Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 5

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (through December 2005)
• Archive 2 (through January 25, 2006)
• Archive 3 (through February 9, 2006)
• Archive 4 (through May 31, 2006)

Patterson film and the "ape suit"

The famous Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967 showing what appears to be a bigfoot has been debunked over the years by critics claiming it is a man in an ape suit; on the other side, proponents claim that if it is a suit, it is better than Hollywood ever came up with. Going from that perspective, critics should consider the following:

1) The Patterson/Gimlin film was made on a shoe-string budget, if it had the backing of anyone to begin bbbbb ioukhwith. This implies the "suit" also was limited in funding.

2) Hollywood came up with two films around the time of the Patterson/Gimlin film: Planet of the Apes and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Both films featured actors in ape costumes, and at the time the budgets levied for the make-up department was enormous. In the sequel to Planet of the Apes (Escape from the Planet of the Apes) carelessness on the part of the make-up department is clearly seen: in the sauna scene one can see the hem of the ape suit trouser on the Dr Zaius character. The Patterson/Gimlin film should be comparred with what Hollywood came out with at the time.

3) In all Hollywood films up until the 1988 (Gorillas in the Mist), the distingushing characteristic of an ape suit is the fold in the fabric at various bending points (i.e. shoulder, knee, etc), similar to what one can see on ordinary clothing. Planet of the Apes had the apes wear clothing as part of the costume, in order to hide this defect (this was also used for the Ewoks to hide the seams in Star Wars: Return of the Jedi). It should be noted that there is no apparent folding of the fabric on the bigfoot of the Patterson/Gimlin film. Carajou 16:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

New developments

As cheesy and nonsense as it is, this by far has to be the worst and I mean worst bigfoot hoax of all time. This was so badly done that I cannot believe the media even cared. Reported Bigfoot siting in Clarence, New York a hoax. The sources are at the bottom. There are photos on them. Hope someone will update it. DragonFire1024 08:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Loren Coleman

www.lorencoleman.com 06:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Updated Loren Coleman's website location. Also caught a shooting incident report as well regarding Bigfoot. Martial Law 05:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Reason for shooting ?s

While I was moving, listening to Coast To Coast AM 's "Open Lines" show, two subjects reported that a Bigfoot had attacked them, so they opened fire on it with weapons they had, incl. a .410 and a .44 magnum. One hit it in the head, which then drove the monster away. More reports of this nature will surface. Their Sheriff's Office ridiculed them. I'm now in Texas, and it is legal to kill anything threatening those who believe they are threatened by a intruder, be it another human or a monster. In a nutshell, if you think a person or monster is threatening you, you can blow him/her,it away. Someone else asking similar questions may not be so polite. Some will run from it, others will stand and fight. Wikipedians who listen to the radio show Coast To Coast AM, and/or to Jeff Rense's radio show should keep a eye on this matter. Is this worthy of inclusion to the article in relation to how different people's reactions to this thing vary ? Martial Law 05:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm only stating that when this thing appears to people, people will react to it in various ways. Some will run from it, some will stand and fight it for various reasons, such as trying to collect it for a monetary bounty (allegedly, a FL. University placed a $1M - U.S. Bounty on the Skunk Ape after some Bigshot tourists have seen one), to prove it exists. I'm NOT trying to hurt anyone's feelings at all, just stating what people will do when confronted by this thing. Just stating what a person will do if and when confronted by this thing, a alien, UFO, that sort of thing.

As for Loren Coleman, if he is really on Wikipedia, he has to follow Wikipedia protocol, just like everyone else.

