Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Bigfoot  (Redirected from Talk:Bigfoot/Archive01)
Jump to: navigation, search


This archive page covers approximately through December 2005. 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/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Skimming briefly through, the section on 'notable people' seems out of place - it gives no clue as to who they are, and why they're mentioned. Although some of the people are presumably mentioned in the article, surely the link when they're mentioned is enough? As for the ones who aren't, and have no page of their own, it seems pointless to mention them. Unless they're any objections or somebody wants to expand it, I'll delete that section. Inebriatedonkey 20:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think some people lack imagination. Some people choose to believe only what they can see or touch, ect. This may be my opinion, but I believe it best for people to keep open minds. Honestly I can't say if Big Foot is real or not, it sure would be interesting if it was though, huh?

Bigfoot has been a staple of Television shows

Yep, there was a touching made-for-TV movie, starring the actrees who played Marilla Cuthbert in the Anne of Green Gables movie. Ed Poor

The contributor writes:

"Also, at least one film (the Patterson-Gimlin film) shows something that is definitely not a bear (although it could conceivably be a person in a furry costume). "

Erm... "conceivably"? Furthermore, so what? I have a home- video of something that is brown and furry and is also not a bear. David de Paoli

And you blame the author of this article of lacking NPOV? Read elsewhere in this encyclopaedia that Jane Goodall believes in their existence. She isn't the least among primatologists. As long as people like her are claiming that, whe should leave the possibility of their existence open, or otherwise we are breaking the NPOV principle. Moreover, the article on theLoch Ness monster, which is even much less likely to exist (bordering with the absolutely impossible) features a similar consideration of arguments for and against. Go complain there first before screaming for adaptation here. Caesarion 12:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that in Wikipedia we're not supposed to think that something is "obviously" a myth -- and we're definitely not supposed to say so. :-) IMHO, NPOV means we say "Some people think A and some think B. The opinion of the expert community is X." (Personally I agree that it's a myth).

"something that is definitely not a bear (although it could conceivably be a person in a furry costume). " -- The point of this is that it is definitely either a real bigfoot or an actor in a great costume -- according to expert analysts it can't be anything else.

Yes, which is why I didn't make the edit. That, plus I really enjoyed "Harry And The Hendersons"

Maybe his mom was the gal in the Patterson film.  :-)

An anon user with no other contributions added this paragraph:

Also it must consider, before exactly taking the declarations from the family of Wallace, that exists certain portion of significant evidence, like are indigenous traditions, stories previous to 1958, information of sightings in several parts of the United States (not only in the West Coast), in which Wallace could not have some interference. It is not logical to think that outside able to influence in all the reports of apelike creatures (and malodorous), in American territory.

There's a point there, but I'm having trouble thinking of how to rephrase the less-than-masterful English. -- Jake 06:51, 2003 Sep 20 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why neither this page or the page devoted to the Patterson-Gimlin film mention Greg Long's 2004 book "The Making of Bigfoot". It seems to be a reasonably thorough investigation of the origins of that film. The focus of the book is Patterson's history as a con-man, and the alleged confession of Bob Hieronimus (an acquaintance of Gimlin) to being the one that wore the bigfoot suit in the famous footage. Long attempts to corroborate Hieronimus ' confession, although the success of his attempt is open to debate. The book also includes an interview with costume manufacturer Phillip Morris - Ed.



There hasn't been any discussion regarding the image edit war, so I am starting it. Lizard King's sketch would be better than nothing, IMO, even though it is clunky and not very well done. The new image from the Patterson film may have copyright issues -- seems like fair use, but I dunno... Tuf-Kat 21:39, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't found any copyrights with regards to that image, but I admit I haven't done a 100% thorough search. The image is used on numerous websites already. - UtherSRG 23:07, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

could you upload this image unter Wikimedia Commons again. I like to use it in the german wikipedia. -- Horst Frank - ( 12:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Dont know of somebody else have said this before, but here goes: There are two frames from the film, but the one sais its frame #352, and the othet #72. One of them is wrong.

Pseudo-Scientific Classification

Since only cryptozoologist use a Scientific Classification for Bigfoot, please do not put the standard Wikipedia Scientific Classification table in this article. It is misleading and POV. - UtherSRG 16:57, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

cryptozoologist use a Scientific Classification? Yes ...

"do not put the standard Wikipedia Scientific Classification table"? Why? ... It is NOT misleading nor POV [the info in the article is the same] ... that is the frmt that a cryptozoologist would want ... much the same way a botantist would want the Scientific Classification. Sincerely, JDR

Don't include it as the standard Wikipedia Scientific Classification table because it looks like that is a factual classification. It is not, and to include it is not NPOV. Besides, there are conflicts. Gigantopithecus uses a different classification. If this is Gigantopithecus, then it would need to be studied to determine if the cryptozoological classification is correct or if the paleological classificaiton is correct, or if they are both wrong. - UtherSRG 17:17, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

cryptozoologist can not use the the standard Wikipedia Scientific Classification?
IT IS the factual classification by cryptozoologist.
Gigantopithecus even cites that it is the right label ... [see bottom of that article] ...
Sincerely, JDR

No, Gigantopithecus is a genus not a species. Did you even look at the Gigantopithecus article? - UtherSRG 17:54, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And besides which - using the standard table makes it look like it is accepted as fact, as opposed to being highly speculative. - UtherSRG 17:56, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Gigantopithecus is a genus? ok ...
species? I'll find if any specific info is out there ... [Changed to Genus:Gigantanthropus Species:Canadensis] [1]
look at the Gigantopithecus article? yes ...
standard table makes it look like it is accepted as fact? Accepted by cryptozoologist as fact ...
I believe that your POV is iinserting the highly speculative, NPOV would allow the info about the cryptozoologist's view (BTW i'm not a cryptozoologist; but they do classify things). Sincerely, JDR

No, it is POV to place the data in the table format used for Scientific Classification. Cryptozoology isn't science, it's pseudo science. Displaying speculative data in a factual manner is misleading. - UtherSRG 18:10, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cryptozoology is a science ... it is a pseudoscience to you (and other) and a protoscience (and sometimes a pathological science) to some) ... but this is where YOUR POV comes into this (concerning "pseudoscience") ... NPOV treat the info indifferently. It is what cryptozoologists use ... displaying data in a NPOV manner is NOT misleading (all the body text is the explicit in this) ... Sincerely, JDR 18:26, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Displaying speculative data as fact is misleading regardless of whether one believes the theory behind the data is valid or invalid. The table format is used to display factual information, not speculative information. display the information in another way if you need it to be there, but it is misleading to display the data in the same manner as African Grey Parrot or Gigantopithecus or Aves. - UtherSRG 19:06, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Speculative data"? There's many speculative datasets / articles on wikipedia ... and there is nothing wrong with that IF MARKED.
Again, it is noted in the article about the validity of the claims of the cryptozoologists. The table format is used only to display the information ... factual information from a cryptozoologists view ... the same way that the coelacanth should be listed [also which was "Speculative" and believed extinct by the vast majority of "science"]) or how the Zuiyo-maru Plesiosaur should be ....
"misleading"? No ... just giving out the information ...
IYO it is "misleading" ... Displayin' the data in the same manner is NEUTRAL ...
Display the information in another way if you need it to be there? A derivative of the original table? that may be something to look into ... this could be used for most of the cryptozoological animals (some of which have been labeled and categorized) and the dinoasuars (which have thier own dataset that could be displayed) ...
... more on this in a bit (mabey) ...
Sincerely, JDR 19:47, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the taxobox should not be used. This makes it appear as though Bigfoot's existence is scientifically accepted when it is not -- in an ideal world, readers would not draw conclusions that were not supported by the article, but we do not live in such a world and the presence of the taxobox implies that the bigfoot's classification is generally agreed upon, when its very existence is debated. The article text should make it clear how cryptozoologists classify Bigfoot, but not with a taxobox, which is used on thousands of articles for organisms the reality of which (present or former) is not seriously questioned. A parallel subject has come up concerning presenting the template used in countries like Russia in micronations and such, and these tables were eventually dropped (as were most of the articles on micronations). Tuf-Kat 19:57, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
Also, why is there a link to the "artist's rendering" drawing? The sketch is still inappropriate... Tuf-Kat 19:57, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Reddi, I suggest you read these articles: Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. To wit: You do not understand NPOV, you do not understand the use of the taxobox, and you do not understand how to work in a consensus system. - UtherSRG 20:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

