This is an archive of past discussions about Bigfoot. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

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

Notices

1) I archived the page. It was huge again, and most of the discussion was complaints by an editor and his sockpuppets who are now banned from Wikipedia for a year. All that should no longer be relevant to future work on the article.

2) Beckjord is banned, per the decision of ArbCom... That means if he or some anon IP or some new sockpuppet of his comes along, don't waste your time trying to improve it, remove it completely, because it's already been shown that he is POV-pushing and spamming, and trying to edit it to make it better means making the article worse. Reverting back to the last good version is the only reasonable option. DreamGuy 17:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Article revision

DreamGuy, I think you prematurely reverted the Bigfoot article. The only problem is you didn't take the time to see the numerous good edits present that were also removed when you reverted to an earlier version, thus the article suffers a good deal of collateral damage that can be avoided. Many of the good edits are minor but are scattered throughout the article, so reinstating them would be a very tedious task.

Therefore, I think it’s best to just remove the blatant Beckjord advertising and nonesense from the current version rather than revert.

Secondly, a lot of the "Beckjord" stuff was written by MONGO, see edits. You two should discuss whether or not to keep the material rather than you simply jumping the gun and just removing it. --Every1blowz 18:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... Frankly, not seeing these "good edits", but if they are "minor," as you say, then it's better to revert the MAJOR problems and have people go through and re-add the minor improvements instead of keeping the major, major problems for the sake of a few minor additions. I certainly am not "jumping the gun" but removing blatant POV-pushing... and if the POV-pushing was, in fact, written by MONGO (which I haven't checked), then it's still wrong. DreamGuy 03:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think MONGO did filter a lot of Beckjord's, uh, information, in the current version - I've asked him to join this conversation. It would be good to work out a stable version we can all agree to here, now that we don't have Beckjord to deal with, yeah? I'll be happy to protect the page in the m:Wrong version, if it comes to that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a serious problem with this revert. Those are really Beckjord's edits that Mongo merely tried to clean up... they don't need to stay in any form. android 79 04:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The information I added was indeed in a published periodical and was cited...now that periodical is no longer in print it is harder to reference but I did reference it. All it was was an article written by Beckjord and published in 1977 or 78....it cannot be cross referenced, but the names mentioned are key players in forensic science and DNA...especially Ellis R. Kerley and Dr. Vincent Sarich. Though it cannot be cross referenced and I have searched for anything else related to these issues in vain, I also have no reason to doubt Beckjord's claim on this matter. Naturally I don't condone the personal attacks or buy into the wormhole/ufo nonsense. I don't really care if my edit stays or not...I may have trusted Beckjord based on his meeting (he claims to have met) with Kerley and I studied under Kerley and I do know that Kerley did do a lot of work on hair samples for forensic evidence.--MONGO 04:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion one way or the other, if that's not already apparent. Every1Blowz? Opinion? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If the source is that vague and obscure, I don't think we can use it. android 79 04:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Since MONGO has no problems then we can remove it. --Every1blowz 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse...but I am thinking this matter over at this time. I have attempted to make contact with Tom Moore who is now retired to see if anything else about the hair diagnosis was published. Bear in mind that nothing I put in the article offered proof of bigfoot...it was just a summary of events as detailed in the published work.--MONGO 03:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Shadowlands link:

Bigfoot: Food, hostile encounters. Is this link any good ? Martial Law 06:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I found it while examining rumors of Bigfoot attacking people. The movie The Legend of Boggy Creek is about some people who has had a run-in w/ this thing, it attacks them, sending one to the hospital. Martial Law 06:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Some claim that this thing shies away from people, instead of attacking them. The link above appearantly supports reports that this thing will attack people. Martial Law 06:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

On the link, see RE.:Are They Dangerous ? Martial Law 06:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

QUESTION

What is the Latin American designation for Bigfoot, sasquatch ?

Keypad acted up. Martial Law 09:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm certain that there is a creature like this in the Latin American nations. Martial Law 09:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm only referring to a geographical area that is from the US/Mexican border towards the South Pole, no more, no less. Did'nt mean to offend any one, just asking about the possibility of a creature that is in that area of the world. Martial Law 09:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There are not a Bigfoot phenomenon in any Latin American country folklore, as far I know. When Spanish-speakers talk about the Bigfoot of US, they called it also Bigfoot or its translation to Spanish, "Piegrande" (or "Pie Grande").--Menah the Great 23:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

More pictures please

Does anyone else think this article needs more pictures of a Bigfoot? I mean there's an awfull lot of text but only one photo. I'm worried this may keep some readers thoroughly bored, maybe even those interested in the subject. I think the epitome of a good article is one which is both well written (we've got that part nailed) but also a well illustarted article. We're obviously lacking in the latter department.

I have noticed that we've removed two other pictures so far. One from NIMBA creations (a model sasquatch or something) and another from Beckjord. That's good. The former was blatant advertising and the other wasn't even very good; basically what we already had except a blown-up, crappier, and gray-scaled version of it.

Anyway, I think if someone stumbles upon an excellent or noteworthy picture which we can use I don't see any problems with adding it to the current article.

Opinions anyone? --Every1blowz 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, go to the shadowlands link, any other bigfoot link. They have some pixes of this thing on them. Martial Law 01:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Do a Google Search:"Bigfoot Pixes". Does this help ? Martial Law 01:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a pix of one that is used to promote the movie The Legend of Boggy Creek. Martial Law 01:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

More Bigfoot Pixes

Go this Gallery of Bigfoot Pixes to see pixes of Bigfoot. Martial Law 10:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Blurry Pixes

Why is it when a photo of this thing is taken, it looks like the camera, even a $10,000 camera, one w/ "infinity" focus is out of focus ? I've seen the pixes all over the place, incl. the Coast To Coast AM website, Jeff Rense's website, and all of the pixes are blurry. Why is this so ? Martial Law 10:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The most likely reason is that nobody has ever actually taken a picture of a real bigfoot. Most likely that is because bigfoot is ficton, folklore, and legend. Only blurry, out-of-focus images can be passed off as supposedly being bigfoot: if the same photo were taken but was in-focus and clear, you could clearly see that it was just a weird rock, tree, bush, bear, shadow, or whatever. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Its the "whatever" that is what has people jumpy - and carrying weapons. In Fouke, Arkansas,

everytime the creature is seen, the people grab their guns and go hunting this thing, and just heard about a incident in the Ozarks area about a Bigfoot. A journalist asked a local about it being someone in a suit(you can get them online), the local said that better not be going on - unless he or she wants to be shot. I have Satellite TV and heard about the incident on the news. I've also found more about it on the 'net, but will not place it here due to the WP:NOR protocol. Martial Law 21:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This may also be attributable to too much moonshine.--MONGO 21:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No no, you've got it all wrong. The pictures of bigfoot are great, the poor thing was just born blurry. The Final Dream 22:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Shocking Link

This link has some real shockers on it, incl. what appears to be Bigfoot feces that was allegedly found, and it has more links than the Mysteries Megasite website. Is this link for real, and if it is credible, can it be placed ? Martial Law 11:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not credible. Haven't you posted that link before? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Two Bigfoot Organizations

One is the Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Organization, the other is the Oregon Bigfoot Research Organization. Both are mentioned above as persuant to a request for Bigfoot pics. Each state may have one or more of these Bigfoot Organizations. The former was www.gcbro.com and the latter was www.oregonbigfoot.com . Am checking the Gulf Coast site. Stand by. Martial Law 20:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Is it OK to insert these links ? Martial Law 20:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Gulf Coast Research Org. investigates all reports of this nature in the Gulf States area, from Florida to Texas. Martial Law 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:S-Protect Template

This thing says that all suggestions are to be brought HERE.

