mentions thousands of Viet Cong and NVA soldiers allegedly sighted the creature, but this cannot be offered as evidence that Sasquatch lives in Vietnam. The current Bigfoot article already mentions that Bigfoot may be a worldwide phenomenon and that is enough on that matter.
However, the story is unusual and significant enough that I believe it could have some value. If I were to put this in any place I suppose it could be in Alleged Bigfoot Sightings, or better yet expand the article on Nguoi Rung and mention the incidence there. But see what others say before you add it in the Bigfoot article, Martial Law. -Every1blowz 06:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Two more military reports, one startling FBI report

As stated two more military/govt. reports. Martial Law 07:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Had a keypad glitch. Martial Law 07:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Should a subsection, such as "Military Sightings" be placed to cover sightings,encounters by soldiers ? Martial Law 07:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The FBI report implies that Bigfoot may be real. Martial Law 07:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Note:The soldier is trained to react to anything that can be a threat, thus he/she will fire on a Bigfoot if he/she spots one. Wikipedians who are either active duty soldiers, ex-soldiers will tell you this. Martial Law 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Following Template protocol only

Hawaiian Bigfoot

Can this be inserted ?

Source:
Obake Files, author is Glen Grant,publisher is Mutual Publishing
ISBN 1-56647-100-1
Data: In 1973, Rob Carleson and a friend, both college students, hiking in Whitmore Village,
Near the Wahiawa Mountains(Oahu), encountered a 8 foot tall bigfoot, which left 24 in. tracks.
Frightened, both subjects ran from the creature.
Can I get this checked ? Martial Law 20:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not the NY Times, but they may sell the NY Times next to the Weekly World News. The NY Times have been scandalized. Martial Law 00:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Can Louisiana Wikipedians look @ this as well ?

LA Wookie 1 LA Wookie 2 Listed as the Honey Island Swamp Monster and/or as the Louisiana Wookie LA Wookie 3

Since this creature is in this area, figured that these should have a look at this. NO offense, apologise if I had been in error. Martial Law 04:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Special note: The location has alligators, poisonous snakes, other hazards. Martial Law 04:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tons of articles

Tons of Newspaper and Magazine articles about this thing. Can this be placed ? Martial Law 08:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC) :)

I think the website, Bigfoot Encounters, should be a link. MarcusTCicero 10:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Should I place it ? Martial Law 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Answers.com and Bigfoot

Please see this link: Answers.com and Bigfoot

This is all about the creature, even has a section as to what to do if YOU spot one.

Can I get this link, the military links, the newspaper links examined, persuant to the s-protect protocol ? Martial Law 02:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Can the www.answers.com/topic/bigfoot link be placed in the article ? Martial Law 02:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Uh, MartialLaw, that's a copy (well 90% of it is) of an older version of this page. If the links still aren't in the article, they were removed for some reason or another. This also applies to the "What if you see one" section as well. So, no I wouldn't think that link would be appropriate.--Toffile 02:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Can it be stated that if the reader has seen one, smelled one, they can use the external links ? Martial Law 07:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

absolutely yes

Witnesses can contact the BIRO group, at http://www.bigfoot.org which is a No-kill group.

Admins are asked to restore this link. In fact, ML should add this link himself. You do not need to kiss anyone's @@@ here. Be your own man.

After all, "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Right? Jump in, get your feet wet, you know as much as anyone here on edits. Go,ML, go !

bozo2

As long as that s-protect thing is there, all suggestions are to be brought here, as long as that war is still going on. Martial Law 09:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The s-protect thing is the thing with a padlock in it. Martial Law 09:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Padlock

Not true. Martial Law can edit.

When others ignore you, or do a bad job, then do it yourself! Beckjord

For the record, no more, no less.

What is "BIRO" ? This is for the record, no more, no less. Martial Law 09:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea to "read" website

http://www.bigfoot.org

Bigfoot Researchers & Investigators Org.

BIRO.