UtherSRG, why don't you review the Neutral point of view. Not providing the info is not NPOV. Unlike what you may believe, it is FACTUAL cyrptozoogical information.
Thanks, though, for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life pointer (and why it was pink, not grey)
For now, I'll leave it (the full table w/ pic) in here until such time alternative frmt can be developed for cyrptozoogical entries ....
Sincerely, JDR

NPOV means displaying information in a way that is not misleading. I was removing the table because it was misleading. I did not say not to include the data. I simply rejected having the data presented in the standard table. - UtherSRG 03:19, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

TUF-KAT, The artist rendering is appropriate. It is roughly the same structurally and it is a detailed picture of the creature unlike the incredibly grainy and poorly focused Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot picture. It goes with the subject of bigfoot and it furthers one's understanding of what the creature would look like. - ScifiterX

TUF-KAT, if you don't think the image is appropriate, state the rational justification of your position without deliberately insulting the artist who rendered it. Personally, I think the image is great. - The_Agent

Thanks. By the way, the image came from me. If you want to see any others or have a request just send me a message via Talk. Lizard_King

  • Encyclopedia articles generally don't include "artist's rendering" of any topic if there are photographs available, unless it is in the form of a diagram.
  • Our job as an encyclopedia is to summarize the views of those who are considered knowledgeable in various subject areas. Therefore, images of Bigfoot should only be used if they illustrate some encyclopedic interpretation of Bigfoot's appearance.
  • As a freely editable encyclopedia, we must be careful not to set a precedent whereby there is a link on an article which takes the user to a page where somebody has placed a sketch of the subject. That is the purpose of other web pages where amateur artists display their work; it is not the purpose of Wikipedia.
  • Since there is no agreed-upon description of exactly what Bigfoot looks like beyond some vague generalities, the sketch illustrates the view of a single Wikipedian about what Bigfoot looks like. This constitutes original research.
  • An image of clear encyclopedic value is already present in the article. More images should only be added if they illustrate some point or facet that the photo does not. The photograph is not very clear but educates the reader that Bigfoot's detailed appearance is not known; placing a sketch indicates that Wikipedia is endorsing the view, unsupported by facts, that Bigfoot looks a certain way.

That's all for now at least. Tuf-Kat 03:36, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, despite its low photographic quality, the Patterson-Gimlin picture has unique significance in that it constitutes purported primary evidence of the existence of Bigfoot. Salsa Shark 03:40, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Now you are saying that encyclopedia entries don't include artist's renderings of subjects? How much crack do you smoke in in a day, genius? The_Agent

Hey Agent, go easy on Shark, I don't think it's his fault, per se, take a look at his contributions, I think that there is less than 10% contribution to 90% deletion, reversion or abuse. He just needs to be treated a little more gently, we all need some love sometimes.The Fellowship of the Troll 03:51, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How interesting that The Agent and ScifiterX have no history of editing before coming here and giving their support to Lizard King. Sock puppets, anyone? RickK 04:13, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am not ScifiterX or The Agent, RickK. You are barking up the wrong tree. You need to check IP addresses before you start accusing people of having multiple IDs. Lizard_King

This only reveils your ignorance. I've edited a few things before signing up. One only has to sign up if they're using the talkback section. Additionally I've read quite a few encyclopedia's that used artist renderings to further illustrate the definition of a topic. You can check my IP if you need evidence. - ScifiterX

ScifiterX, how exactly does that reveal my ignorance??? Who are you talking to? Lizard_King

I'm Talking to RickK - ScifiterX

Nevermind, I see that now... Lizard_King

But to correct Rick, there have actually been several people to come to my defense concerning my illustrations, (I believe in including RickK) other than SciftierX and The Agent in other forums like this one. I seriously doubt any of them are sock puppets. You can believe what you want to though.Lizard_King

I really object to the taxonomic classification of bigfoot. You really can't classify an animal if you haven't got a specimen. Further, Gigantopithicus was essentially a giant Orangatan and from skeletal specimens we have they look nothing like eye witness accounts of big foot. If bigfoot existed it in the form of the creature in the photo it would more likely be a paranthropus (what was once classified as the robust australopithicine) of unusually large size. The size difference is relatively easy to account for as when the paranthropus travelled in his space ship to North America, or on his magic carpet or whatever, its representatives in the area may have gradually evolved the greater body mass for some logical reason. Sort of how the horses of today are descended from tiny prehistoric horses no larger than dogs. Gigantopithicus really couldn't be bigfoot.Lizard_King

There's an interesting discussion of all the difficulties that'd have been involved in faking the Patterson-Gimlin film, discussing muscle mass movement and the like at , and I'd like to suggest adding it to the links section. Having encountered at least one first-hand account which I regarded as credible in the Pacific Northwest, I do agree that treating a phenomenon as mythical on the basis of elusivity of evidence alone would not be NPOV, and the current version looked decently balanced on a first read. Chris Rodgers 09:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


A lot of people want to believe in bigfoot. Biologists, as a rule, dismiss the sasquatch as ludicrous nonsense on a par with yeti or Loch Ness monster.

The only evidence for their existence is tracks or grainy photographs, and the revelation that some photos were published as a prank just lowers the scientific reliability of the reports -- if there's a rung lower than "negligible" on that ladder.

So how should we write about this? Say that biologists dismiss the possibility of the creature's existence, same as astronomers dismiss the flat earth theory. But also identify people and groups that do believe and explain their reasoning.

Any child over eight years of age ought to be able to decide for themselves what they want to believe. Who knows? Maybe bigfoot is just shy and elusive. --Uncle Ed 14:58, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think the way we handle it now is appropriate, Ed. We say straight out that the creature is "probably mythical". (i.e., we report the standard, generally accepted view first.) We don't say "it is mythical" because - who knows? - maybe they are just shy and elusive. We have to keep open minds. And we don't say it actually exists or anything of that nature either, as the evidence just ain't there. The day the Smithsonian or the NPWS is ever persuaded to believe in Bigfoot, then we need to do a heavy re-write!
I think the key issue here is tone. It's important to stay cool and just report the essentials without taking sides and barracking. Tannin 22:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dead Bigfoot for "Skeptics"

As stated below, the "skeptics" want a body, and the only way to get one is to kill a Bigfoot/Sasquatch, and bring the bloody mess to a top notch University, like Harvard or Yale. Then the people will believe that there are Bigfoot.Martial Law 07:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem with that, is the idiots who perpetrate hoaxes while wearing gorrilla suits. THAT is a good way to get shot,even get a Darwin Award(polite way of saying that a hoaxer would end up shot and killed trying to hoax a bigfoot incident).Martial Law 07:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Law enforcement does'nt want a bunch of armed people looking for one, since someone may get hurt,even killed.Martial Law 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It smells like a hoax to me.
If Bigfoot really existed there would have to be more than just him.
You are right, I have no evidence to disprove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, but similarly you have no evidence to prove that he does exist.
I am sorry, but to me the Bigfoot on the "Patterson-Gimlin" film, just looks like a guy dressed up on a monkey suit.
So you are right, until I have conclusive evidence, I will refuse to accept that Bigfoot exists. Flag of Ireland.svg Paddy :-) 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

See Also

I had removed the see alsos because

  1. the relevant ones are already in the text
  2. the rest are irrelevant. Those interested in them will have gone to cryptozoology and found them there.

- UtherSRG 23:00, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Copied from the article because it's hilarious:

However, it is possible that bigfoot was the first innovator of the wooden air plane or that he stole space ships from extraterrestrials who crashed in indonesia and flew to the Americas, though that would not be ethical of the mythical hominid.