2nd Sentence, in the one w/ the padlock in it. Martial Law 08:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Back to blood and hair

I recognize that the evidence that Beckjord provided me on blood and hair may be a conflict of interest for inclusion based on other actions by Beckjord. However, I feel they deserve mention. These hair samples were all reviewed by three known specialists and they all concluded that the hairs came from an unknown mammal with possible primate origins. Is there a NPOV way of incorporating this information in the article? I also believe that the blood sample analyized by Sarich is worth mentioning. None of the evidence provides facts that either support or deny the existence of bigfoot, but that well known specialists in their fields did look the evidence over is important...and at least makes Grover Krantz look less like a rogue anthropologist. Thoughts?--MONGO 08:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Go to one of the links in Re.: Military Reports. One mentions a test conducted by the FBI.

This is in the last archive made on this page. Does this help Admin. Mongo ? Martial Law 08:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)

This link has material about the FBI tests on these hair samples. Does this also help ? Martial Law 08:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)

DNA ? Has anyone done any DNA tests ? Martial Law 08:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)

No, the FBI is a criminal investigative organization, so their results wouldn't be released without a federal court order to do so...and they probably don't exist anymore anyway. I'm talking about cleaning up this edit...[1], but using portions of it for the sake of completeness.--MONGO 08:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Only sure way to get these samples is to find a Bigfoot, and take it down. Problems incl. local and/or state laws about hunting this thing, and some researchers claim that gunfire has no effect on this thing. Martial Law 08:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Good luck...hard to shoot something that seems to be unfindable. Remember Martial Law...there is zero proof that Bigfoot exists...all we have a are little inconsequential tidbids that are not fully explained.--MONGO 08:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Those are'nt "tidbits". Those are clues, just as is a fingerprint, DNA, a stolen car, etc. that leads the police officer to the career making criminal bust. Martial Law 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Friends of Bigfoot

What about this link ? Martial Law 09:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)

It also has some Bigfoot pixes on here as well. Martial Law 09:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Should it be stated that readers can use the External Links: The links for the Bigfoot Organizations to report their own encounters ? Some of these organizations send out personnel who will investigate the incident in a similar manner as that of a police investigation. Only that NO crime has been committed. User:Beckjord did raise some points about Wikipedia being a "how to" reference - such as First Aid and some war protocol for civilians. Martial Law 21:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)

The BFRO is already there (in external links) so I guess you can add a little description informing people that that is an excellent place to report sightings. I don't have any problems with that. There is also several other such websites where you can report encounters so I really don't see the point of adding any other websites, if you plan to that is. --Every1blowz 21:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've heard from one editor that the BFRO is scandal ridden. The claim comes from www.beckjord.com. That is why I'm asking about other bigfoot investigative organizations. Martial Law 03:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Actually, you don't have to go to beckjord's website for that. you can read about it at www.bigfootforums.com. but the point is, no organization is without its scandals, probably not even beckjord's, dare i say. this doesn't take away from the fact that bfro is still one of, if not the most reputable org. on the subject.--Every1blowz 23:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone here seen/encountered this thing ?

Any wikipedians seen/encountered this thing ? Your encounter may help solve this mystery once and for all. Martial Law 22:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Lets keep your reports in Wiki compliance. Martial Law 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please bear in mind WP:NOR, Martial Law. Wikipedia isn't the right venue for trying to solve the mystery. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Martial Law 22:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)

One Wikipedian has reported a encounter w/ this thing, and I did state to keep things in Wiki compliance. Martial Law 08:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Apologise for any errors here. Martial Law 08:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Each State in USA

Each state has a Bigfoot Research Organization in them, since all 50 states have reported encounters with them and other bizarre creatures, such as the Mothman and/or the Chupacabra, Champ. Where can this statement be placed w/o messing up the article ? Martial Law 22:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)

I think it's pretty notable that each state has such an orginization and I wouldn't have any issues with you adding a very brief mention of that fact somewhere in the "Bigfoot phenomenon" section. Of course before you do we need to have some other users voice their opinions. --Every1blowz 21:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of these "reporting organizations" are just some random guy's website, though. That would eed to be demonstrated incorrect before it would make sense to me to include such info. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Citation Answer:Stink: Why Bigfoot is smelly / Stinks

Go to this link. It discribes what Bigfoot allegedly smells like. More to follow. Martial Law 23:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Another link that discusses the thing's smelly nature. Martial Law 23:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Still more to follow. Only in compliance to WP:CITE request in article itself. Martial Law 23:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Got two more links that may comply w/ the citation request. These two links are Why Bigfoot Stinks and This may explain why Bigfoot stinks. Hope these help. Martial Law 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Are these links useful ?

After all, I found a tag that said that citation is needed. Martial Law 23:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)

After all, it smells like rotten meat, carrion, sewage, rotten eggs, animal waste, worse. Martial Law 23:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Farmers and those who have seen war knows what carrion smells like. Martial Law 08:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

News

User:BunchofGrapes is a Admin. Martial Law 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Seen the recent communications. Should I continue to bring things here or just throw them into the article ? Martial Law 03:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)

You are, as are all users, welcome to edit the article. I implore you to exercise brutal judgement in what sources you cite. It's very easy to find unreliable sources in this subject area. Rule of thumb: No web pages. No blogs. Magazines, books, and newspapers only. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Will do. What about this link:Bigfoot FAQs ? Reason I've been having sites "vetted" is to make sure they're credible, incl. the link to Sasquatch FAQs. Is that site credible ? Martial Law 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)

If link is malfunctioning, go offsite. Martial Law 03:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The link is broken and whatever "go offsite" is supposed to mean, it doesn't help. But I can still answer the question: it's not credible. No web pages. No blogs. Magazines, books, and newspapers only. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This link is about the recent CNN report of one seen in Malaysia. Done a Google Search: Bigfoot, and got a graphic of a newspaper showing the latest Bigfoot reports. Is that OK ? Will comply. Martial Law 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)

One recent reverted communication claims you, Admin. BunchofGrapes, that you are not a Admin. What is going on ?! Martial Law 04:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I did investigate that rumor and found it false. I know you are a Admin. Martial Law 04:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)

http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/news.php?id=181090

bernama is the "official" news agency of malaysia.