Beckjord

OK, I went and read all of http://www.bigfoot.org. I'll summarize it for those who don't feel like visiting it themselves: It's a page with a tiled embossed bigfoot image as its background. (Very 1996.) Titled "Bigfoot museum", the page has an odometer-style visitor counter ("You are visitor [179926]") and the following text:
"CHECK OUT THIS BIGFOOT SITE!! Take me to the BIGFOOT! Does He exist? Send us your personal story send your story to IBELIEVE (at) bigfoot dot org"
That's it, the whole site. Why are you wasting our time, Beckjord? Or is it the linked-to http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot that we're supposed to read? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

stop being silly

Bigfoot.org is short and simple. You just click on link inside. Then you get to Bigfoot Heaven.

Beckjord

"our time"

If your time is so valuable, why come here to view something that can never be proven?

Now if you indeed have done some 2000-3000 edits, I'd say your time is going cheap.

Never forget that Wikipedia is NOT a scholarly pedia. It is a general pedia.

Still, it is better than Encarta and on Bigfoot, it is better than Britannica. Grant ya that.

-)

Beckjord

Stephen Rosen

I finally located the fact that Stephen Rosen was an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Maryland...[9] and that he did publish a book titled "Introduction to the Primates - Living and Fossil"...I need Beckjord to no explain to me what is in this book that is significant to Bigfoot, before I spend my money and buy it...it is not in print anymore...so it'll be used.--MONGO 10:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Rosen

Glad to see you finally found that Dr Rosen is real. :-) His book was cited to let you know he is an author and respected by others in his field. He has more hits in Google due to his Bigfoot hair analysis,using hairs I provided, than anything else he ever did. He is now retired.

Beckjord

Okay, but what did he find from the hair sample...can you quote his findings, and cite them to the book title and page number for us? If a publish academic made a statement and we can reference it, then we can use it in the article--MONGO 07:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Findings

Beckjord,Jon-Erik "The Bigfoot Evidence", pp22-29, Frontiers of Science Magazine,Vol. III,no.3,May 1981. Also Beckjord,Jon-Erik, "Bigfoot's Weird Blood",pp92-96, FATE Magazine, Aug 1989, ISBN 0014-8776.

In summary, a blood sample taken from the Lummi Indian Res. was analyzed by Dr. Vincent Sarich, UC Berkeley, and found to be "unknown higher primate". Hairs found with blood were analyzed by Drs Rosen and Kerley, Univ. of Md. and found to be "unknown higher primate" and were further found to match three other sets of unknowns forom OR,CA,&MD. These did not match any of the knowns in master set owned by Rosen, and were close to bear, gorilla and human, but were not either of those. These findings were also corroborated by forensic analyst Tom Moore of the Wyoming Fish and Game Lab. Similar work has continued with Dr. Henner Fahrenbach of the Oregon Regional Primate Center, Beaverton,OR.

Appearantly, I cannot quote my own work, even if published, but other people can quote it. So please do.

Beckjord

I'll google this info for awhile and see what I come up with...be patient, it may take some time.--MONGO 09:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Well, I wrote it, I have the magazines on my desk, so just take my word for it. Also, some things are in the library, and not in Google.

Beckjord

Erik...not to ignore you, but I'll have to get back to this in about 24 hours...so far I have not been able to find anything published by any of these folks mentioned as ide from you...it would be best if we can cross reference it from a published source aside from you...no insult intended...--MONGO 10:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Published by these folks

Fate Magazine exists today. Frontiers of Science is out of print. These are not on the internet as articles, but FATE has a website. Come to my house and read the articles in person. There is life outside the internet. Not finding a print article on the internet is no valid reason to deny a reference.

Beckjord

Wikipedia

"Wickipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can, but shouldn't, edit."

Beckjord

Listen Beckjord, if you want to edit the article at least edit it correctly. For one thing, your referencing format is an ugly mess, and it isn’t even compatible or consistent with the rest of the article, not to mention with Wikipedia guidelines. And it’s hard to read. Here’s what you’ve added repeatedly before it’s been deleted…

Sightings have allegedly occurred in China, Russia, Australia and South America [Reference John Green,pp46-47, for all locations.]Also, Hawaii has such reports.(Reference :P.147,"The Obake Files", Glen Grant,1996, Mutual Publishers,ISBN 1-56647-100-1]

Beckjord, seriously, can’t you at least even bother to put in spaces when needed and use the appropriate Harvard referencing format? Is that really too much to ask? Would using two parentheses on either side really kill you? Or are you just too lazy to do it yourself and expect others to clean up the formatting for you?