— No-One Jones (talk) 05:38, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My god, people. You gotta check this out. And laugh... --Nc622 11:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Woman tells her story of being married to Bigfoot

Thats nothing. You ought to see the Weekly World News articles in which has some really funny bigfoot articles, such as one calling him a LEADFOOT, when he allegedly stole a race car, another in which a female bigfoot did'nt want to be wed to another bigfoot, so she ran off and made up a story about being abducted by aliens.Martial Law 23:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Recent changes to this article by an anon user have added tons of new information shown only from a pro-Bigfoot stance. Most of the alleged facts added are highly disputed, but you would not know that from the new version. The previous version covered these topics much more fairly. DreamGuy 23:35, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Merged From: Talk:Etymology of the words Bigfoot and Sasquatch

I've merged the article Etymology of the words Bigfoot and Sasquatch with the Bigfoot article. Here is the comment from that page. Robinoke 22:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Merge and NPOV tags

This article does not source its statements and lists highly disputed statements from the Bigfoot supporters side only. Any salvagable information should be added (following Wikipedia:NPOV policies) to Bigfoot. DreamGuy 21:18, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)


The article has two footnotes but no reference to them. Please restore the references or cut the footnote section. Gdr 15:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV? Good luck!

Zip a dee do da! This discussion goes to show why neutrality is so hard. Every person thinks that what's "fair" is an article that is totally and utterly submissive to their own personal viewpoint.

"University of Sweden"

According to the article:

It has since been allegedly proven by Primate experts at the University of Sweden that the video is clearly not of a human. This is based on a new technique they developed which uses a computer model of a human's muscle structure placed over the video.

There is no such thing as the "University of Sweden". u p p l a n d 17:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The real problem with eyewitness reports

I find the section "Problems with eyewitness reports" not strong enough. There are thousands of solid testimonies. Just saying that these may be confusions sounds very lame. The article must state that there are many more equally solid eyewitnesses of ghosts, flying saucers, and angels or fairies. Only this kind of comparison can explain why scientists customarily dismiss the "facts" gathered by huge groups of good-faith persons. If you omit it, the layman reader will think that explaining testimonies as confusion is bad-faith (and stupid).

Well, you should change it then. Be bold. The Singing Badger 17:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

comment by User:Beckjord

There is nothing I see that tells me how to add a comment.

Please advise.

Also, how does one edit the article and not have the changes wiped out by someone one else who knows nothing on the subject?\\

Also, someone sent me a message cvalling me a vandal, and then they wiped out my changes,

How do I reach such people?



MAILTO:rudy who is at


New comment: 90% of the Bigfoot article is erroneous and written by someone with little real knowledge of the subject. There are no legit quotable sources since the editors of the related journals are very biased and take only one point of view, and reject any new info that disputes that POV. I tried to edit the piece, which begs for editing, and some j**k deleted all my edits even though I am a very seasoned researcher and former museum curator on this subject.

Therefore, consider 90% of the text as false or in error, because I know or did know, virtually all the authors and researchers. The best known writers have never seen a Bigfoot, and I have, 5x. The best known skeptics do no field work, except Bob Sheaffer of CSICOP, and he only four days.

This stuff about No Original Research is absurd... when someone who is just back from a research trip cannot post about it in an edit, by armchair writers can, something is wrong in Denmark. I have no peer review because only two or three researchers are my peers, in the true sense of the word. Peter Guttilla is one, Henry Franzoni is another, Brian Smith is another.

To get the truth, visit or wwwbigfootdotorg

For some odd reason, it seems giving your contact info is evil. Readers may contact me, and/or go on my forums

I welcome info privately from people who understand the games played here better than I do.

BeckjordBeckjord 08:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

BeckjordBeckjord 08:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Beckjord says: what right has Drunken Donkey or Singing Badger to comment at all on Bigfoot?

Who ARE you people? What gives you the right to edit reports by researchers? Does this mean

Wikipedia is just a SOUP of changing articles, based on whoever was last? Where amateurs

say, in Physics get to edit articles by PhDs?

Are you readers or people who made edits? Most of you seem to get your info from TV.

SNORT! BeckjordBeckjord 08:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I am beginning to see this is all a joke.....a mismash.

BeckjordBeckjord 08:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

PG Film -- is on finest grain film in 16mm possible for its day. ASA 25 Kodachrome. It is NOT poorly focussed.. it was on infinity and in good focus, albeit unsteady in some sections, hand held,,,, what do you want , a posed set, like Hollywood?

It is not grainy at all. I am the foremost anlyst of it, for 25 yrs.

Now re Dr "Dingaling" Daegling...

"I tried to correct a long article on Bigfoot, and some admin deleted all my edits,

      because he did not like what I said about Dr David Daegling

not knowing what the "snowhoe effect" is in discussing tracks. And that a PhD is pretty bad if he can't." Dr DD is a rather illogical man. What do you expect of U of Fla?

BeckjordBeckjord 09:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Giganto --- Gigantopithecus blacki -- is not Bigfoot. Jaws DO NOT MATCH.

sO KNOCK IT OFF... so many fools, so little time....

BeckjordBeckjord 09:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wed. - Who is the admin in charge of this topic, and how can I message him? I have no idea where the message function is. Those who want more fairness on this topic, please assist.

beckjordBeckjord 20:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you need to go read about how this projects works. Start with the Community Portal link on the left. Learn the policies and methods of contributing here before trying to contribute, and do not insist that your edits are better than everyone else's, especially when you are clearly violating all sorts of policies left and right. WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, etc. Good luck. DreamGuy 07:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


When a area reports a bigfoot/Sasquatch, the locals grab their guns, and if they see it themselves, they will shoot it, to kill it. Anyone perpetrating a hoax, such as wearing a "gorrilla suit" just may end up getting a Darwin Award real quick. Can you imagine someone in a suit like that getting hit by a .4-10, a .44,.45, a 30-o-6 because some else thought that they've seen a bigfoot ?Martial Law 01:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The "Skeptics" say they want a body. Only one way to get one, and that is to kill a bigfoot. I've personally heard that there is a $10M+ Bounty in place for a dead Bigfoot. Can't deny this, nor confirm this either. The "M" is for MILLION. Someone may make or obtain a Russian/Chinese RPG in order to kill one.Martial Law 01:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Has any Wikipedians seen/encountered one or more of these creatures ? Martial Law 01:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason that I said someone may use a RPG is that small arms fire will not affect the creature.Martial Law 01:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

More Bigfoot pixes (?)

Go to Bigfoot Pixes

Also, go to Mysteries Megasite: Bigfoot Links and Jeff Rense has some Bigfoot related material on "Sasquatch: New Daylight Bigfoot Photos ?". Martial Law 07:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Beckjord asks

How can I make an edit to the Bigfoot page,and not have someone call this vandalism? I know far more about this topic than the orignal author.

Re shooting and rpgs, etc, Bigfoot cannot be killed based on 50 years of statistics. No record of any verifiablke shooting or killing. Janet and Colin Bord - "The Bigfoot Casebook" . Please add to pages. If I do, I am called a vandal.

Re Bigfoot photos - please add to page - see more photos at

Please answer. Thanks.

Jon-Erik Beckjord, BA,MBA, Director of three CZ Museums, and Director of the Bigfoot Investigators & Researchers Org.

beckjord205.208.227.49 19:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Re Beckjord - People Shooting @ Bigfoot

Go to Texas Bigfoot Homepage and to East Texas Bigfoot Homepage . These organizations have reported people shooting @ the creature.Martial Law 22:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Another bigfoot organization that has reported people shooting @ this thing is:

Bigfoot Field Research Organization Homepage.Martial Law 22:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Since small arms fire, such as from weapons permitted to US civilians, is ineffective, some idiot just may use a Rocket Propelled Grenade to take one out, to satisfy the "skeptics" who has actually declared that they want a dead Bigfoot before they believe it is for real.Martial Law 22:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: an rpg, etc, will make no difference. Bigfoot manages to "freeze" your trigger finger, or to misdirect your aim. (ref: repeated reports of this by Green, Krantz,Dahinden, Byrne, the Bigfoot Coop Newsletter, the Track Record., plus interviews by this writer.)