PBS And Bigfoot

This link says that PBS has investigated some Bigfoot Reports. Should I place this one ? Martial Law 04:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Its one of the "state" Bigfoot agencies mentioned in a reference about each state having a Bigfoot Investigative Agency, just like the GCBRO or the Texas Bigfoot Research Agency. Martial Law 04:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sasquatch Research

What about this link: Sasquatch Research Organization ? Martial Law 04:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Its got a bunch of skull photos in it, some reputedly those of early Man, some look like Bigfoot skulls. Martial Law 07:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC) It even has a pix of Dr. Krantz here. Martial Law 07:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :o

Magazine

This link is about a magazine concerned with paranormal matters, here, it is bigfoot. Martial Law 09:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Can I get a ruling on this site/magazine ? More and more magazines are now going online AS internet magazines. Martial Law 09:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Bigfoot RESEARCH organization

This link will take you to this organization: Bigfoot Research Organization. Martial Law 09:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC) :)

"Bigfoot Tracks" Link

This is an original source, so it can't be quoted, but it is an interesting site comparing "bigfoot" tracks to bear tracks. http://www.spiritone.com/~brucem/bigf1.htm

Artiemishi 21:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Artiemishi

Skamania County

I live in a neighboring county. Skamania's "sasquatch" ordinances were jokes. They were never codified. See http://www.skamaniacounty.org/bpc/html/index.htm

Artiemishi 21:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)artiemishi

Bigfoot tracks and - well - Bigfoot ?

Bigfoot tracks and WHAT appears to be Bigfoot feces: From the GCBRO. Martial Law 05:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC) :)

I am monitoring a ice storm that could take down a sizable chunk of the US down. Martial Law 05:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Can this be used ? Martial Law 05:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely useless. 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This "Explains" everything about Bigfoot

This link purports to explain everything about Bigfoot. Martial Law 05:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC) :D

Is this one any good ? Martial Law 05:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Is it a magazine, book, or newspaper? No. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

hoax tracks

This seems to be incredibly, well, wrong. The article describes tracks, but the tracks being described are clearly the hoaxed tracks created by Ray Wallace. Actual tracks do not have this.

Enormous human-like footprints attributed to this creature gave rise to the name "Bigfoot". Ecologist Robert Michael Pyle describes them as follows: "Tracks commonly measure fifteen to twenty inches or more in length. They have five toes, a double-muscle ball, and a wide arch" (Pyle, 3).

Cryptomundo has recent articles on this and images that compare fake prints made by Wallace to others that are believed to be genuine. With this in mind, it seems like it would be very bad to leave this in the article.

Freshyill 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Two Magazine sources / other sources

These are Strange Magazine and Bigfoot in the Newspapers. Martial Law 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC) And this link Martial Law 21:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Strange magazine might be an acceptable source, if there was something in there that improved the article. Your second and third links are really just search engines... not content providers. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What of this one:Bigfoot here too Martial Law 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Got two more. these areBigfoot here andMore Bigfoot Martial Law 22:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one: Bigfoot featured here as well Martial Law 22:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This one says that Bigfoot to be CAPTURED. Martial Law 22:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This says that Bigfoot is to be CAPTURED. Martial Law 22:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop it. Anybody can do a web search and find a bunch of sites that mention Bigfoot. Can you write anything encyclopdic based any of this? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Some mention sightings, which could be placed in the "Alleged Sightings" catagory. Apologise if I was in error. Martial Law 23:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything already here concerning a Loren Coleman ? If not, see this link about Loren Coleman. Martial Law 23:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit Committee ?

Just came back from monitoring a ice storm(still watching it), checked the "history" section on this page. What is this "Edit Committee" ? For affected Wikipedians, go to The Weather Channel Website and/or to The Accuweather Website, other weather related websites, your local TV and/radio news outlets. So far, there has been no appreciable activity with this storm at all. Martial Law 06:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)

What is this "Edit Committee" ? Martial Law 06:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you really not figured that out, ML? The "Edit Committee" is User:Beckjord, who resets the clock on his one-year ban every time he makes an edit. Since he has been banned by ArbCom ruling, any user is free to (and encouraged to) immediately roll his edits back. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Been away, monitoring a deadly storm potential threat, a military oriented bigfoot incident, which I can't relate here due to WP:NOR protocol, the Fouke, Arkansas situation, a ongoing UFO incident in a another state, the Phoenix UFO situation(hopefully unrelated to the infamous Phoenix Lights situation), the military/political situation in Iran(Iran says they'll go ahead w/ their nuke program) and Iraq. If that gets any worse, the US and allies may initiate conscription. Martial Law 23:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)

I've heard a report in which a USMC detachment had, while on a live fire exercise(REAL ammo is used in this) shot and killed a Bigfoot during this training exercise. Heard no further info. on this, so I can't confirm, nor deny this either. Martial Law 23:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Two Encyclopedia Links

Both are Bigfoot Encyclopedia One, incl. experts Global Sasquatch Encyclopedia link two Martial Law 08:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)

One or both of these mention a reference called "The Global Sasquatch Encyclopedia" and/or "The Global Bigfoot Encyclopedia". Martial Law 08:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

One of these has a link to a Matt Moneymaker as well. Martial Law 08:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot Society

This is the International Bigfoot Society. Martial Law 08:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)

World Search > Encyclopedia > Bigfoot

Worldsearch > Encyclopedia > Bigfoot

Are any of these any good ? Martial Law 09:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Another Encyclopedia

This one mirrors Wikipedia, except for the new info. in this link:Nationmaster > Encyclopedia > Bigfoot

There are some subheadings for the reader to click on, such as sighting reports, what the creature is, etc. , but it has info. that Wikipedia does'nt have at all, such as a body cast taken in a area that a Bigfoot was spotted in by researchers. Is this link any good ? Martial Law 09:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)

The subheadings are in a Table of Contents. This is a bombshell. Martial Law 09:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)

This encyclopedia even reports a videotape that someone had shot in 2005. This encyclopedia link is: This Encyclopedia reports a videotaped sighting of a Bigfoot. Martial Law 09:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Are these six links any good ?

Martial Law 09:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Martial Law, if you see a page that "mirrors Wikipedia, except for new info", what you are actually looking at is a page that is mirroring an older version of this wikipedia page. Bringing it to our attention isn't useful. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia link Ruling ?

This link is Another Encyclopedia reporting Bigfoot, incl. some recent incident reports Martial Law 05:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)

That's just a lame site ripping off Wikipedia content. Did you even read it?

Wikipedia, other Encyclopedias featured

What about this link: Factbites Encyclopedia Martial Law 05:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Matial Law, what is the point in posting all of these links? I don't get it.--Firsfron 07:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I would've placed them in the article itself, but to be courteous, I brought them here instead, and to comply with a "s-protect" template initiated due to vandalisim. Some report sightings, some agree with Wikipedia, some even mirror Wikipedia. I have investigated a Bigfoot incident myself, but due to Wikipedia protocol, mainly, WP:NOR, I am not stating what I've found here. Martial Law 09:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Wikipedia mirrors: if the site is a mirror of Wikipedia, using part or all of its info from Wikipedia, the new info you're finding is most likely just things that were originally edited out of the old Wikipedia article, for one reason or another. Since there were reasons behind these edits, it's probably not best to return these to the current Wikipedia article. Therefore, a good rule of thumb is if you see a site that mirrors Wikipedia, don't bother bringing it up here: it's already been edited out. Thanks Martial. --Firsfron 03:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Tossed Material

Someone had thrown this link out of the Bigfoot article. It is about Bigfoot reports made in the early 19th Century to the present. Martial Law 09:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Some of the incident reports mention people shooting at this thing. Martial Law 09:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)

One of these is this: In 1901, raccoon hunters spot a Bigfoot, and had shot at it, with no effect upon the creature. Martial Law 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Should this be returned ? Martial Law 10:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Bigfoot pix is a HOAX - says link below

According to this link The current Bigfoot pix here is a HOAX . Martial Law 09:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC) :o

Found this while hunting around the place. Should this link be added ? Martial Law 09:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Does this mean that Wikipedia needs a replacement pix ? Martial Law 10:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Why? Seriously, why post every stupid little thing you come across? Very little of what you've submitted on the Talk page has any chance of improving the article. What are you trying to prove?