Again, I'm NOT trying to offend anyone at all, only stating what people will do when they encounter one or more of these things. Can it be stated that, " When people encounter this creature, some will react by running from it, while some will stand and fight, trying to obtain alleged bounties, to prove it exists, to chase it off of their property, to protect their lives, etc." ? I have talked to these people myself in places like Fouke and in Louisiana, home of the Honey Island Monster. Some will run for it, while some will fight. I have a cousin who reported that one of these things chased a juvenile subject as the subject attempted to evade the said creature. He was not armed, but his family was. Martial Law 17:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Definatly not. That's information about other people, not bigfoot. Either way, it's not really encyclopedic (people will react to things how they react). --InShaneee 22:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That is how people react to this thing. I am in a area in which people will shoot to kill. Last night, someone killed a burglar when this person committed a home invasion. The story is in the local paper. That is why someone in a "Bigfoot suit" is asking for a Darwin Award, and explains why some people will shoot at Bigfoot. Can this be stated:"Weapons Use Some people will, when confronted by this thing, will attempt to kill it, maybe to collect a bounty that may be in effect, and/or for self protection, to protect property and loved ones." ? I have met these people, they carry loaded guns with them, even when they go to the "john","loo", the can, etc. I've seen some cases on some of the TOP Bigfoot sites citing personnel shooting at this thing, incl. Cryptomundo and the BFRO. One case mentions that some hunters thought they killed a bear, then went to have a look at the kill, and found out they nailed a Bigfoot, then there is the alleged kill made by a "Bugs", who called Art Bell, claiming to have killed a Bigfoot family. Then there is the report I've heard on a recent Coast To Coast AM "Open Lines" broadcast in which a armed party had shot at a Bigfoot that was attacking them and their truck. Martial Law 18:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This article already reeks of original research. Your proposed addition will only make it worse. CPitt76 16:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a single law either in Oregon or Northern California making it a crime to shoot and kill a Bigfoot, enacted in the 1970's, and I think it's a local or county ordinance (I could be wrong in this). However, it should be noted that officially (and I do mean officially!) bigfoot does not exist, and there are no real federal or state laws that would cause someone to be charged with a felony or misdemeanor if they shoot one. Unfortunately, science demands a specimen on the disecting table before it's recognised as a species, meaning one has to be killed...and killing one for that purpose is kind of repugnant. So, if anyone goes out to the forest to find one, pack that gun for safety...but try to shoot it with that video camera instead. Carajou 16:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As stated, people will try to bring one in, mainly for the known accumalated $20 M Bounty. Martial Law 07:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This comes from people, colleges and the like posting all manner of bounties, all in a effort to kill a Bigfoot and bring in a body to claim any bounties and fame for bringing one in. How would "YOU" like to be the one who killed one, brought it in to a major college, like Harvard to collect any bounties, and fame, to be known as "the person who PROVED that Bigfoot is real ? "You'll" make a fortune in commercial endorsements, especially those launched by sporting goods/outdoor outfitters such as "Sportsman's Guide", as in this:"I used a .410, wore this Goretex Jacket, used Coleman Products...", etc.,"when I brought in the real Bigfoot. Now I'm after a Lizard Man that is haunting the Carolinas.". Martial Law 07:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The college gets the body, the "bounty hunter" gets to make a literal fortune, later on, laws are passed to protect the creature. Only being truthful, no more, no less. Martial Law 07:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Coast To Coast AM

Usually, every Friday night, in the US (where the show is located), the show has what they call Open Lines. This is how I had found out about someone shooting at this thing. Want to participate, just keep it clean. The phone No.#s are on the Coast To Coast AM website, and George Noory also initiates a "Special" phone number for specific use. One time, it was the Ghost Line, another time, it was the Alien Abduction Line. I've found some Wikipedians who are Coast To Coast AM fans. Martial Law 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not advising people how to do anything. Only citing the show as a source, no more, no less. Do apologise if I was in error. Martial Law 21:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Law in Bigfoot Article

I have talked to law enforcement personnel about people hunting this thing. Can it be stated that:" The police, other law enforcement does not want people hunting this thing, since someone can get hurt, even killed, either by a hunting party looking for a bounty, and/or that this thing, if it exists, will hurt, if not kill them." ? Martial Law 05:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Some who want to hunt it are not sober at all, thinking it'll pay for a lot of booze, or are just looking for a fast buck. Martial Law 05:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A major reason that law enforcement does not want people hunting this thing, is that criminals are using remote areas to grow pot and making meth, and will kill intruders, have been known to use booby traps and/or guards to deter law enforcement and inquisitive civilians. I have seen this repeatedly on the news outlets and on the Documentary channels. Martial Law 22:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Can this be restated in the article ? Martial Law 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Conference

This link is about a recent Bigfoot conference. Anything useful here ? Martial Law 06:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot (claimed to be) CAPTURED

This linksays that a paranormal version of "The A-Team" had caught a Bigfoot. More is on www.coasttocoastam.com about this matter RIGHT NOW. They claimed to have caught one three (3) years ago. Is this shocker of a link useful ? Martial Law 23:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

These people are supposedly after a Jinn right now. Martial Law 23:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot on Evolutionary Tree with Humans:

See this link: Bigfoot on Family Tree This implies that Bigfoot evolved alonside humans. If true, this may dispel the hypothesis that Bigfoot is some kind of alien. Martial Law 20:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course he isn't an alien...he doesn't even exist here for all basic purposes. If he is anything, he is a descendant of Paranthropus boisei, but not Gigantopithecus who was probably a knuckle walker.--MONGO 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The article says it came from Homo erectus. Martial Law 20:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Can it be stated then, that based on this article, that,"Bigfoot may be a Homo Erectus", and could someone place this link on the Homo erectus article ? Martial Law 21:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the Bigfoot websites do mention smaller creatures. Martial Law 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Homo Erectus is too advanced and couldn't be the ancestor of a less advanced creature. Understand that mammals change in size over time...examples include the horse and even modern humans. The average European male in the 1500's was about 5'2" and that average is much higher now, only 500 years later. The only potential ancestor for Bigfoot is Paranthropus boisei or Paranthropus robustus...they could easily have become larger over time. The fossil record does not support any evidence of Gigantopithecus or the Paranthropus beyond about 700,000 years ago...so unless there are new finds to yet be unearthed (which is probable), there is no fossil lineage to the modern Bigfoot, hence the argument by some that Bigfoot is an alien species. The only real proof we have is that Bigfoot is simply a myth, and that the sightings are not anything more than people either misinterpreting what they see (ie, it was actually a bear) or they are lying, or they just have zero knowledge of zoology.--MONGO 22:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No offense intended, what are you ? A zoologist ? Martial Law 20:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot movie