Please DO NOT call this vandalism. We may disagree, but please do not play dirty with Nlu. I think you are from Fouke or nearby and I think you have strong views, but you are not a field worker. Let's make a better page together. OK?

beckjord205.208.227.49 08:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

idiot edits

I'd like to know what biased skeptic is putting all this SH*T about yetis and bears and Bigfoot, and why you people let this happen?


beckjordBeckjord 07:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Note I am not in any way a "page holder" for Beckjord, and I'm sorry if he sees it that way. --DanielCD 16:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Law enforcement recomends that if people want to hunt this thing w/ guns is to forget it, since someone may end up hurt, even killed by a trigger happy idiot, and it is NOT a good idea to dress up in a gorrilla suit to impersonate a Bigfoot, that too is a good way to get shot by trigger happy people.Martial Law 22:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Note - field work and study of other reports indicate that NO weapon will kill Bigfoot. Ref; unpublished work on 500 "shootings" by Tim Curry of Ohio, now deceased.

beckjord205.208.227.49 08:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll get a Admin to look @ your situation.Martial Law 22:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If you like, go to Wikipedia:Administrators for more help with your situation.Martial Law 22:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Right now, it is Deer Hunting Season out here in the Fouke,AR. area, and these people do'nt take kindly of intruders tresspassing on their property/territory at any time.Martial Law 23:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Shooting Bigfoot and has anyone here seen one?

quote: Has any Wikipedians seen/encountered one or more of these creatures ? Martial Law 01:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC) ' Of course-- me. Five times in 30 years. Jon-Erik Beckjord.

Shooting Bigfoot --

Hey, I mean SHOOTING AND KILLING FOR SURE a bigfoot. Lots of fools have shot "at" one. Did someone really, really think I mean nobody has shot at one? (BONK!) (reference - Three Stooges). Of course people have shot at them, and they never,never die. (and never will).



beckjord205.208.227.49 07:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

request of admins who edit here

Can you please add more external links? (discussion) (photos of Bigfoot) (stills from famous BF movie film)

thanks for helping.

beckjordBeckjord 09:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Any Wikipedians Encountering Bigfoot / Sasquatch

Any Wikipedians encountering these things. I have noted the report below.Martial Law 07:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Your sighting could be the one that resolves this mystery once and for all time.Martial Law 03:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Bigfoot Sighting

I was on my way to work one morning. There is a great deal of wooded areas on the route I take. I always watch for deer due to the large number of vehicle/deer accidents that take place in the area. On this particular morning I was driving along jamming on the radio and watching for deer. On the side of the road in the edge of the woods stood something about ten or twelve feet tall and it had long dark hair covering its body. It just stood there and watched me drive past. I believe the reason nobody finds dead bodies of a bigfoot is because the are dimensional travelers. I also believe they are shape-shifters and that is why we cannot see them unless it is an accident or they intend on somebody seeing them.

I was on Kentucky State Route 164 between mile markers 4 and 3 headed toward Canton in Trigg County.

--Bumpusmills1 04:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I was personally contacted by a representative of Bigfoot Field Research Organization this evening 19 December 2005. The rep. ask many questions about the incident and further inquired if I'd be willing to talk to him in person. I agreed. I may even get the opportunity to show him where I saw it. I did not realize just how close I was to the creature until I was actually being interviewed. I was in my car, but I was no more than 50 feet from a living, breathing creature known a bigfoot etc. --Bumpusmills1 05:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


It is to be noted that most, if not all reports mention that the creature has, to be polite, a extremely offensive smell to it. The smell is like feces,rotting garbage, dead animals, rotten eggs, sewage, worse all combined, and extremely strong. Has anyone noted this ? Several Bigfoot sites has noted the horrid smell.Martial Law 07:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I was driving along about 45 miles per hour I did not smell anything. Additionally I may note that I'd just past a cow pasture so I'd just gotten a nose full of that. --Bumpusmills1 12:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Please add this to page.

Research shows that Bigfoot does not smell _per se_, but rather projects smells as a message or a deterrent. The smelles it sends out, can be skunk, dead animal, feces,urine, garbage,wet dog,etc. This writer has smelled three such smells in succession while finding himself unable to get out of a sleeping bag (paralysis) to check the source. Once the smells ended, he was able to get up. He has also smelled wet dog at the Lummi res., and dead animal on Mt Hood while discussing Bigfoot with a Kidnapee. When the smell itself was discussed, and it was decided to go in back of a building to look, the smell immediately ceased. In Daughtery,OK,at the home of a witness, every night at 7:30 a smell of "skunk" happened, usually during a discussion of Bigfoot. Skunks do not keep a schedule. The smell was then called "the skunk that is not a skunk". Bigfoot itself, does not stink.

Please add to page.

beckjordBeckjord 20:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

beckjordBeckjord 20:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

Please add to page. (explanation for bigfoot elusiveness) (discussion forum with investigators on it.)


beckjordBeckjord 20:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

warnings to readers re websites

Please add:

" One researcher suggests that readers beware of any Bigfoot website that has no stated author with a real and checkable name. Many Bigfoot websites are set up by anonymous teenagers with no names and no experience. Anyone can publish on the net, and many websites have no validity. One very large forum are actually run by a foreigner who has never stepped foot in the American woods,and who caters to retrograde ideas about Bigfoot, and bans more advanced thinking. Thus, non-researchers flock to this forum." source :

beckjordBeckjord 20:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

add info to page

" The major authors on Bigfoot all admit they have never actually seen a Bigfoot."

Source - John Green, Rene Dahinden, Peter Byrne, Grover Krantz.

beckjordBeckjord 06:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

idiot edits

I'd like to know what biased skeptic is putting all this SH*T about yetis and bears and Bigfoot, and why you people let this happen?


beckjordBeckjord 07:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My god how this page needs help!

Whomever started it was a skeptic at heart and hates the topic. So much to change, so little time, and DreamGuy lurks, waiting to pounce.


beckjordBeckjord 08:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy not qualified to edit

I am willing to see pro and con positions on say, Yeti, but you select illogical items by a mountaineer, who is NOT a zoologist.Messner is not very bright. Yeti tracks are found way,wayway UP from the gullys where bears find food, that have trees and soil, and you don't seem to get what any kid who goes to the zoo learns--- bears DO NOT, DO NOT walk on two legs for very far, as in NOT 30 feet, 50 ft, 100 ft, 200 ft,. or three miles, and Yeti tracks, all bipedal, are that long. I find your ignorance on such a simple subject, (look in ANY article on bears) amazing, and your use of Messner underscores your basic DEBUNKING attitude. What do I do to get beyond your obvious arrogance (I am a scholar, etc) and your self-pride? Do I have to QUOTE A ZOOLOGICAL TEXT ON BEAR ETHOLOGY? (JEEZ!!) And I am pretty sure Yeti does not mean bear in Sherpa language. There is no reason on God;s Green Earth for a Himalayan bear to be up at 20,000 feet! And the tracks left show a foot longer than a bear's and with humanoid toes, and huge BIG TOE, and that is NOT what a bear tracks looks like! You ever see bear tracks in the wild? I doubt it, and I have seen them.

Self-promotion -- I simply know a great deal on this, that others do not know, and it is hard to avoid using my name and exp[ertise to correct your amateur skeptical ramblings, without seeming to honk my own horn. I dare you to (egads!) talk to me on the phone on this. All this anonymous junk on Wiki is absurd -- you can't edit an encyclopedia AND BE UNKNOWN. No wonder the NY Times has no respect for Wiki. In fact, WHO ARE YOU? Call me 415-289-2277 and be a real person. I eat skeptics for lunch all the time, ask CSICOP.

Your edits for the Bigfoot/Yeti page show an obvious slant and bias. You edit out any info that mitigates the negative info you put in. You do not have NPOV and you are doing vandalism.

beckjordBeckjord 07:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks and unsupported claims of expert status while advancing EXTREMELY biased changes to the article simply are not acceptable. Stop your abuse and read the policies for how this site runs, especially WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPA. Claims about bears walking on two feet for any length of time are simply not relevant, as Bigfoot sightings are not about any length of time and not about clear views and nothing but anecdotal. You cannot make the article here, which is supposed to represent the broader view of the topic, into a propoganda piece for your little fringe theories. (By the way, when you add new sections, you need to put two equal sign marks before and after the subject or else you screw the formatting of the page up.) DreamGuy 16:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
nonew of what beckjord said qualifdies as a personal attack. I totally agree with him. please desist immidiatly.Gimmiet 17:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Considering that you were banned for three months for personal attacks, POV-pushing and so forth which you never admitted that you did, and just got back a day ago, your claims of what is and is not personal attacks mean nothing. It's no surprise that you totally agree with him, as your actions here have always been to join up with anyone anywhere who disagrees with me so you can egg the fight on. If you don't stop your blind revert revenge edits and attacks, you will be banned yet again. I'm frankly shocked that after your consistent abuse here that they let you back at all. Permanent blocking for someone like yourself who never makes any helpful edits and only is here to cause problems seems like a very necessary step. DreamGuy 19:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