Just being courteous. Rather bring it here than place it in the article, only to have it tossed out in some revert later for being "unencyclopedic". I've came accross a few links in whick people has reported hostile encounters, "heroic" encounters, people shooting at them with guns as well as cameras, people feeding these things, some links claim that the fundamentalist religious people insist they're demons or the Devil himself, while the New Agers claim they're spirit guides. Should I state in the article that some people believe they're demons while others insist they're spirit guides ? I have even found a weird article in which someone made the claim that Bigfoot had written a book called, "Me Bigfoot". I thought I had seen it all until I had seen that. Can this topic get any weirder ? Martial Law 01:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

By the way, the four ~ s will auto sign your designation for you. Martial Law 01:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

I think what the website is trying to tell us is that the PG film is fake. That's nice. But really, if he (the site's author) can prove it than there's $100,000 waiting for him in Moscow.

There's no need to change the picture, the photo isn't some kind of hoaxed screenshot of frame 352. That's ridiculous. --Every1blowz 01:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Magazine

This magazine is Bigfoot Times. Can this be used ? Martial Law 02:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

To continue a point someone else made above: ML, please stop scouring the web for every Bigfoot-related site you can find. You're about 0 for 200 with links and sources that would be useful or relevant. There's nothing useful on the web related to this topic that isn't already used in the article. That's simply the nature of the beast, as it were. android 79 03:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What about the views held by those that are religious, who claim it is a demon or The Devil, the New Agers' claim of it being a spirit guide, claims made about it attacking people, saving people, killing dogs, one or more links said it killed people, raiding farms and garbage dumps,people shooting at it with no effect,the other sightings going on since the '60s ? Martial Law 04:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

This is one really weird topic. I do apologise if I have been in error. Martial Law 04:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

I've heard a military account on Coast To Coast AM in which, last year, a Marine allegedly shot and killed a bigfoot during a live fire(REAL ammunition is used) exercise. Martial Law 04:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Religion: Re.:Demons in the Hebrew Bible, 2nd paragraph, 13th word in italics the RED word is se' irim, which in Hebrew, means Hairy Beings. THAT can be interpreted that the ancient Hebrews had seen a Bigfoot, and thought of the creature as a demon. Martial Law 04:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Based on that, some may interpret this as that Bigfoot are demons. Martial Law 04:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Can this be stated in the article w/o causing any problems ? Martial Law 04:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Again, I do apologise if I have been in error. Martial Law 04:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

New Bigfoot Organization

This organization is called I.B.A.G.. Not much is known about it. All contact info is in the "Home" section. Martial Law 08:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :D

KNOWN E-mail is: bigfoot46555@earthlink.net

Is this a good link ? Martial Law 08:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

They claim to be a NO kill organization. Martial Law 08:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :o

Seriously, this is just useless junk. You're not adding to the discussion one bit with all of this. It's been brought to your attention by many other people, so I think it's more than fair to say that you realize that what you're doing is not helpful, and is in fact hurting the discussion. If you feel absolutely compelled to post random useless links to sites with no actual content, why not just start your own blog about it and stop trying to hinder the discussion here? 65.223.249.151 17:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

NATIONAL NEWSPAPER

The USA Today has ran this article about a Bigfoot, and this is a HIGHLY regarded newspaper. Martial Law 08:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

If this link will not function, go offsite and go to this website:

www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-bigfoot-cover_x.htm . Martial Law 08:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Neither link works...I tried...what was significant about it?--MONGO 09:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing, as usual. He's just a vandal trolling here to annoy people. -- 65.223.249.151 17:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It had reported a Bigfoot. Do a Google Search:Bigfoot reports, then go to No.#3, then find, all in blue: USATODAY.com-Bigfoot's indelible imprint. That should take you to the USATODAY article. As for User:65.223.249.151, I am NO troll, nor vandal. Martial Law 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Compliance

It is best to bring what I find here to the discussion page than it is to have what I find tossed out for being "unencyclopediac", etc. after placing what I find directly into the article itself. After all, this is a discussion page. This is the 3rd time explaining this. Martial Law 21:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

CNN Article

CNN article on Malaysia's Bigfoot Martial Law 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

In compliance, can I get a ruling on this link ? Martial Law 21:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)

NPOV problems yet again

MONGO went ahead and readded a lot of details on various old hair "tests" mentioned in old pro-Bigfoot sources that I believe originally came from the now banned editor. The problem here is that devoting a lot of space to meaningless opinions of what people claim to have found with tests before DNA testing were used (and I note that that very important fact that they were not DNA tests was removed in the edit) only to have much later a section saying some DNA tests showed Bison hair and other known animals give undue weight to less reliable claims. This happens both by leaving out important info, dedicating much more space to pro-Bigfoot claims, and then not even getting the negative claims in until much later. I am once again reverting back to the older version for more balance.

The mere claim statment that "it is cited information, do not remove it" alone does not say anything about whether it fits within the NPOV policy. Adding lots of cited facts from old outdated publications with clear agendas on one side of the debate while removing an important note and not balancing the section simply in unacceptable.

Now, if you would like to shorten that (the article is too long as it is) and try for real balance, and include the info that it was NOT at all DNA testing and thus much more subjective (looking at hair samples and guessing) and also expland the skeptical section about it, then maybe it can be used, but really we need a good neutral summary.

And furthermore the entire structure of the article -- giving whole sections of one side arguing one way and then later having another side argue -- is highly problematic, as it makes the pro and con difficult to follow and for most people gives a distorted view by focusing on the first (pro) section. There should not be separate sections, it should all be incorporated together, so that when we talk about hair evidence, for example, all the relevant info is in one place, and not so that DNA testing shows real animals is hidden further down in the article. DreamGuy 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there was too much there; however, I thought MONGO's first paragraph in the section was better then the old one (especially mentioning as it does the black bear match) and so I've restored the first paragraph. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

We can work on making it more neutral, but just because the cited source doesn't exist anymore is weak argumment for expulsion. The facts are that there is no prove offered by anything I added, and I don't believe the creature exists...but it would be unscientific to deny the possibility of it's existence solely just because DNA hasn't been performed. At the time of the hair inspection by the anthropologists I cited, DNA was costly, essentially not mainstream and extremely expensive, so it seems silly to mention that. Sarich blood analysis was the best readily available at the time...I can add that.--MONGO 06:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Pinker concluded that the hair samples did not match any samples from known animal species.