I have seen on the Sci-Fi Channel on 7-11-06 @ or near 20:00 EST/EDT a movie called Sasquatch Hunter. In this, a armed science detail finds evidence of a Bigfoot in what is later a Bigfoot cemetary, and they're attacked by what looks like a cross between a demon and a bear. 1/2 of the group is brutally killed, and one character looks like Loren Coleman, and is a Bigfoot researcher. The creatures are depicted to be the hight of a small building, have fangs instead if teeth, extremely strong, extremely agile. As the movie progresses, two or more of the creatures are shot by the surviving characters using Remington 12 ga.s, what appears to be 9 mm or .45 cal. handguns, some other firearms. Two of the things are shot and killed as they escape. Where can this be placed ? Or is it already placed in the article ? Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the movie does have language issues, such as when the attacks start, one character says such things as, after being attacked, "There is a F-(censored) monster out here, Drop everything and lets get the F-(censored) out of here !" The censorship is a small amount of audio loss used to censor out the word "Fuck" in the movie, related profanity. Martial Law 18:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Memorial Day footage

Should this article, Memorial Day footage, be merged within the video section here? It doesn't seem to be enough to stand alone and does seem lost under that heading (at least confusing to the general public). -RJFerret 04:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

New Evidence ?

What new evidence ? DNA ? Blood ? Hair/Fur ? Someone shoot one ? Where I'm @, people here are "trigger happy", meaning they'll shoot first, if the target lives, ask it questions. Martial Law 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot SHOT AND KILLED

This is from the Cryptomundo website: Bigfoot SHOT AND KILLED. Where can this be placed ? Another reason I've been asking about people shooting @ these things. Martial Law 05:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

More reports of this nature will surface. I'll try to get the primary link. Martial Law 05:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Several primary links, claim is that it was shot on a Native American Reservation. Martial Law 05:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Can this be placed anywhere ? Martial Law 06:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if it appears in a reliable source..the one you have lsited here is mainly a blog. Has the story appearred in any local news media?--MONGO 07:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The South Dakota media may have more, according to what Loren Coleman has on this matter, see the RED links in article that he has selected. Some link to alleged police reports. Martial Law 17:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hoaxing/making a false police report is a criminal offense, the alleged police report is Police link. After the primary police and/or news link. Martial Law 17:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Found a common news source in these links. These are Link 1, Link 2, Link 3. This may be the local news source that Loren Coleman used to make the above report. Martial Law 17:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Links lead to a sort of Paranormal website instead. Martial Law 18:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Loren Coleman claims that this has not hit the local media yet. Martial Law 18:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

ML, go read Wikipedia:Reliable sources please. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the reminder. That is why I have been after the primary links/Originating News sources. Martial Law 18:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Loren should publish the originating links/News sources on his website and the Cryptomundo site as well. Martial Law 18:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

TV Commercial

A TV commercial depicts people playing practical jokes on bigfoot, such as unscrewing the salt shaker, placing ink on binoculars. The advert belongs to a company called "Jack Link's Jerky" which is about cooked and dried protien sticks and other jerky found in the check out aisle in major grocery chains and convience stores in the US. Can this be mentioned anywhere, since it is a TV commercial that uses Bigfoot in the ads? In one, Bigfoot nearly kills one of the practical jokers. A bug on my Sat. IP is causing me to stay logged out most of the time. Martial Law 21:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this belong in the cultural catagory ? Martial Law 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Found website of the Beef Jerky commercial. This is a source for said commercial stated above. This source is www.messinwithsasquatch.com. Martial Law 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The site has some Bigfoot trivia, games, and other matter on it. Martial Law 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sci-Fi Original Movie: Sasquatch Mountain:

This is a horror movie that has been previewed on the Science Fiction Channel, will be shown on 9-9-06, is called: Sasquatch Mountain, an Original Sci-Fi Channel Movie. For more, go to www.scifi.com Martial Law 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Martial Law, please try to use talkpages appropriately. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not TV Guide. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

I know that. Saw the previews today. The show's mention was intended to go on the article on the indicated timepoint, but I had some ISP problems. Glad you're back Bish. Martial Law 04:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My ISP was really screwing up bad today. I thought that they had fixed the problem. Martial Law 04:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Will comply Bish. Martial Law 04:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting "?", will have to check WP protocol. Martial Law 21:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Any WP protocol covering this question ? Martial Law 21:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Some researchers have suggested that Bigfoot is not a normal flesh-and-blood creature at all, but rather a "trans-dimensional" entity that can pass through wormholes and enter our universe for short periods of time. A trans-dimensional gorilla. LOL. --Pedro 00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I was in Fouke, Arkansas myself, investigating a Bigfoot incident when someone thought it was smart to use me for target practice, because "skeptics" had implied that the people there are idiot, inbred hillbillies, because they had seen/encountered, even went after the creature. Martial Law 05:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Polarized people?

This sounds a little weird. I think the opening sentence could be a lot better. I am not sure exactly what it should say. I am sure that a lot of work has gone into it already. Steve Dufour 09:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I will try something. Please note that something can be legendary and also real, see for instance Jesse James. Steve Dufour 12:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

First sentence

My proposed sentence didn't last long. Here it was: "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is a legendary creature, that some people believe is also real."

For the record I think it is highly unlikely that Bigfoot really exists. However it would be very cool if he did.