If that’s the way you think and behave Beckjord than frankly none of your “contributions” are really needed.

Anyway, this time I went ahead and kept what you wrote except formatted it correctly. Do us all a favor and go read Wikipedia:Citing sources for next time, okay?

Also, I’ve temporarily removed…

  • Beckjord,Jon-Erik, "The Bigfoot Evidence", pp.22-29, Frontiers of Science Magazine.May 1981.
  • Beckjord,Jon-Erik, "Bigfoot's Weird Blood", pp.92-96, Fte Magazine, Aug. 1989,ISBN 0014-8776

Because I’m not sure what it’s supposed to reference and you didn’t bothered to clarify yourself when you edited the article. Tell me what those two contributions reference and I’ll add them back if other Wikipedians don't mind.

Secondly, I went ahead and removed your website from the external links section. Why? Because it was nothing short of your POV ramblings and it didn’t even have very good photos of an alleged Sasquatch like it promised (hardly a gallery), which is very misleading to anyone who’d actually visit the site. --Every1blowz 20:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Email from Beckjord to user for this day

I'm busy watching the superbowl, but I was told of this by you and I send in this comment:

1) I do years of research and I do not need to learn the Harvard system of referenceing as well, so it is very nice when you take the time to use your expertise in that to clean up. Thanks.

Posted by sam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.148 (talk • contribs) 02:51, February 6, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, nice. Hey Sam, did Beckjord also ask you, by email, to vandalize my three FAs? [10], [11], [12] —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Findings on Rosen, Kerley and Sarich et al. according to Beckjord

I haven't found much...but here is essentially what I have been able to dig up. Vincent Sarich was a Professor at UC Berkley...I can find no reference that he ever met Erik Beckjord aside from what Erik has told me. Beckjord claims that Sarich anaylized blood retrived from a

[piece of glass from an Indian house window on the Lummi Indian} (edit)


reservation. According to Beckjord, Sarich identified the blood as being that from an "unknown higher primate". Beckjord then had a Dr. Stephen Rosen and a Dr. Ellis R. Kerley (both at the University of Maryland) examine hair samples associated with the same blood as well as unknown hair samples from at least 3 other locations and they, according to Beckjord, attributed them to "unknown primate". Tom Moore of the Wyoming Fish and Game lab also identified the hair samples as coming from an unknown primate. Without trying to, in any way, insult Beckjord, I need more than a link to Fate magazine..

{whatdo you expect after 20 years? Kerley is dead already.)


what I need is for just one of these folks to publically state that these events did indeed happen


[indeed happen?] I do not fabricate data.


and that hopefully somehwere in a more mainstream source, the findings were published. I am looking into this as I studied under Dr. Kerley at the University of Maryland, and know that he is one of the founding fathers, per se, of modern forensic anthropology. Dr. Kerley is deceased and Tom Moore retired from the Wyoming job he held for 4 decades just last year...I am not sure of Sarich or Rosen, but Rosen did leave the University of Maryland in the mid 1970's. I am attempting to contact Tom Moore as he was apparently also going to present his findings at a sort of Bigfoot conference, but was "ordered" to not do so by his superiors with the state of Wyoming. In a nutshell, I see no reason that this may be a true series of events, though they do not in themselves prove of the existence of Bigfoot, or of anything. But we are talking about mainstream, reputable scientists that certainly have weight in their professions. Beckjord, would it be possible for you to scan into your computer and then email me the front cover and idex page of the copy of Fate magazine and the other one you mention, along with the text of the articles that you wrote? I will continue to try and track down more information on these events as they are noteworthy in article space I believe, but I need more evidence.--MONGO 06:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mongo

I'm not lying. Sarich lives 10 miles from me now. He never put his findings into writing to keep HIS job, but he stated it to me, in his lab, in 1977. You had best learn now that these people __do not__ put such things on paper for fear of job loss.