This doesn't say much, as there are many ways hairs can be compared. To simply say they didn't "match" with no reference to the comparison criteria makes kind of an empty statement. Animal/nonanimal is kinda poor. For all we know, he may have just smelled them and went by what Granny Hawkins' told him when he was nine about the difference between the smell of a boy and a puppydog tail. Not real scientific. --SpeedyCar 01:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

proponents of this theory would argue that Bigfoot and the Yeti are one and the same, or at least closely related species.

How the hell can they even say this if they don't have a DNA comparison? At the very least, it's not introduction material (IMHO). The intro should be confined to verifiable aspeccts that define the subject at hand. This doesn't define, it confuses. Sure they, believe it, but let them believe it lower down in the article. Just MHO. Just trying to help make possible improvements. Take it or leave it and move on. --SpeedyCar 02:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently people did not even read my comments above, because the replies did not even address the main points and we had some people put the highly slanted info back in. NPOV is about BALANCE and OBJRCTIVITY. Adding more pro-Bigfoot hair claims back in from highly biased, outdated and unscientific sources while conspicuously not devoting the same or more space to the science side is a major violation of NPOV. Could you people at least read the policy and the points brought up instead of ignoring them and putting bad, slanted info back in? DreamGuy 06:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is a hopelessly unbalanced excuse of an article anyway...none of it is really neutral. I added the fact that DNA wasn't performed...nothing I added proves or disproves Bigfoot. There is much to still explain by the tens of thousands of footprints that have been identified and the hundreds of eyewitness reports. It would be biased to assume that every single one of these situations was the result of some massive hallucination. Again, I see almost zero evidence that BIgfoot exists and I don't personally believe it does, but we can't just find arguments to support our own biases...we have to also demonstrate our ability to look at the other side of the coin if we are really supportive of NPOV.--MONGO 06:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are simply some cases where views need to be presented, but it needs to be done with care. Too much pro-BF material, especially that which is unscientific, is overdoing it. There should be a solid unbiased intro telling the facts and the current scientific opinion on the matter, and the other views should be kept penned into a section to ppl don't confuse things. A solid, unquestionable definition in the introduction, unmarred by opinions or speculation (aside from the scientific community's view and a simple "others disagree and support BF for various reasons"), is needed to provide the ground to stand on to view the rest of the article. Otherwise it's a quagmire.

There is much to still explain by the tens of thousands of footprints that have been identified and the hundreds of eyewitness reports.

The fact that such reports exist should be enough, with perhaps very minimal embellishment. Covering them exhaustively would be ridiculous. We should see the "other side of the coin", but keep in mind that "other side of the coin" can be overdone just like anything else. I can see some of DreamGuy's frustration. Sometimes people can become crusaders for keeping balance to such an extreme that they lose sight of the bigger picture and start overcorrecting. Just take a step back and see if the bigger picture doesn't clarify things a bit. Look at some other encylopedias and see how much relative coverage they give to things for a very rough guideline.

But aside from "NPOV" issues: The view of the scientific community at large is important. It's not perfect, but provides a reasonable standard against which things can be roughly compared. That's why getting lost in a sea of Bigfoot views with no ground to stand on is irritating and uninformative.

I mean this as constructive criticism, and I can be wrong too, so please don't smack me too hard. --Shadow Puppet 15:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Facts are for me that I do not believe Bigfoot exists. Yet, it is vital if we support NPOV to cite what we can with the evidence we have. There is no proof whatsoever that Bigfoot exists...but that still, in itself does not explain all the issues. It will be very difficult to use web based referencing for items here. I quote from one source:

"That Gigantopithicus is in fact extinct has been questioned by those who believe it survives as the Yeti of the Himalayas and the Sasquatch of the Northwest American coast. But the evidence for these creatures is not convincing." from the following source: Humankind Emerging, Bernard G. Campbell, publishers: Little, Brown and Company, 1979, Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 78-78234.

That is all that is mentioned in an authoritative college textbook that is 483 pages thick. In another book titled "Paleoanthropology" by G.E. Kennedy ISBN 0-07-034046-3 There are about 5 pages discussing Gigantopithecus (the most likely fossil representative that would equate with bigfoot) and not one word of Bigfoot is mentioned.--MONGO 16:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, hope I'm not confusing the matter. I don't know anything about this and just thought an outside view might help. --Shadow Puppet 16:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you're being most helpful. The article needs a complete rewrite and I was only citing something that neither supports or refutes the evidence for Bigfoot...all of these researchers are well known, especially Ellis R. Kerley and Vincent Sarich and that helps make it more than just a reference from just any old blog or private website. As I demonstrated above, the two books I have that are readily available to me either don't mention Bigfoot or give it a thumbs down as to it's existence.--MONGO 16:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This edit war is becoming ridiculous. My God...

For the record, I support MONGO’s version of the article. Just because someone found a little more evidence "for" the existence of Bigfoot doesn’t mean we need to remove it because now the "sides" are unbalanced. That’s defeating the point. Most of us here agree Bigfoot does not exist, including myself, and with time then more evidence will pile up making the existence of Bigfoot less and less plausible, correct? Will we deny that evidence because we want the article to be "neutral"? Of course not, but the Bigfoot supporters will argue the article isn’t balanced since more space is dedicated to the conservative view. You see how ridiculous this argument is?

This hair evidence really proves nothing and can be taken both ways by an unbiased reader. You'll either believe it supports Bigfoot or it will prove to you that a majority of pro-Bigfoot research is BS.

The simple truth is, an article like this will NEVER be balanced. There are two sides with credible scientists supporting either. If we don’t keep this hair "evidence" in the article, someone down the line will eventually reinstate it because in their minds it is valid research and there is no reason to remove it. If you really feel so deeply about balance DreamGuy, then you shouldn’t have any trouble finding something to rebalance the article. Most scholarly work flat-out rejects the possibility of the creature's existence, right?

Secondly, there’s no point in "shortening" the article. Like I argued a while back, this article WILL need to be split up eventually as more Wikipedians contribute. Why are you holding back that fact, DreamGuy? --Every1blowz 02:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if I understand the argument here is that this hair evidence isn't DNA-based and thus is useless, right? Look here...

Some years ago, a long black strand of hair found in the mountains of Bhutan was examined by British scientists. The tall, hairy creature is believed by many locals to inhabit the forests and mountains of Bhutan, where it is called the Migyur.

The British scientists were led to this particular tree by Sonam Dhendup, the kingdom's official Yeti hunter.

Some of the hair was taken back to the UK for DNA testing. Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at the Oxford Institute of Molecular Medicine and one of the world's leading experts on DNA analysis examined the hair.

We found some DNA in it," he said, "but we don't know what it is. It's not a human, not a bear and not anything else we have so far been able to identify.