I can see that a lot of thought and work has gone into the opening sentence of this article: "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is the popular name of a phenomenon which many people believe is a real creature but many people do not." However I do have a couple of problems with it.

For one thing the word "phenomenon", although a very good word, does not give a clear impression of its intended meaning. This might discourage some readers rather than making them eager to read more, as a good opening sentence should.

For another is it necessary to bring in the non-believers so soon? I think it is the believers who make Bigfoot a notable subject, not the non-believers. Anyway the non-believers have lots of chances to make their points later on in the article. I think in the third paragraph the negative opinion of most scientists is cited.

Anyway, wishing everyone the best. Happy Bigfoot hunting, but please don't shoot him. Steve Dufour 01:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I trust you have since read the info about this on your talk page. Moriori 01:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are doing great work here on Wikipedia. I just happen to disagree with you on this subject. Really a matter of taste, I guess. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 01:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My interest was only in giving the article a more interesting opening sentence. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 03:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research

I made an attempt to take off most of the orginal research. I want to see both sides' cases presented well. That is what will make this an interesting article. Steve Dufour 16:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fouke Monster

These two links are from tourist guides and the local newspaper: Fouke Monster in Ark. tourguide, and Texarkana Gazette article:Fouke Monster Martial Law 20:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

baby bigfoot?

any information about Yarwen the baby bigfoot that was supposedly captured and sold recently? --voodoom 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Urban legend?

I did check out the article on Urban legends. It seems that they are more like stories, with a begining, middle, and end. Bigfoot seems to be more like a legendary creature. (As I said before, I do not believe Bigfoot exists!) Steve Dufour 04:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Would this be a fair presentation of the critics side? "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is believed by some to be an ape-like creature, but most people consider it to not exist in reality but to be the product of folklore, imagination, ignorance, hoax, attention-seeking, and tabloid and late-night talk radio sensationalistic journalism."? Please let me know. I would like to see both sides presented fairly. Steve Dufour 02:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's really not fair. You left out autosuggestion, confabulation, confirmation bias, wish-fulfillment, Positive-outcome bias, credulity, Communal reinforcement and magical thinking--Fuhghettaboutit 02:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And woo woo-ism. I wonder if he's serious. Moriori 04:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Then make your own list. :-) Steve Dufour 13:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added both lists. Feel free to take out any (or add more!  :-) )

Serious question. Are you serious? I have reverted your verbose additions to the intro. Could I politely suggest you do a crash course on writing clearly and succinctly? Moriori 02:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was trying to make a point. However I think the debunkers' position could be better expressed than with "urban legend". Steve Dufour 16:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

New to this discussion and Wikipedia, but the "urban legend" struck me as slightly out of tune to Bigfoot. How about "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is believed by some to be an ape-like creature, but most people consider it to not exist in reality but to be a creature based in legend and folklore"? That would leave open, yet not explicitly stated, the possibility of autosuggestion, hoaxing etc. BaikinMan 14:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Besides the "urban" part Bigfoot does not really seem to be a "legend"; that is there is no story--people just "see" him, or his footprints, etc. However I do not want to fight with anyone over the opening sentence. The best way to improve the article, IMO, would be to find some more published debunkers and post their views with citations. That would help balance the article. Steve Dufour 23:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, seems the urban legend ref is a problem, so how about Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is believed by some to be an ape-like cryptid and by others the product of vivid imagination. And, incidentally, people may "see" it, but people also "see" ghosts. Moriori 03:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. That would be better. Steve Dufour 03:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. That is why I put see in quotation marks.  :-) p.p.s. Some people might consider "vivid" to be POV.

Sounds good to me, with one minor suggestion. This is the first time I've heard the word "cryptid," and I don't know how commonly known it is. Linking it explains it, but would it be inappropriate to put a brief description/definition of cryptid in parentheses in the Bigfoot sentence? Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is believed by some to be an ape-like cryptid (an animal presumed extinct or hypothetical species of animal) and by others the product of imagination. It leaves the link intact, but gives lets those who aren't in the mood to follow sidelinks to know what is being talked about. I'd also agree with Steve Dufour on the elimination of "vivid" as POV BaikinMan 13:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No way. Intros exist to give a concise definition of the subject. This particular intro is intended to define biggie, not cryptid. Links exist to take readers to an article about something they either don't know about (or want further information about), in this case cryptid. If we explained every word in every intro then most intros would be bigger than the rest of the article. Unworkable. Yes, there have been intros to some articles that were magnificent examples of verbosity, but they lowered the standing of writing on Wiki, not enhanced it. Moriori 21:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, tbanks for the correction. I'm pretty new to this and will keep your advice in mind in the future. BaikinMan 13:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry BaikinMan. There are lots of other articles besides this one you can work on, over a million in fact. :-) Steve Dufour 20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ape like?