But they said they wouid stand by it if anyone called them,etc. They never backed out.

Now, I can MAIL YOU, EGADS!!! Copies of the articles. Later, I can make jpgs of the pages. But hell, you can call up FATE MAG and ask them.

What is implied here is that you have to get more proof to see if I am lying. I do not lie about such things. I have my Eagle Scout rep. to uphold. Article has been on my site ten yrs. Send me a fax number and I will fax you the front pages. I see nothing sacred about the "privacy of the internet"... Re people have phone and fax. DO YOU?

Email me your fax.

Call me at 415-289-2277.

BTW.. there are no "mainstream" sources. The Mainstream is very careful to NOT TOUCH BIGFOOT WITH A 50 FT POLE. Dig? Ditto ufos. Dig??? Got it??? I was damn lucky to get those scientists to speak at all.


Want copy of artricles?

Send large SASE to me at box 9502,Berkeley,CA 94709.

THIS IS HOW RESEARCH IS DONE, not google.

Beckjord

Beckjord...I do not say you are lying...and I fully understand that mainstream scientists are not likely to publish their "opinions" without fear of reprosals from their peers in the academic circles...no doubt science moves at a glacial pace at times. Can you track down Tom Moore of the Wyoming Fish and Game Lab? He apparently retired last year or the year before. I am also interested in how the editors feel about this inclusion of a citation from Beckjord...it has nothing to do with wormholes or ufo related items and does apparently involve well known and reputable scientists.--MONGO 08:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Beckjord is correct, I am dealing with a case in which a soldier is involved, and if this was reported, this soldier will be courts-martialled. The locus of what I'm dealing with is a crop circle located in woody weeds, and a bigfoot incident reported in 2000. Since I'm doing the investigation myself, I can't post any of it here due to the WP:NOR protocol. Martial Law 08:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if we can verify what Beckjord says is true I wouldn't add it in. The only problem we'd have here is that other Wikipedia readers who try to verify the material would have a lot of trouble, and probably even remove it when they think it's bogus. I'm not saying Beckjord is lying, it's just that it's not good to write about stuff that hasn't been peer-reviewed and can't be verified by others independently. --Every1blowz 09:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Contact info.:For the record

User:Beckjord, can you place all of your contact info here ? You said that people should contact you IF they had a run-in with a Bigfoot,UFO, that sort of thing. Martial Law 22:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Should I place your link as a link supporting one of the Alternative Theories concerning Bigfoot ? I've heard of a UFO sighting in which bigfoot was actually seen with a UFO, and the thing was seen leaving the UFO. Martial Law 22:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

History Channel

At 0200 hrs, EST, on 2-7-06, the History Channel has presented some material concerning Bigfoot and other monsters. Go to this link: Decoding The Past: Monsters The featured creatures incl. Bigfoot. Thought you guys may want to know this. Martial Law 07:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

One link says that a Bigfoot attacked 3 people, killing one, the other is for the Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Organization. These are: This link says Bigfoot attacked 3, kills one. Also says it may be a animal.

Gulf Coast Bigfoot research Organization Martial Law 07:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Where can these be placed ? Martial Law 07:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
See: RE.: Are They Dangerous in the first link. Martial Law 07:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is the pix above blurry ? Martial Law 07:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Forensic Doc says Bigfoot REAL - From National Geographic

Forensic doc says Bigfoot is real !. Can this link be used ? Martial Law 07:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

From a Hunting/Sports magazine: Hunting Bigfoot

From a Hunting Magazine: Hunting Bigfoot Martial Law 07:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I get all 4 links checked out persuant to this S-Protect tag ?

Martial Law 08:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This link appears to be that of a really BAD joke involving a Bigfoot hoaxer. Let that person try that where I'm currently @. People here will kill tresspassers. Re.: Hunting/Sporting magazine link. Martial Law 08:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You have really 3 links to "vet". Martial Law 08:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I could place this in the hoax catagory ? Martial Law 08:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why you have links to Greg Long on this article but I think they would belong more with the Patterson-Gimlin film page. Since that book was more about that film. MarcusTCicero 10:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bigfoot/Archive_3&oldid=850766295"