It's a mystery and I never thought this would end in a mystery. We have never encountered DNA that we couldn't recognise before. [2]

There, now there has even been DNA testing on a "Bigfoot's" "hair" and the conclusion is basically the same and the source is The Times of India. The argument should be over now. --Every1blowz 02:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the deal...one thing I can say for sure as a person that has a degree in anthropology is that there is NO PROOF that Bigfoot exists. I am not even one who cares if he exists or not, so I am most certainly neutral on the issue. I think it would be "neat" if Bigfoot existed, but that doesn't cloud my judgement on this issue. I can also say that if a DNA test is run on an unknown hair or blood sample and it comes back as no match, then all that measn is if MAY be an unidentified animal....however, not all mammals have been DNA tested so it is difficult to crossreference if you have no known matches available in that lab. A test in India will probably not have a DNA result for the Black Footed Ferret, which is an extremely rare mammal found in the wild in only a few of the U.S. states now. I quoted the non species specific mammal part and it is attributed.--MONGO 09:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What I'm understanding from the India Times article is that they retrieved a hair from Indonesia, which was sent back to the UK for testing. Scientists were able to extract DNA, although so far they haven't been able to match it to any known animal. Since the tests were done at Oxford, I think they have a pretty significant DNA database, probably even the Black Footed Ferret. All this means is that there may be another animal living in Indonesia which hasn't been discovered yet. That is totally easy to believe. Like just two years ago they discovered a new species of ape living in Africa. If there really are undiscovered monkeys living in Indonesia, I think it's pretty self-explanatory that this may account for a good majority of Bigfoot sightings. Does anyone else think this should be mentioned in our Wikipedia article? I mean, this “evidence” is more convincing than the other hair analysis which hasn’t been DNA tested. Wasn’t that one of the things DreamGuy was complaining about? --Every1blowz 20:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

False accusations in edit summary

I have been contributing to talk unlike your latest revert's edit summary declares, DreamGuy...why haven't you? Your revert continuously adds a mispelled word and retitles one section with "feces" and there is nothing in that section about feces.--MONGO 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like an explantion why this Roy Pinker character is more notable than Ellis R. Kerley and Dr. Vincent Sarich.--MONGO 01:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do...

Why do the sightings STOP at 1967 ? The incident in Malaysia had taken place last year. Google Search:"Bigfoot News", and you get sightings that happened since 1967, and some of these things have been videotaped. I do apologise if I've been in error. Martial Law 06:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC) :)

I've talked to some people about bigfoot, mainly in Fouke, as persuant to a investigation, which will not be placed here, due to WP:NOR. The last known report was in 2004. Martial Law 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Bigfoot Sightings Database

This Bigfoot Sightings Database has reports made from the '60s to the present. Is this link usable for placing in the "Alleged Sightings" catagory ? Martial Law 08:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC) :)

I've about had enough

I have been trying to estabish a working paragraph that is supported by the evidence in cited material.

Bringing this to a simple (but voting is evil I think) vote:

How many prefer Dreamguy's edit [3]

DanielCD 19:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC) I'm going to have to side with Dreamguy here. This article needs to give more of a simple overview, and even if it didn't, there's simply no need to go into so much detail over things that are quite inconclusive. Also keep this in mind: votes in this regard don't have any authority ~~don't mean S-H-I-T~~. You can't vote for NPOV (at least not in this way/context) and such a vote cannot be criteria for keeping or discarding anything. In my opinion, you guys need to chill out in regards to placing large amounts of detailed material ~~dumping moutains of crap~~ into the article. Good writing doesn't just involve knowing what to include, but also what to leave out.

Articles of this nature need to be very conservative as to what the do and don't include. --DanielCD 19:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if something was in print and was the results of an analysis by notable scientists, then it certainly is more credible than some crime scene investigator such as Roy Pinker. There are no mountains of cr*p in the article and if anyone looks like they need to chill out it's you with such off hand remarks. Save your profanity for some blog, please.--MONGO 05:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing personal there MONGO, no need for hostility. Sorry if you took any offense, and for any wording perceived so, as none was intended. If you feel I'm wrong, which I very well could be, try to state it a little more gently. It will generally get a better, more constructive response. --DanielCD 19:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

How many prefer MONGO's edit[4]

Abstaining for now, need to review both versions:

android 79 13:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, MONGO's edit violates NPOV for the reasons cited above. He/sjhe/it has made absolutely no attempt to try to take any of that into account and instead adds extremely outdated info from biased sources quite extensively and tries to claim a minor section much later in the article supposedly "balances" things... if he even bothered to try to explain anything,mostly he just ignores it and claims citing sources automatically makes it neutral despite the fact that the sources are old and outdated and giving much more space comkpared to more recent, more scholarly and far more important ones.NPOV policy is quite clear on this, and I am disturbed that three people above no so little about the rules that they think they can vote on it. Newsflash: you can't vote to ignore a policy that's the foundation of this encyclopedia. This "trying to estabish" thing just means "reverting back to his bad version and ignoring the clear explanation of why it's bad" -- there's no attempt to even follow policy or listen to the reasons, simply declaring himself right. Frankly, the fact that Martial Law agrees with him alone should be more than enough proof that the changes are biased and do not follow encyclopedic guidelines. DreamGuy 16:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your hostility is noted and I am sorry for that. I do not understand why you are so mad at me. Thank you, I am not a she or an it and you know that. Not only do you insult me, but proceed to insult Martial Law as well. I respectfully disagree that my edit violates the neutral point of view, nor do I agree that the edit is outdated...what does that mean anyway? What minor section much later in the article are you referring to? Is even a portion of my edit acceptible? If not what portion is...am I not allowed to edit the article for fear that you will come along and revert my every edit? Are you a physical anthropologist as I am? Do you have a masters in forensic anthropology as I do...what do you know about Bigfoot and the research? I provided references earlier in this discussion page from a couple books right in front of my desk...neither claimed Bigfoot exsits and I cited that...would this information be unacceptable to you in the article...I mean, they are from college level textbooks, not from some POV blog or website that hasn't been peer reviewed.--MONGO 16:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy, you convinced me to go and reread the entire WP:NPOV page just to refresh my memory. As I suspected, there’s nothing about using dated sources. All it says it that you should use the best sources whenever possible. In terms of good research Ellis R. Kerley and Vincent Sarich are both more notable than Roy Pinker. That’s a fact. It’s also a fact that DNA-based evidence has confirmed what Kerley and Sarich had already discovered for themselves. You also make a statement about using "biased sources quite extensively". However, even though the article was written by Beckjord, who’s undeniably pro-Bigfoot, we’re not here to listen to him. Beckjord simply wrote what two notable and independent scientists had discovered, which coincidently could be interpreted as being pro-Bigfoot. However, I think we can assume the two scientists were not biased and were as surprised by the results as any of us. NPOV also does not state anything about using equal space for all points of view. The fact that the vast majority of scientists do not support the notion of Bigfoot will entirely convince most readers, no matter how much pro-Bigfoot information you put in. It’s also true that sometimes there’s more information on one POV than there is on another. We can’t sacrifice one POV when it can be expanded and documented justly, since this in itself does not make anything inherently NPOV; it just makes a poorly-written article. You mention your belief that Roy Pinker’s work is far more important than the work of two other scientists. How so? Is it still more important even after Bryan Sykes conducted DNA-based studies (although on a differant sample) and came to pretty much the same conclusion? We could accuse you of being biased. --Every1blowz 18:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps some creativity with the writing and presentation could allow a middle ground to arise. I'm not going to get into it, and have no intention to remove anything. But I might suggest a rewrite or redoing of the sections. If you can get a really firm intro that solidly states the mainstream opinion, it would allow for a lot of extra pro stuff later in the article. I'm sorry MONGO took my criticism the wrong way. I don't mean the material is "crap". I just made a poor word choice.