If you check out the ape article you will see that humans, near human ancestors, chimps, and gorillas are all members of the same biological family. So humans are "ape-like" and apes are "human-like". I think that almost all Bigfoot believers would consider him to also be a member of this family. All of the theoretical suggestions for his identity are members (except for the minority opinion that he is an ET). "Ape-like" is therefore 100% correct but I wonder if it gives the right picture to the average reader. Is there a way it could be expressed more clearly to the average person? Steve Dufour 03:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Coast To Coast AM

These two will be featured on the radio show. They are John Bindernagel' and Jeffery Meldrum. Go to www.coasttocoastam.com for more info. onthese two BIGFOOT researchers. Martial Law 22:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This will feature more bigfoot info., as well as more witness reports. Martial Law 23:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a great idea for a research project. How about putting some kind of site together? If you have the time and feel like doing it that is. Steve Dufour 01:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I was already going to put something on this talk page about the USAcentricity of the article/terminology ("Bigfoot" is a decidedly USAmerican term); but now your county map makes it necessary I say something - because the majority of Sasquatch sightings (as we call 'em) are in British Columbia, which isn't in any US county that I know of. Point blank - could you Americans all learn to see and think beyond your national boundaries, especially in Wikipedia?Skookum1 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Color me dense, but what, again, is the point of this map thingy? Is it being suggested that it be included in the article? If so, why? The website BFRO.net already contains such a map and updates it on a monthly basis. Also: *do* the majority of sasquatch sightings *really* take place in B.C.? I'm not saying you're wrong, Skookum. I'm just skeptical. Massofspikes 21:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

County	City	State	Zipcode	Area Code
County goes here	City goes here	State goes here	Zipcode goes here	Area code goes here

Where is Bigfoot to be precisely found and isolated and localized among all of this ?

A Dead (!) Bigfoot ?!

See this link: Dead "Bigfoot" Found. WHAT is this thing ? Martial Law 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly, this thing was found near Fouke, Arkansas, is on Smokey Crabtree's website. Martial Law 00:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Does the Fouke monster exist ?

Does the Fouke monster exist ?

Validity of Claim

Upon discovery of this article, my opinion of this previously respected sight was debased. I must raise the question of the validity of this claim due to its contraversial nature. Hopefully, I am mistaken in this skepticism. Even though bigfoot is nonexisting.