i was banned for breaking 3rr and 1rr, weather in your world that makles them personal attacks or not is completly not hte point. as i siad, please desist in your rude, obnoxious behaviour. also, your opinions of me do not matter to me in the slightest. ever hear of assume good faith? you really mustl earn to use siad policey. your views on blocking are probably why you will nnever become an admin. oh and forthe record, i step inwhereever i see someone pushing thier wieght around, which you do, a lot. Gimmiet 21:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Your version of events here is highly skewed. You were not blocked just for 3RR and 1RR (though you originally were for those quite often -- breaking all records by all accounts), arbcom stepped in and blocked you for an extended period for edit warring, POV-pushing, personal attacks and frequent use of sockpuppets to try to get around the rules. You've been repeatedly blocked since themn for continuing that after you ban expired... and you jsut got blocked yet again today after this comment. The Assume Good Faith policy does not apply to people who have demonstrated clear and repeated bad faith.
And that should be a lesson here for anyone you emailed (as I know you emailed Beckjord and made false claims) that if they listen to you as if you knew what you were talking about, they will likely end up banned too. There is nothing about what you say or do here that is supported by other editors here. DreamGuy 21:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I second Gimmiet's assertion that there is no personal attack in Beckjord's comments in this section. He is in fact being much more reasonable than other parties present. Attacking Gimmiet's record does not "magically" change that. I strongly suggest a visit to Wikipedia:Civility. --DanielCD 17:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Investigation of Bear Edits

Dreamguy did NOT, REPEAT:did NOT edit anything to do w/ bears. He DID remove info. placed to have people who had seen/encountered a Bigfoot intended for their use to report said encounters.Martial Law 08:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the result of a investigation.Martial Law 09:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The subject: User:Beckjord has since apologised for the error to the subject: User:Dreamguy concerning this matter.Martial Law 09:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"People who had seen/encountered a Bigfoot" is a highly biased view of things. It is more accurate (and Wikipedia:NPOV, read it, follow it, live it) to say that people claim to have seen something which they interpret as being a Bigfoot. A section on reporting "said encounters" is highly unencyclopedic and outright takes the side of those people. DreamGuy 16:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, modify

Just change it to say "alleged sightings" -- we do that often. (No sighting is absolute.)

Not a problem.

beckjordBeckjord 03:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Shooting people for trespassing?

@There are some people who dislike any intruders and will shoot them for tresspassing.:

Surely that can't be legal? Do people really shoot others just for trespassing? I can hardly believe it. Shinobu 21:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

under what rock do you....

of course country people can do it, and some do. Posted land.

beckjordBeckjord 04:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed that whole section... it was quite unrelated to the entire topic and an extremely weak argument, and it's not Wikipedia:NPOV at all to let the article turn into 90% content in favor of Bigfoot, 3% skeptical views, and then 7% more with absurd arguments against the skeptical view. The whole thing should not take sides at all, and presenting long quotes from self-proclaimed Bigfoot experts and outright whole sections arguing against the skeptics is a clear violation. I almost think we need to throw a NPOV tag on this thing because it's so incredibly one sided already, and here we have a couple of people above trying to push it even farther off into propoing Bigfoot as real. DreamGuy 22:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What is being shot at, if Bigfoot is a myth ?..

This is NOT about proving the existance of Bigfoot. It states that when people spot some really weird thing, they will shoot at it, and contrary to what you said, SEVERAL Bigfoot websites and data sites have in their Sightings report listings of people who have actually shot at this thing. IF this was a hoax, the hoaxer would end up dead or in jail. You do not waste valuable ammunition shooting at myths. Martial Law 02:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The article had, before removal, had stated that everytime this thing, what ever it is, is being shot at everytime it is seen by armed people, thus is why anyone perpetrating a hoax would either end up in jail or dead. IF it is not bigfoot that people are shooting at, then what is it ? Martial Law 04:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is NOT inflamatory,vandalisim,etc.:

If you saw something like that comming after you, your loved ones, what would you do ? Martial Law 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV not possible for this topic

There are no neutral observers, and after one sees a Bigfoot, it is impossible to be neutral. The quotes are based on field work, not just opinion. Let's try this:

1) researcher Brian Smith finds and videotapes tracks in snow that suddenly end.

This is an event.

2) writer XXX states that this could mean going into a hole in space-time. That is opinion.

So we just label each entry.

try it.

beckjordBeckjord 04:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy has wrong concept

This subject is NOT supposed to be 50% pro skeptic (who do NO research) and 50% pro bigfooter, only some of whom do research. This is not what true balance means. If the facts and events are 80% pro Bigfoot, then, SO BE IT. The skeptics have no case except to say there is no body. Then they say the para idea in not proven. OK, so what? We are working on it. It is were up to DreamGuy and some others, the entire page would be dumped. They do not LIKE bigfoot. Too weird. beckjordBeckjord 03:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is one sided already: Pro-skeptic.Martial Law 23:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Trying to keep it in neutral protocol.Martial Law 23:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Dreamguy, what is the other 3% ?Martial Law 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't you mean the other 7%? Shinobu 00:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Anybody who claims that this article is currently too skeptical is so completely pro-Bigfoot that they can't see straight. There's hardly any skeptical section at all. And, by the way, 90 + 3 + 7 = 100%, so I don't know what you two are talking about. DreamGuy

see above comment on balance. The skeptics do NO RESEARCH. Their voice is just quibbles. Skeptical stance has no right to be 50% --- they do nothjing but complain. I KNOW THEM-- IN PERSON.


01:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The way it was worded it looks like the 7% absurd arguments against the skeptical view are part of the 90% of pro-bigfoot content - and is thus missing from the grand total. Shinobu 02:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

skeptical position

The CSICOP position has little content, except complaints. It is not worth a 50% page position. Then,when we offer counter arguments, DreamGuy dumps them.

Wiki is a mess.


Reporting a bigfoot : Wikipedia Provides Unintentional Service

It's not appropriate to advise readers to do things. This is an encyclopedia. Perhaps it's worth mentioning that various organizations take such reports, but we can't pick a particular one and recommend that people report sightings to them. If there are new editors working on this, please read WP:NOT and WP:NPOV for some important information about what Wikipedia is meant (and is not meant) to be. Friday (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, for whatever new editors are out there, please see the one revert rule. When people disagree, we don't just revert over and over, that's pointless. Edit summaries promising continued reverting are a very bad sign. Friday (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Millions of people read Wikipedia. How many do so to find a place to report some bizarre incident without someone abusing and ridiculing them ? This is a unintentional service provided by Wikipedia.Martial Law 01:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Should readers be told not to use this As a means to find data to report paranormal matters ? Websites and data sites, used AS source/link may be used, just stated the readership should use them to report bizarre activity, no more, no less.Martial Law 04:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a forum to report Bigfoot sightings. Please read WP:NOR.--MONGO 04:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the WP:NOR article, thus -

Then why is this being done ? Just stating what is unofficially being done by people looking for a place to report these things without someone saying they're crazy and worse. I have one Wikipedian who has reported encountering one of these things, and does agree with User:Beckjord's position concerning these things.Martial Law 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Should the readers be told that Wikipedia is not to be used to report bizarre matter, since this happens ? That is what brought me here to Wikipedia, to find a place where I could report a bizarre UFO incident without someone saying I was some kind of nut as persuant to the protocol on the Robertson Panel. Told I could find resources on here I could use to do so.Martial Law 05:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't want to become embroiled in this dispute, but as has been stated already, Wikipedia is not to be used to provide advice or generally make POV it how to ride a Harley or, yes, reporting an alleged bigfoot encounter. As WP:NOT states:
....while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things.
If people want to report their 'sightings', then they will probably search google (or other search engines ;-)), where they'll more than likely find the appropriate websites. SoLando (Talk) 05:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If this is the case, consider MY complaint settled.Martial Law 05:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring

If the edit fighting continues, I'm simply going to revert to DreamGuy's last edit and protect the page. Then seek mediation for you guys. You guys simply can't tailor an article to your views. --DanielCD 22:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Just revert to my version and freeze.

Not DreamGuy -- he is not qual. to edit.

beckjordBeckjord 03:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Settle this..

Lets settle this matter, so that we can go on.