I suggest taking a good look at the big picture of the article, and coming up with a really logical section outline that would leave no doubt to the reader as to what the position of the material they are reading is. A little creative manipulation might make the material fit better. Let me look and see if I can make some suggestions in this regard.

I also think there is a place for Beckjord's ideas (within reason), but it needs to be in a clear section of its own. Also: I'm not here to make any demands at all. I'm no expert and anything I'm saying here is merely a suggestion and attempt to help improve the article. --DanielCD 02:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Discovery Channel

The Discovery Channel has aired this: Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science on 3-2-06 at 11pm EST/EDT. This was about Bigfoot. Thought you guys might want to know about this matter. Martial Law 06:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Is that useful in any way ? Martial Law 06:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Could be. --DanielCD 15:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro and further editing by DanielCD

The intro is a quagmire.

specifically those in southwestern Canada, the Great Lakes, the Pacific Northwest, the Rocky Mountains, the forests of the U.S. Northeast, and the U.S. Southern states.

How can you say specifically and then go on to relist practically the entire continent? --DanielCD 15:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think attention to readability and standards of quality as far as simply wording/formatting and writing in general are being lost in all the edit warring. However, I'm afraid to do a copyedit as I don't want to get involved. I did remove a section in the intro about Yeti and Bigfoot relationship, as that's in no way intro material. By all means feel free to disagree. --DanielCD 15:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Some reports describe what Pyle calls "red eyeshine," similar to that of nocturnal animals (Pyle, 209).

Occam's Razor would safely let us assume such creatures likely are those other "nocturnal animals".

Individual males are most frequently reported; less often, witnesses report pairs, family groups, or females.

This needs a reference and needs to be firmly couched in "Bigfoot proponents believe, think, etc... however there is no evidence for this... " kind of language. We can't imply that this material is from reports of "confirmed" sightings of any sort. --DanielCD 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've placed a cleanup tag on this as it is quite below standard. There is simply too much garbage flowing into it. When you are not conservative with articles like this, they become garbage quickly, because people read it, and question claims like "smells are associated with bigfoot" and wonder if we know WTF we are talking about. Then they don't trust anything written in the article and just move on. Wish-washy stuff needs to stick to firm material and facts with the scientific commuity's outlook providing a grounding to work from. It's not perfect, but nothing you can find will be better. If we are liberal with it, it becomes just another Internet cesspool of speculation packaged as factual info. Readers sense this kind of deception and immediately distrust the material and Wikipedia. --DanielCD 21:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur, and thank you so much for the rephrase on the Foul odors. I partially fixed that sentence, but mine was fairly awful too. I couldn't think of decent phrasing. Well done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Admin. KillerChiuahua, check the data and websites that I've found that discuss why this thing smells like sewage, carrion, feces. I think it is under the Re.: Why Bigfoot stinks. I've found the info. to comply with some kind of request template. This is on the discussion page. Does this help ? Martial Law 05:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Who the heck is Admin? --DanielCD 22:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"Admin" is the position held by some users/Wikipedians. Just being respectful. Martial Law 02:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Well keep in mind it's not a title. I'm nothing different from a regular editor with a little more experience. Not offended, just pointing it out. --DanielCD 02:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) I'm sorry, I'm not sure which links you are talking about? Please post them here, thanks much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Go to Google, then on there, input "Bigfoot/stinks" or "Bigfoot/smelly". This was in compliance of citations needed regarding the horrific smell that is associated with this thing. Martial Law 03:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC) )

Question

IF a sasquatch is brought in, who or what gets it, and will this be publicized or "hushed up" ? Martial Law 05:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC) :)

After all, the skeptics WANT a dead body for DNA, other bio samples. Martial Law 05:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC) :)

I'm assuming you are referring to a hypothetical situation where an actual body is found (or specimen captured) and, for some reason, people cover this fact up. We can only do our best, our part, and hope that what's possible as far as facts coming to light are not covered up. We can try to stop it if know about it, but if others do it, and we don't know, not much we can do but be vigilant. As for Wikipedia, of course no one will cover up scientifically documented evidence of that kind. I don't see a motive anywhere strong enough to have people cover up such a discovery as a complete specimen anyway. --DanielCD 18:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've heard matter on Coast to Coast AM, Jeff Rense's radio show about a possible cover-up,

because of both govt. and/or religious reasons. Long ago, stating that the Earth was a sphere was a sure death sentence, as was stating that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of this solar system, all due to political and/or religious reasons. Martial Law 10:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC) :)

These two shows claim that you can report and/or discuss any and all manner of bizarre things, paranormal matters without the "giggle factor" or worse being used to make you look like some kind of idiot. Martial Law 10:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC) :)

The "Giggle Factor" is when the media has a paranormal matter in the news, the news personnel make crude jokes about the matter, like this one(polite):"If that is a Bigfoot, I'm the King of the United States", and they're dealing with a Bigfoot incident, like the one that happened in Malaysia recently. Martial Law 10:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Sections

I redid some of the section headers to make (what I feel is) a firmer outline. The "Conclusion" section is kind of disorganized and needs sorting.

The article is very big, but there's nothing wrong with that. If old sources are used, just make it plain to the reader that this is coming from a source that is old/dated or whatever, and say why you are using it. (Why are we citing dated material? Are we?).

Just to recap: Organization and "prettifying" the article can allow for more info to be added without ppl getting upetty (pretty = more forgiving). Just make sure that the organization stays firm. Perhaps someone can improve on what I've done there with the outline. ..? --DanielCD 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure the MOS says you shouldn't have first level headings in an article, but I confess I took them out before I read the talk page, so now I feel a little bad. Still, I doubt that a more intricate and hierarchical TOC is really what the article needs. If you want to restore it, though, you should deepen the lower headers, not throw a level-1 around them. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I was just trying to give it a form and was hoping someone would tidy it up. It just needs to be firm as to what info is where. I don't care about the header size. --DanielCD 04:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Any tidying would help this article..it essentially needs a rewrite I think, but not sure what order to place things at this moment. Have a look at the MOS for a few featured articles if you're looking for some sort of standardization I guess.--MONGO 04:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. They have some pretty good example articles. --DanielCD 04:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

History Channel

The History Channel has aired a show called: Decoding the Past:Monsters on 3-9-06 at 21:00 hrs EST/EDT. Bigfoot, aka, the yeti was featured. Is this useful ? Martial Law 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)

The Loch Ness Monster was also featured. Martial Law 02:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)

On 3-10-06, the History Channel has aired at 18:00 hrs EDT/EST a series called Historiy's Mysteries:Bigfoot and Other Monsters Go to the History Channel link for more information. This was part of a larger airing of the whole series History's Mysteries. Martial Law 21:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)

A search on the History Channel website reveals that these shows referenced here are on DVD. Martial Law 05:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Documentary Channels

Can the info. presented on these channels be used ? Martial Law 21:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Yea, as long as you can cite the episode. --DanielCD 21:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

See above for the History Channel. Martial Law 23:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)

The cited shows are on DVD. Martial Law 05:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Movie

The Sci-Fi Channel has aired a movie called Sasquatch. The spoiler is that rescuers encounter the monster while searching for survivors of a plane crash. Can this be inserted in the Movies section ? It aired on 3-11-06 @ 11pm EST/EDT on the Sci-Fi Channel. Martial Law 00:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Based on your description, this is the 2002 movie The Untold (imdb plot summary), which IMDB says here was released in the US as Sasquatch (and in French Canada as Inexplicable). The Film and television section already lists The Untold, but feel free and add "(Also released in the US as Sasquatch)" to the entry if it would make you happy.