Sasquatch is a real men

History: Dr. Walter Langkowski was born and raised in British Columbia, Canada. He attended Pennsylvania State University on a football scholarship. During his freshman year Langkowski met Bruce Banner, who was then himself there, but who would later become noted for his work in gamma ray research and infamous for becoming the monstrous Hulk as a result of overexposure to gamma radiation. Although Langkowski only knew Banner for one semester, Banner had a tremendous influence on him, and Langkowski decided to enter the field of gamma radiation research himself. Langkowski pursued independent studies in the area even during his three years as a professional linebacker for the Green Bay Packers. Langkowski's football career made him a millionaire. When the fact that Bruce Banner was the Hulk became public knowledge, Langkowski conceived a new goal for his life. He entered a graduate program in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and rapidly earned his Ph.D. He was then appointed to the faculty of McGill University in Montreal. Since leaving his football career, Langkowski had accumulated all the information he could find on the Hulk and on other human beings who had been transformed through exposure to gamma radiation. Langkowski intended to recreate, under controlled circumstances, the conditions which produced the Hulk. Langkowski spent over a million dollars of his own money on his research into this area, and finally applied to the Canadian government for additional funding. James MacDonald Hudson, who organized a group of superhuman agents for the Canadian government's Department H, both arranged for the funding and procured an isolated laboratory near the Arctic Circle for Langkowski. During a leave of absence from McGill University, Langkowski designed and constructed a means to generate gamma radiation bombardments similar to those which had created the Hulk, but under laboratory conditions. It was because of the potential danger of radiation leakage that Langkowski performed his experiment in self-transformation in the isolated laboratory north of the Arctic Circle. There he used the equipment he had designed to bombard himself with gamma radiation, and was transformed into the ten-foot-tall, superhumanly powerful creature which went on a savage rampage for hours before finally reverting to human form. One of Hudson's agent, Snowbird, found Langkowski in human form lying in the snow after his rampage, brought him to a hospital, and summoned Hudson. Another of Hudson's agents, Dr. Michael Twoyoungmen, asked Snowbird, who was herself able to change shape, to teach Langkowski how to maintain his normal personality and intelligence in his bestial form. This teaching proved to be entirely successful for some time. Langkowski called himself "Sasquatch" when he was in his bestial form, "sasquatch" being the Canadian word for Canada's legendary "Bigfoot" creature, which he resembled. Once he had learned how to maintain his normal human personality and intelligence as Sasquatch, and had undergone a period of training in Department H's team of apprentice superhuman agents, Beta and Gamma Flight, Langkowski became a member of James Hudson's fully trained team of superhuman agents, Alpha Flight. Langkowski remained with the team even after Alpha Flight ceased for a time to be affiliated with Canadian government and after the death of its founder, James Hudson. Langkowski divided his time between adventuring with Alpha Flight and Teaching at Simon Fraser University in Canada. He became the lover of another Alpha Flight member, Aurora, and is responsible for the alteration in her superhuman powers. Langkowski attributed the fact that as Sasquatch he was not green like most other superhuman beings transformed by gamma radiation to the presence of heavy sunspot radiation interference at the time of his initial transformation, manifesting itself as an Aurora Borealis. However, Langkowski was wrong in believing that he had gained his Sasquatch form due to gamma radiation. His equipment that he used in the experiment in the Arctic laboratory had actually unleashed for a fraction of a second enough physical energy to sunder the mystical barrier separating Earth from the other dimensional Realm of the Great Beasts, enemies of the gods of native Canadian mythology. A mystic link was formed between Langkowski and the Great beast called Tanaraq, enabling Langkowski, without knowing what he was really doing, to take on Tanaraq's form and control it. But with each "transformation" of Langkowski into Sasquatch, Tanaraq's personality grew stronger. Eventually, Tanaraq's mind was able to supplant Langkowski's personality whenever Langkowski, in Sasquatch's form, felt intense anger or pain. Finally, Tanaraq took full control of Sasquatch. Snowbird, realizing what had happened, transformed herself into a being like Sasquatch, and tore out Tanarq'a heart, killing Langkowski's physical form, which reverted to normal in dying. Six members of Alpha Flight journeyed into the other dimensional realm of the Great Beasts and recovered Langkowski's soul, intending to return it to his body. Langkowski's body had mystically been crystallized to preserve it, but the body entirely crumbled away at the mystic site it was left at while the Alpha Flight members were recovering Langkowski's soul. So, instead, Michael Twoyoungmen, then known as Shaman, projected Langkowski's soul into the robotic body that its inventor, Roger Bochs, called Box. Langkowski thus remained alive in Box while he and Bochs sought for a new body for Langkowski's soul to inhabit. They finally located a nearly mindless humanoid form existing at an interdimensional nexus. Langkowski abandoned Box and his spirit was projected to that nexus, where he discovered that the body was that of the Hulk. Unwilling to take over the body belonging to his old friend Bruce Banner, Langkowski seemingly allowed his spirit to vanish from the mortal plane. But the present location of Langkowski's spirit is unknown, and it may be that the people of Earth have not seen the last of Walter Langkowski. Langkowski's spirit, however, found the shrunken physical body of Smart Alec who had been placed in the otherdimensional void accessible by Shaman's medicine bag. Langkowski thus returned to reality, in time to save his fellow Alpha Flight members from the villain Pestilence, who had possessed Snowbird's deceased body (in its Sasquatch/Great Beast form), by Langkowski himself briefly reentering the Box robot. Langkowski then took over Snowbird's form, transforming back to human form, albeit a female one. Langkowski, nicknamed "Wanda," remained with Alpha Flight for several adventures, unable to rekindle his relationship with Aurora or access his personal fortune since he was believed dead. Height: (as Langkowski) 6 ft. 4 in., (as Sasquatch) 10 ft. Weight: (as Langkowski) 245 lbs, (as Sasquatch) 2,000 lbs. Eyes: (as Langkowski) Blue, (as Sasquatch) Red Hair: (as Langkowski) Blond, (as Sasquatch) Orange Strength Level: As Sasquatch, Langkowski possesses vast, superhuman strength. Sasquatch could lift (press) about 70 tons. As Box Langkowski could lift (press) roughly 85 tons. Known Superhuman Powers: Walter Langkowski could, by an act of will, take on a physical form that was a mystical melding of his own and that of the Great Beast Tanaraq Langkowski was not aware that he was mystically melding with Tanaraq, but instead believed that he was changing his form due to the mutagenic effects of gamma radiation on his body. By another act of will, Langkowski could change from his superhuman form back into his human one. Originally, after the initial transformation itself, in order to transform himself into Sasquatch, Langkowski needed to achieved a meditative state (through use of a mantra, or self hypnotic chant), thereby producing the concentration necessary to effect the mystical transformation process. The necessary concentration was initially difficult to achieve. However, after many months of practice, Langkowski could effect the transformations with relative ease, without needing to achieve a mantic state. Langkowski learned to maintain his normal human intelligence and personality when in the form of Sasquatch, but the mind of Tanaraq grew increasingly strong in time, and finally took full control of Sasquatch's body on Earth. Besides his superhuman strength, Sasquatch had a large degree of resistance to injury, as well. The limits of this resistance are not known, but he has, for instance, withstood armor-piercing machine gun fire. Sasquatch's leaping ability was less than that of the Hulk's, but the exact extent of Sasquatch's leaping ability has yet to be determined. In human form Langkowski was nearsighted, but his vision was sharpened as Sasquatch so that he did not require aids for seeing in that form. As Sasquatch Langkowski was covered with thick orange fur which gave him great immunity to cold, but which proved uncomfortable in tropical climates. Abilities: Dr. Walter Langkowski is one of the world's foremost experts on the effects of radiation on human physiology. He is a well-trained athlete and had above average (but not superhuman) strength even in human

List of Hoaxes

does anyone object to the list of hoaxes being on the "See also" section? it seems to me that the "list of hoaxes" entry implies that bigfoot is a hoax, when the article should stay neutral... just a thought.