MY one and only complaint is this: People who read this article should have a place to report these things without someone ridiculing them, thus people should go to a REPUTABLE Bigfoot website, data site to report their own encounters. Wikipedia unintentionally provides people a place to find and use paranormal oriented websites, data sites to report their encounters. I got dragged into this mess when I had stated that people who has had encounters with a unknown creature should locate and use a paranormal oriented site to avoid ridicule and abuse. I was in the Fouke, Arkansas area, looking into this matter when some guy accused ME of being a "Skeptic" and threatened to shoot me, saying some people who say they were skeptics had ridiculed and abused the locals, calling them idiots and worse.

User:Beckjord, I know your position on Bigfoot.

User:Dreamguy, what is your position concerning this creature ?

Again, lets get this settled.Martial Law 00:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Our purpose is not to turn the article into a balanced presentation of the points of view of the different editors involved. Our purpose is to provide a balanced, neutral presentation of accepted facts,

there are few accepted facts

the creatures tend to shapeshift and be different each time.

beckjordBeckjord 03:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

and if we use opinions, we present opinions of notable experts in the field with appropriate quotes from reliable sources.

reliable sources

I am one. There are hardly any others. Most of the books are passe', except for The Bigfoot Files, by Peter Guttilla, who has five sightings. I have 5/6 sightings dependingm on how you define them. The field is in flux, and virtually no reliable sources exist. You can quote my book in progress. This is not engfineering, or Chinese pottery. This is a paranormal subject. And that mere fact bothers people like DreamGuy and others. To them, it is messy.

beckjordBeckjord 03:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The talk page is meant for discussion about the article, so personal opinions of editors aren't very relevant. Friday (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

List all of the "reliable" sources User:Beckjord, so that they can be properly placed if this is settled.Martial Law 04:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

notable experts

I am one and very very few of the other "experts" really are experts. Most of them never saw a Bigfoot, do not do any field work, and are working with outdated assumptions. There are virtually NO notable experts. Merely writing a book does not make you an expert.

I do not offer opinions, I offer analysis of what actually happens in the field, outdoors. it is not biased, it is simply what has happend. You guys actually think this a settled field, like Chinese pottery. It is NOT. And I find uninformed people are editing. I am a PRIMARY INVESTIGATOR, and you are d*mn lucky I am here.

beckjordBeckjord 03:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Trying to comply with request myself. Do NOT know about User:Beckjord.Martial Law 00:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Does'nt "Wikipedia:NPOV mean this ?Martial Law 00:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you'd read the Wikipedia:NPOV article, that'd be a start... DreamGuy 01:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Just did read the article, again. I got dragged into this when I had stated that people who has had these encounters should report them on a appropriate site, here we're discussing Bigfoot. I have a Wikipedian who came foward with a Bigfoot report himself. User;Beckjord claims that you revert his edits all of the time. MY edit was that people who encounter these things should report them. This is MY only complaint.Martial Law 01:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is a "reputable" Bigfoot site? --DanielCD 01:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A site that is NOT deceptive, nor pushing a hidden agenda.Martial Law 03:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


any site with no author and no name of any staff, is deceptive.

beckjordBeckjord 06:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Reputable site

It is any site that retards who think bigfoot is some lost ape will like. 98% of ALL bigfoot sites are run by unknown nameless people. The BFRO site is run by a fraud and a rip off artist, who has lost 40 of his best investigators due to his crimes. UNIVERSITIES DO NOT RUN BIGFOOT SITES. ok?

However, we have five PhDs who are on our board of advisors.

Now, re Martial Law and his comments on how dangerous it is to run around in the country in a BF suit, I think we get the point, and I put in an edit that made this brief.

Wikipedia is NOT a print volume, like Brittanica, and it is, like it or not, a WEBSITE. Thus it can offer links as to where to go to report a sighting.

beckjordBeckjord 03:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Some people still don't get the point about how dangerous it is to be in Bigfoot suit perpetrating a hoax, otherwise there would'nt be people perpetrating a hoax of this nature.Martial Law 03:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

people in suits

Very,very few. Good way to earn a Darwin Award.


Wiki gobbledegook

what the heck does this really MEAN and who does one do it?

Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it. The upper text area contains the page text as it currently exists. Your changes are shown in the lower text area. You will have to merge your changes into the existing text. Only the text in the upper text area will be saved when you press "Save page".

Totally NOT clear.

Like lots of wiki.

beckjordBeckjord 03:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Means someone edited something @ the same time as you had done. Happens to me a LOT.Martial Law 03:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Means that you have to resubmit your edit.Martial Law 03:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

We're instructed to keep it civil.Martial Law 03:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How do we settle BOTH dissimilar complaints ?

How do We settle these two complaints ?Martial Law 05:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Mine: To make official what some readers are already doing, using Wikipedia to find resources to report bizarre phenomena without being ridiculed,insulted by some people who may be following some kind of protocol, such as the Robertson Panel protocol.

User:Beckjord's seperate complaint.

Martial Law 05:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Complaint by Martial Law is settled. Martial Law 05:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Complaint Settled

Complaint by Martial Law is SETTLED. Martial Law 05:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How may I help settle the complaint lodged by User:Beckjord ?Martial Law 05:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Beckjord comments

Weirdness in Wiki photo

In the frame 352 shown on the Bigfoot page, some may not the large skull, and two other large human heads, just to the right of the Bigfoot in the background. Now, remember, only some will see it...not all. (As is usually the case.) This film is full of this stuff.


npov flawed

Quoting a skeptic who does no research is an empty quote, with no basis. Saying Bob Sheaffer believes there is no Bigfoot, is worthless, since Bob does not do field work. It is an empty sham.The NPOV article implies that there are two sides, and they can be both quoted, AS IF THEY WERE EQUAL. What if they are not equal? What if you are quoting a PhD vs a ten year old kid? This is not addressed.

beckjordBeckjord 06:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy - is he qualified?

Tell us what Bigfoot books or articles you have read. TV does not count.

beckjordBeckjord 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pissed

I added info re sighitngs, for new photos and videos, and somene, maybe DG , erased them.

Disgusted with Wiki system. This sucks!

beckjordBeckjord 08:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Beckjord - Watch the language. Someone may take offense. Ask a Admin about language issues.Martial Law 22:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC) NO inflamatory material either, such as, "Dreamguy is not qualified to edit.". That is not allowed either. Wikipedia policy.Martial Law 03:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

reply to DreamGuy

Says: section is HUGELY biased, so trying to fix... but, really, how is it fair to have supporter views, then a small bit of skepticism, then lengthy response?)

The answer is that the skeptics, I know them, in person, DO NO RESEARCH. The supporters do. What the skeptics say often has no merit, except for noting lack of a body, while the supporters often based thier comments on field work. Hence, skeptical imput has LITTLE VALUE. Do you expect NO RESEARCH to be of equal value to ACTUAL RESEARCH? Get real, Guy.

beckjordBeckjord 10:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing but personally insulting everyone who disagrees with you to try to discount what they say. Skeptics do plenty of research, that's how we know DNA tests that have been done have always shown a real, known animal and not a Bigfoot. Sure beats people inventing stuff up in their heads and proclaiming themselves experts. DreamGuy 21:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


What is the status as far as the page being unprotected? --DanielCD 17:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you worked out a compromise? Can you promise to stop edit warring? If you think it'll work, I can unprotect it now and see how things work out.--Sean|Black 21:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


What about DNA evidence ? Thought I ask before insertion into article. Heard about that, from other souces, not including User:Beckjord's source, that DNA of unknown origin has been found. Can this be explained ? Martial Law 02:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

DNA is supposed to be some kind of "miracle technology", used to get innocent people OUT of jail, OFF of DEATH ROW, put other people IN jail, ON Death Row. All one has to do is obtain some of the creature's DNA/RNA, have it compared to known DNA, such as human, ape, gorrilla, and the like.Martial Law 02:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Known Facts

1. It appears to be some kind of ape or humanoid.

2. It REALLY stinks. (only as a projected weapon, like skunk does)

3. It is LARGE.

4. It has fur all over it.

5. It makes bizarre noises.

6. Fur color varies, most statements indicate a brown,black, white fur color.

7. It is extremely STRONG.

8. Known disposition varies, mostly, they do NOT seek confrontation with humans.

9. Civilian weapons either have no effect or the creature continues walking until it dies from the inflicted gunfire. I have NOT heard any military accounts. Some military bases encompass several thousand kilo-hectares of land. A Bernudi Shotgun slug can go through several automotive engine blocks. The military doesn't like any intruders of any sort.