On a more general note, I went out of my way to do this basic research (an imdb search) for you, but you should be able to do it for yourself if you are going to make positive contributions to the encyclopedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the assisstance. I guess that is what being a Admin is all about ? Martial Law 05:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Really, I do apperciate the assisstance. Martial Law 07:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Latest News: Malaysian Bigfoot

Where do I place this link ? This is the latest news concerning the monster. Martial Law 08:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Their govt. is to get a plaster cast of a Bigfoot print. Martial Law 08:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Where can this be placed, in the External Links section ? Martial Law 05:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Do you realize that 80% of this page has topics started by you? Seriously dude, stop asking people and be bold.

Please sign your statements. Martial Law 17:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Reporting a Encounter

Could this be stated:"To report one, use the external links.", and where at ? The First Aid article has protocol that advises people how to treat injuries, gunshot wounds and the like. Martial Law 22:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC) :)

I've heard that people who see these monsters are looking for a place to report these things without someone accusing them of lying or being crazy, a idiot or worse. Martial Law 23:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC) :)

One other thing

I am in a rural area in which people will shoot any and all intruders, including these things. This is how it goes down: 1. You smell it, hear it, even see it. 2. You draw your weapon and attempt to take it down, since you automatically believe it is a threat to YOU, only that ammo has no known effect on it (I have seen a report in which one was killed by hunters who thought it was a bear ). 3. It runs from you. 4. You report it, only to have Dispatch ridicule you, especially about your sanity, intelligence, and your sobriety. So, where do you report this thing without that kind of hassle ? Martial Law 00:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC) :)

This is why I'm asking if the external links could be used to report these things, especially if a reader has seen one. Martial Law 00:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Patterson film

Might I diffidently suggest that some of you read this book and edit the section dealing with the Patterson film acordingly? Enjoy!

Long, Greg (2004). The making of Bigfoot: the inside story. Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-591-02139-1.

As you all know, Roger Patterson died in 1972, but Long was able to track down his confederates and eventually obtained a complete confession. The monkey suit turns out to have been a hand modified version of a commmercially available gorilla suit. Long also obtained much information on the possible motivation of the "ringleader" of the hoax, Roger Patterson.---CH 19:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, no less than three people have confessed to making the suit, and no less than four have confessed to being inside it! Case solved - Hoax X 3. WilyD 20:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please rewrite!

The article is much too lengthy, fails to take proper account of the Long book (which I think any unbiased reader will regard as definitively debunking the Patterson hoax), and reports too credulously unverified claims, e.g. Krantz said he gave casts to 40 experts and they mostly said they thought gotta be real, but apparently we only have Krantz's word for this. ---CH 20:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is fine, but could be reduced if some material was moved to linked sub-articles. For example, the lengthy evidence-section might be moved to a new article linked from this article, and replaced with a concise section summarizing the evidence and criticism of it --Danielos2 22:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC) .

Long deserves a mention, but his work is not the final word on the subject. See my comments at the Patterson-Gimlin film talk page. Zagalejo 00:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

New Organization

The organization is Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers which is set up by Wikipedians for Wikipedians who have had bizarre encounters with the paranormal, incl. Bigfoot. This is a invite to you all. Martial Law 08:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)

The organization is also open to those that investigate these matters. Martial Law 08:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Weapons Use

Where can it be stated,"that when some people see this thing, they'll draw their weapon, say out of their truck and/or on their person, and shoot at it."? I am currently in a rural area and the people I'm close to will shoot at anything - or anyone. In the Fouke Incident, it is mentioned that people has shot at this thing and even set dogs on it. Martial Law 21:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC) :)

What is that, the 100th time you've asked that? Nowhere -- it's unencyclopedic and largely unverifiable. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The documentary The Legend of Boggy Creek mentions people shooting at a Bigfoot, even setting dogs on it. 22:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC) :)

The Legend of Boggy Creek is not a documentary. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How can this be stated ?

How can this be stated and where at ? - "If you believe that you have encountered one or more of these creatures, the external links may be used to report the encounter(s) with this thing. Be advised that some of these organizations that created the links presented here will send out investigators and investigate the incident in the SAME manner as that of a police investigation, only that no known crime has been committed."

The First Aid article advises people to do certain things, contrary to WP:Not states, such as handling burns, fractures and the like. Martial Law 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Seems like a poor way to state it. ---J.Smith 19:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It CAN'T be stated, it's completely unencyclopedic. The First Aid article is about aiding, so of course it would make sense to do some of that. This article has no possible reason to make any recommendations direct to its readers. Seriously, dude, you've been here a while and yo keep askig about the same things that we keep explaining to you and you never seem to learn. DreamGuy 11:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If I did'nt ask, someone else would have, and they may not be so polite about it. Martial Law 20:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC) :)

I love it, I mean I really do absolutely LOVE it

User:Gabeshaughnessy added the following to the article -- "It is possible the bigfoot is not a physical being but rather a forest spirit, Banjankri, unavailable to the rational mind and only accessible through intuitive pursuit.". It lasted half an hour before being skittled. It was probably a windup by Gabeshaughnessy who hadn't made any previous edits. But boy oh boy, did it ever demonstrate one of the serious problems of Wikipedia. This article is stock full of absolute nonsense. But yet, when someone adds something similar it gets axed and the screed of existing nonsense remains. Move over Lucky69, and RickK and all the other seasoned editors who left Wikipedia in disgust, I'm getting closer to joining you every day. Moriori 08:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC).

Merge with Yeti?

As this talk page seems busy I thought I'd start the ball rolling on this over on the Yeti Talk page (Emperor 13:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

Lauren Coleman?=

Who is "Lcoleman@maine.rr.com"?

Is the famous cryptozoologist himself here on Wikipedia? Anyway, this Wikipedians "contributions" so far seems to be shameless self-promotion, sensationalism and a greedy desire to sell books. Shouldn´t this guy be reported to the administrators of this site? He gives cryptozoology and Wikipedia a bad name, and is incredibly annoying! :(

--Danielos2 13:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Template

Of course it has that template because it is a mysterious creature. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace ☢✍☎☺) 17:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)