YouTube

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 18:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible Correction

In this article, there is a quote from Robert Michael Pyle's book Where Bigfoot Walks: Crossing the dark divide. It says, "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). I happen to have this book in my house, and it says instead, "Tracks commonly measure fifteen to eighteen inches or more in length. They have five toes, a double muscle-ball, and a low arch." I don't know if this is simply a typo in my (well, actually, it's not mine: it's from the public library) copy of the book, or a typo in this article, but somebody with the book as well may check in their copy to be sure. Thanks! Nineteenninetyfour 19:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

there was one believed to be a bigfoot today check out the cnn video -atomic1fire

Question

Does anyone know the plural of Bigfoot? Is it Bigfoots or Bigfeet? Nineteenninetyfour 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. It's like "moose" or "deer" - the plural is same as singular.Skookum1 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Scientists "reject"

This sentence has bothered me since I first came across this article:

The majority of scientists reject the likelihood of such a creature's existence, and consider the stories of Bigfoot to be a combination of unsubstantiated folklore and hoax (Boese 2002, pp. 146–7) .

The word "reject" bothers me. If it said they do not believe that would be fine. But reject seems kind of strong. Have the majority of scientists expressed an opinon about Bigfoot at all? Steve Dufour 17:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What if it were to say: "Few scientists accept.."? Steve Dufour 16:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I will go ahead and make the change since nobody seems to object. Steve Dufour 19:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream

often wrong because it does not actively investigate. See book by Dr Colm Kelleher, "The Hunt for the Skinwalker".

-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.68.138 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

2006 sighting

The 2006 entry under "sightings" should be removed. If this topic is locked, how did this entry appear? It is unsourced and contains numerous spelling and grammatical errors.

I have removed the entry, because it has no supporting references. Moriori 22:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Its Baaaack. Martial Law 23:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just seen the entry. Martial Law 23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone cited it w/ two sources. Martial Law 23:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bigfoot lives on Holy Hill Wisconsin

Last week there was a this guy who was picking up dead animals on the road and he had a bunch of dead animals in the back of his pickup truck, and there was also a a deer carcass, moments later, he felt the truck shaking and as he had turned around and THERE IT WAS!!! A BIGFOOT!!!! with pointy ears and it was a big hairy scary monster. If you don't believe me then watch the channel 4 news!

I saw this story on coasttocoastam.com. He didn't see it clearly at all. It could have just as well been a bear. Steve Dufour 17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It could have been a bear but it wasn't. How many bears with pointy ears have you seen? Also it was standing on two legs. Bears do not do that unless they are pissed off or are in a circus. Also there were humoungous gig-a-nti-normous footprints and that is the sign of big foot because he has BIG FEET.

I was just going by the report that I had read which said that something big took a deer off the back of his pickup but it was dark so he didn't get a good view. I missed the part about the pointy ears and the big feet. Steve Dufour 19:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats ok but it has been all over the news and the bigfoot researchers are here and our town leader of the Town of Erin has told everyone not to let their kids go out into the woods this year to pick morel mushrooms because while you are not watching them they could get eaten by bigfoot!!!! and it is a scientific fact that bigfoot likes morel mushrooms that is probably why he was in the area. In fact just the previous week there were two kids that lived in the house by Holy Hill and those two kids were jumping up and down on their trampoline and their house it at the egde of the woods, they saw a big hairy monster and it scared them really really bad they went to tell their mom and their mom didn't believe them. BUT NOW SHE DOES!!!!!!!!!!!

If it has the deer to eat it probably will not be hunting people soon. Steve Dufour 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Easy for you to say, you don't live next to a place where there is a DANG BIGFOOT ON THE LOOSE eating things out of the back of vehicles!!! DO you like morels?

I have never tried them. Steve Dufour 08:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've Read that there have only been 2 reports of Bigfoot attacking humans ever, and only one ever of someone being killed by Bigfoot, and that that killing was not verifiable. Plus, most Sasquatch reports show that Sasquatch is quite shy, simply observing humans from a safe distance until he himself is seen. I find it unlikely that Sasquatch would hunt down and eat children. Nineteenninetyfour 16:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The creature in that news report wasn't supposed to be Bigfoot. It was supposed to be the Beast of Bray Road. 'Bear-Wolf' is another name for the Beast of Bray Road. Read the news report. It is another cryptid altogether. Not everything that's hairy needs to be interpreted as Bigfoot. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, sorry! I don't think there is a Bray road in Wisconsin let alone on Holy Hill. That's what I call a Big Foot in mouth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.254.145.130 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Bigfoot in Wisconsin.

Hey thanks for deleting my 2006 sighting. That was really nice of you. If you need a source go to www.todaystmj4.com and look for the bigfoot article.

I need some help

How do i put something up for deletion?71.60.177.16 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Disconnected footnotes?

The section at Bigfoot#Footnotes is mysterious to me. I can't find those footnotes in the rest of the article. They don't seem to be connected. Help? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Beckjord back?