Does not die. Shooting has no effect. Often the shooter is paralyzed and cannot shoot.

10. It is some kind of omnivore, and will raid farms, gardens and ranches,trash cans, compost piles, etc. to obtain food, if there is not enough food in the natural environment, as reports on several websites indicate. Note: there is not enough food in environment to support a 16,000 calorie per day need, and still allow BF never to be seen grzing as bears do. Hence, paranormal.

These are the known facts. Martial Law 02:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to add number "11" as follows: 11. Also appeared on the smash hit 1981 movie, "The Terminator", played by Arnold Schwarezenneger.

From the Terminator, " absolutely cannot die, and will not give up until you are dead, it cannot be reasoned with, it doesn't feel compassion, it doesn't feel remorse, and it cannot be stopped..."

Psychological ?

Hunters, Park rangers, farmers, ranchers, animal control, zoologists, other outdoors personnel are familiar with bears. These things are NOT bears. What's up with this ?

Shades of the Robertson Panel protocol for Bigfoot ? Martial Law 04:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It is people who live in the cities who do not even go to a zoo who will mistake a bear for another creature.Martial Law 04:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: rangers must avoid Bigfoot reports to keep job. Note: 200 Bigfoot tv shows have stressed BF is not bear.

beckjordBeckjord 10:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


Here, in Wikipedia, we have INSTRUCTIONS AS TO WHOM TO CALL:

"Call for emergency services The next step is to activate emergency medical services by calling for help using a local emergency telephone number, such as 911 in Canada or the United States, 999 in the UK, 112 in most of continential Europe, 000 in Australia and 111 in New Zealand. Operators will generally require the caller's name and location and some information on person that is being called about (level of consciousness, injuries, name if known, chronic medical illnessess if known).

If you ask bystanders to call an ambulance for you, make sure they report back to you once released by the emergency operator to confirm that the call has been made. See Call for help.

Also note that in some circumstances, such as in remote areas or on the battlefield, outside help may be unavailable. The skill of wilderness first aid covers other measures including evacuation, but is no substitute for a medical professional if one can be located."


"{Protective measures The primary civil defense against biological weaponry is to wash one's hands whenever one moves to a different building or set of people, and avoid touching door knobs, walls, the ground and one's mouth and nose. Washing literally sends the germs down the drain.

More exotic methods include decontamination, usually done with household chlorine bleach (5% solution of sodium hypochlorite). One useful decontamination is to leave shoes in an entranceway and make people wade and handwash in a footbath of bleach. Another useful technique is to periodically decontaminate floors and door knobs.

Medical methods of civil defense include stockpiles of antibiotics and vaccines, and training for quick, accurate diagnoses and treatment. Many weaponized diseases are unfamiliar to general practitioners.

Positive pressure shelters are possible but not cost-effective except for the most important installations. This is because in most attacks, the agent will disperse in a long narrow ellipse downwind from the release point. Persons outside the ellipse will not be affected except by secondary infection. Persons within the release ellipse cannot be helped by civil defense measures. They need medical diagnosis and treatment as soon as possible."

THIS GIVES ADVICE. Why can't we give advice on trauma due to a possible (alleged) Bigfoot sighting? Also UFO sightings? WHY NOT?

Note: Bigfoot witnesses can be traumatized and require someone to talk to. Contacting a Bigfoot org. can help them.


beckjordBeckjord 20:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Intent ?

The intent is to make people shut up about these things. Martial Law 05:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Some people believe that is the true aim of the "Skeptics".Martial Law 05:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


Lets all be civil here people, or this article may end up blocked again. We do NOT want another Edit war, do we ? Martial Law 09:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL people and WP:NPA for more info. Martial Law 09:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

blocked again?

fine with me as long as it is locked in my version.


beckjordBeckjord 21:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


You have no user page. Who are you? Name? Wiki is full of cowards.

Now, adding INFO,and correcting FALSE info, is legit for the Bigfoot page.

There is no question whatever that Bigfoot exists. The question is what kind of thing is it?

Asking if Bigfoot "exists" is so 1970.

Wikipedia is an info WEBSITE. Encyclopedias are in print form, in libraries. If they are online, they are not subject to edits by any fool who walks in. That is why real encyclopedias will always have respect and Wikipedia not.

beckjordBeckjord 21:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Luvchineselit is free to reveal as much or as little personal information about him/herself as he/she likes. Calling another user a "coward" is a personal attack, as is complaining about "fools" who edit this article.

anyone who is anonymous is a coward, here or anywhere.

This is not an "attack" - it is simply true. If you run from the battlefield under fire, you are a coward. If you post under a fake name, you are a coward, afraid to reveal who you are. I note a few Bureaucrats give real names, and so do a few users. Bravo. I also see d*mn little source material for Bigfoot given by DreamGuy, such as where is his PROOF Gordon Strasenburgh (we drink beer together) is an anthropologist? (He isn't.)

Where are his sources for the absolutely wrong itrem that Bigfoot has "small" eyes?


BeckjordBeckjord 07:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not continue to make such attacks; please read WP:NPA and WP:CIV. For better or for worse, Wikipedia does not operate on personal credentials; it operates on quality of source material provided. Based on the article history and comments left on this talk page, you also need to give WP:NPOV a good, long read. DreamGuy may be a skeptic, but the article needs to reflect a balanced view of Bigfoot – both that of skeptics and believers.

Wrongggggg-no,no,no, and no.

You, and DG seem to assume that "balance" is 50/50. Half skeptical, half pro. This is a major error. If someone knows just 5% of a subject, they cannot be given a 50% share with someone or group that knows 90% of the subject. Like a non-engineer being skepticval of a engineer who makes lathes. 50/50 balance is flat wrong here.

That is why I need to know your credentials, seeing you make this kind of basic error. Who are you, and what is your education,etc?

beckjordBeckjord 07:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I know DreamGuy understands NPOV (I've seen him in action before) and just wants to make sure Wikipedia has a neutral, high-quality article on Bigfoot. android79 01:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a lie

DreamGuy feels Bigfoot is a myth. His statements that reporting a sighting is "silly" reveal that.

beckjordBeckjord 07:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You need to be able to work with him and with other editors that you may disagree with in order to make productive contributions to Wikipedia.

All my contribnutions are productive.

What I need is for DreamGuy to walk off a cliff. Go away. He is not productive. He is a vandal and is doing malicious edits. He will not respond and discuss. I cannot work with him, since he will NOT TALK, WILL NOT DISCUSS.

beckjordBeckjord 07:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks, Beckjord. Thanks. El_C 07:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


LETS KEEP THIS CIVIL, or the Bigfoot page may end up blocked. MY User page has some Wikipedia shortcuts that may prove useful.Martial Law 07:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA to start with to help keep this discussion civil. Martial Law 08:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes! And let's also keep it RELAXED! ;) Not to worry, articles are never locked indefinitely. Feel free to add WP:WQT to your userpage. :) El_C 08:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


what is this and why should I add it to my user page?


beckjordBeckjord 05:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

See the blue color words and abbreviations that appear every so often in posts on this page? Those are all links to useful wiki pages. Click on them to learn to improve your wiki skills. WP:WQT is a redirect to the policy page Wikipedia:Etiquette. Just click on it. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

To Beckjord: NPOV and citing sources

Beckjord, you need to CITE the claims you make, and I see in the article that you misunderstand what it mean to "cite sources" for a claim. Example: you write, "Daegling also, in his book, reveals a basic failure to understand that weight distributed on a plate, plank or faked foot, does not make any significant penetration into the soil". For this statement, you cite ...Daegling! No, Daegling does not claim that Daegling reveals a basic failure to understand stuff. You claim it. You can't use Daegling as a source for it, and you can't use yourself either (Wikipedia does not allow original research). You must offer a reputable, published source for the claim that Daegling fails to understand. You see? This is merely one small example, but a good one, of how NPOV and citing sources are supposed to work. Please ponder it, and please stop edit warring to re-insert those kinds of uncited arguments. Edit wars are considered harmful, and they're the quickest way to ruin your own reputation as a reasonable editor. Please work on the NPOV of your own contributions before you re-insert them. Bishonen | talk 14:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

reply to Bishonen

why not use a real name? I do.

Anyway, have made changes to suit you.

beckjordBeckjord 06:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop editing the Bigfoot page.

I appreciate your tips, however, and have acted on them.

beckjordBeckjord 05:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


It will go on forever..... and ever....and people making changes alla time.

Going to wear out my revert finger.

BeckjordBeckjord 06:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Block warning for Beckjord

No, you're not going to wear out your revert finger, you'll be blocked first. Please stop disrupting this page by SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS and insulting other editors. And especially stop edit warring on the article. I won't lock the article if you keep it up, I will block you instead. That should give you time to digest some of the good advice you've been given by several people above, and to click on the useful links they keep posting for you. (Please see my reply to your frustrated "DOESN'T ANYONE EVER EXPLAIN HERE" query above: blue words are links.)
Incidentally, your continued demands that people should give personal information here, apart from being rude, show a poor understanding of Internet realities. Please follow this link, for some suggestion of what's at stake for admins who choose not to reveal their real names.
Formatting tips: Please don't give every sentence its own heading in extra large capitals, it uses up a lot of space and makes the page harder to use. Format talkpage headings with two equals signs at the ends, ==, not one. I've corrected your most recent headings. Also, note that you can indent your responses an appropriate amount by starting them with one, two, or more colons. A colon at the beginning of a line will always be read by the software as indentation, which means that you can't start a line with a smiley. (I see that you often do, and you've probably noticed that odd effects ensue.) Bishonen | talk 09:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Pluralization of Bigfoot and other Bigfoot-related questions

So, if you see more than one Bigfoot at once, would you be seeing a pack of Bigfeet? Or would you be seeing a pack of Bigfoots? Also, what is the proper plural collective name for a pack of Bigfeet? I.e. a gaggle of geese, a pod of dolphins, etc.

What is the estimated population size of Bigfeet? Are we talking about only a few hundred, making them an endangered species, or are there a lot more of them out there?

I am absolutely shocked that they have not been put on the Endangered Species List. If we don't act quickly we are going to destroy all of their habitat with housing developments and they will, unfortunately, go extinct. --Cyde Weys votetalk 19:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If the people shooting at them don't kill them all. I've wondered about the plural as well. And have there ever been any baby Bigfoot sightings? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It occurs to me that a baby Bigfoot should be called a Littlefoot and if you are ever lucky enough to run across a creche of Bigfoot babies, you should exclaim, "Greetings, Littlefeet!" --Cyde Weys votetalk 19:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


Lets keep this CIVIL people. See WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. If you wish, I can try to mediate this dispute on MY Talk page. Martial Law 21:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • What do you think the plural form of an infant Bigfoot is? My guess is Littlefeet. --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Mediate on Martial Law's talk page, that's a hoot... Considering the conversation you two are having about how you hate the rest of Wikipedia and how Bigfoot is real and yada yada yada, that's not a reasonable offer. How about instead of Beckjord's biggest supporter here asking to be the mediator, we simply go with what the experienced Wikipedia editors say? We already have a consensus here that Beckjord's edits have so far not conformed to Wikipedia standards. There are the typical dispute processes - RFC, RFM, etc. DreamGuy 21:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

correcting shockingly false and bad edits

I find that just anyone with ony comic-book knowledge can edit this article, and many such do. I reject 100% any "consensus" with uneducated (in this topic) amateurs. They simply do not know what they are doing. They misread the references, and often do not read them at all. Example- p[revious verions was saying Dr Rosen has no corroboration on his findings. Totally false. I know the man, went to his lab. The hairs were NOT found to be ordinary animals.

I find Wiki more shockingly bad every day.

beckjordBeckjord 21:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

So Bigfoot isn't an "ordinary" animal? Then what is he? You'd be surprised the range of hair that exists in animals. Animals encompass everything from sea sponges to crabs to birds to fish to dogs to humans. Are you saying Bigfoot is some sort of alien? --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly what he's saying. He's one of the paranormalist Bigfooters. He's tried to put statements in to that effect into the article before. He's not just pro-Bigfoot and unwilling to write objectively, he's pro-dimensional shadow monster stuff, so that even the pro-Bigfoot people don;t take him seriously. DreamGuy 21:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh boy, quite made my day, it has!

I happened on the shenanigans on this article by chance, and it's the best laugh I've had for the whole holiday period. Mr Beckford is correct, where he says "Wiki (is) more shockingly bad every day". Quite so, especially since a couple of self-proclaimed experts joined us in recent times. I read the article thoroughly, and was particularly amused by the bit under the Visual evidence heading so I amended it. The entry basically claimed it would be impossible to fake the Patterson-Gimlin film. Codswallop. I tried to make the point that King Kong was extremely convincing, and yet it was a fake, with no ape or human involved. It can be done, and it has been done since long before Patterson-Gimlin produced their masterpiece. OK, so maybe the connection is a bit nebulous for some, so I won't be putting it back in. It seems to me that the claim that the film couldn't be faked supports the case for a Bigfoot, when in fact the film most definitely could easily have been faked, and in the eyes of many people, most certainly was. If we are not going to balance that unsupportable impossible to fake claim with something along the lines of what I submitted, then the paragraph under "Visual" should be canned IMMHO. Moriori 23:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, be fair -- there's a big difference in the technology available in 2005 and when the Patterson film was made. That said, the Patterson film is a guy shambling around in a suit, yes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey Bunchy, technology is not the point, the ability to produce a fake film is the point. Under the heading Audio and visual evidence , the article quotes a pro Bigfoot person as saying it would be physically impossible to fake such a film. It wasn't impossible, or even difficult -- Hollywood had been doing it for decades before then. There needs to be information in this paragraph to say so, to balance such a spurious POV . I'll give it a day or so, and if the paragraph isn't amended to balance the existing POV, I will be bold and delete the whole paragraph. Moriori 01:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Certainly sounds fair to me. I was just saying that bringing up a film that features mostly CGI is a silly thing to do, given the timeframe of the film. —Bunchofgrapes (talk)
I read the long article about this film on Wikipedia and then followed one of the links to the footage itself. All the theorizing about muscle structure and frame rate looked pretty silly at that point. It didn't look like much.
But then again the version I saw was tiny. If you have a full sized version of this to study frame-by-frame then maybe it does look impressive. - Haukur 00:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It's never looked impressive to me, that's for sure. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Beckjord calls for revert warring on this article

User:Beckjord has issued a call at his own forum for his supporters to come in and revert war on Bigfoot, with easy-to-follow instructions for full-scale edit warring. Compare my notice on the administrator's noticeboard. Bishonen | talk 02:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Un-3RR is now in effect. While un-3RR is in effect, Wikipedia users reverting Beckjord's cabals' edits can not themselves violate the 3RR rule. --Cyde Weys votetalk 03:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a clearly unacceptale and underhanded tactic; and it will carry consequences. El_C 03:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Forgive my naivete: Is there really such a thing as Un-3RR being in effect? Who gets to declare it? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Un-3RR goes into effect for "good" users when a "call to arms" has been declared on an external website directing meat puppets to vandalize a Wikipedia article. I am not the one who declared Un-3RR in this case; Beckjord did with his actions. I was just noting that it is now in effect in case anyone didn't realize (as presumably you didn't). --Cyde Weys votetalk 04:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Response

Let me be first: NO! There are better ways to resolve disputes. Martial Law 04:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Any other Wikis out there who will help terminate this new war ? Hate being drafted. Martial Law 04:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

One editor not getting his way is not a war, especially if that editor continues to ignore basic Wikipedia policy. android79 06:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


The basic policy being violated is vandalism. DreamGuy and others are preserving GROSSLY WRONG INFO. Deliberate distortions of data.

Hear me?

I am fighting for truth. DG is fighting for erors. Zoe and Cyde should drop out. DG is teh Dark Side.

Call me and discuss 510-633-2526. Nobody has b*lls to do so.

beckjordBeckjord 07:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

First off, when you do make new sections (you don't need to most of the time) use two = symbolds before and after the title... when you do it with only one it screws the formatting up. Secondly, before you accuse people of vandalism, you should read and follow the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy, in this case specifically Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. While you are at it, also try Wikipedia:Civility and all the various other policies already pointed out to you. If you don't follow the rules here it's no wonder there is a long list of editors undoing your edits on sight. DreamGuy 07:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)