There's a discussion of possible sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Beckjord, a user who was known for disrupting this page in the past. So far I haven't reverted edits to this page because I wanted to be sure. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This article

This article needs alot of cleaning and sweeping up. This person whose name is Erik Jon Beckjord has seemed to make more enemies for than friends through Wikipedia and many other websites where he is espousing his theory on how Bigfoot and the Lochness Monster are transporting through dimensional time worm holes. And I think the evidence he cites to support this is to say that no one has ever found Bigfoot. If Bigfoot does infact exist. It might be reasonable in which to conclude that not everyone who happens and chance upon a visual encounter is carrying a digital camera with them to take snap shots. I think the only three peices of evidence in existence so far are the Patterson and Gimlin footage from Bluff Creek Columbia from October of 1967. I think this issue is still hotly debated today among alot of people. If that is infact a man who is inside of a suit. The muscle mass and stride and swinging of arms suggest the most expert of hoaxes. The second footage comes from the guy whose name I cannot clearly remember right now. But the video footage of whatever he shot looks awful damn suspicious even when you are standing 200 feet away. The footage of what is rumoured to be a Bigfoot running across what I beleive is Chopoka Lake in Washington on my west coast. That to me looks ridicolous because of the fact whatever is being filmed running across the open field was videographed from what looks to be more than a mile or two miles away. The figure running across the screen looks like a literal small blip or a pixel dot running across the screen. If there are a rumoured 2000 to 6000 of the cryptoid hominids running around the United States. It seems that someone would have by now photographed one. I am sure there are untold millons of hoaxes proven and unproven which has greatly damaged the integrity in the existence of Bigfoot. But something is out there making these tracks. Something is out there and is emitting a foul odor and stench from a distance. Something is leaving foot prints in the ground with dermal ridges in the ground. Something out there is making loud and guttural shreiks and screams not easily common and identfiable to other animals. I grant you that people in large collectives lie. But if you accept that 4999 people are lying to you and one of them is telling the truth. Well one person telling the truth poses a problem. I would like to see this article get cleaned up. I would like to see cited sources that support the existence for and against Bigfoot. The United States is huge and loaded with techonology. But with all of that square acreage there are still places that human cannot go. I would really like to see this article get cleaned up more. Bigfoot is one of my favorite subjects. I wish someone could come forward with damning and undeniable evidence that something is out there and spark renewed interest in all of this. I would like to see all good spirited and fair minded Wikipedians clean up this article and to keep a disruptive influence like Beckjord out who esposes crazy theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 02:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sightings

• California - Humboldt County -
• California - Shasta County -
• Idaho - Bonneville -
• Idaho - Latah County - Troy
• Montana - Silver Bow - Butte
• Ohio - Scioto County - Portsmouth

• Pennsylvania - Allegheny County -

Shaler Township

• Pennsylvania - Westmoreland County -

• Washington - Spokane County -

Arizona sighting

I removed this addition as it is unsourced.

• 2006: On November 6 2006, Police from the Fort Apache indian reservation in Arizona chased a bigfoot-like creature. It had peered through people's windows and made screaching sounds.

Perhaps someone could find a source for this? Should be fairly easy if it was only last year. Totnesmartin 20:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced sighting

This just in:

• 1970's: One night in Oregon a woman and her sister were in their house hearing scratching on their roof their dog barking simutanously. The scratching stops they let the dog out lock the door. They hear the dog stop barking followed by a slight whine. The next morning they went out to report this to the local Ranger station. As they approached their car they looked at least 45 meters away they had spotted a large hairy creature went in their car drove off returned to with the police and the creature was gone. One of the woman said "From where I was I could swore it was human eyes."

Also unsourced. Any ideas where this is taken from? Totnesmartin 20:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And another:

Another more recent siting of the Sasquatch occurred on October 21st in Tilton, New Hampshire. The man who claims to have seen the Sasquatch preferred to remain nameless. He says that he saw the hairy beast running towards him. It wasn't until it got relatively close that he noticed the thing appeared humanoid - just very hairy.

Fossil Evidence

Gigantopithecus is, in my opinion, fossil evidence. The part saying there is none should be removed.

The very limited amount of fossil evidence of Gigantopithecus only proves that there is fossil evidence of a very large ape that died out at least 100,000 years ago...that is not fossil evidence for Bigfoot.--MONGO 17:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a question of interpretation. Citing experts who say that Gigantopithecus is fossil evidence for Bigfoot, as well as citing those who say it is not, would be fine so long as it was worded clearly. Stating merely that there is fossil evidence for Bigfoot is interjecting your own opinion (that is, WP:OR) and should not be done. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Creature in Patterson film has rectangular eye slit

I used to job coach for a young man diagnosed with autism. He was so high functioning in so many different ways that I often found myself questioning the diagnosis. But he did struggle with some social skills. One bit of advice I gave him was to look at the eye slit area. Not stare at someone's eyes, but the whole area surrounding the eyes, which is very rich in emotional content.

So, please look at the eye slit area of the creature in the Patterson film. And how natural does it seem to you?

Bigarticle

From The Wikipedian Alleger (5 February 2007):

"A Bigarticle has been spotted in the woods of wikipedia. Sources say it is 75 Kilobytes long - even longer than the Cascade range article. A posse of editors may meet to discuss the phenomenon."

Any way we can shorten this? Perhaps a start could be a Bigfoot in popular culture article, as for (eg) Yeti and Bermuda Triangle. Totnesmartin 16:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've placed a split template on Bigfoot and have no objections if someone puts the pop culture material in a new article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Done the split, but this is still 63 kb long. perhaps precis-ing some sections would help. Totnesmartin 13:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest severely shortening the "formal studies" and "proposed creatures" sections, plus moving the pop culture external links to the pop culture article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 14:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Coming in looking at this from a mostly outsider viewpoint (I only have the article watchlisted for anti-vandalism purposes, as I do many, many other articles). I think that the "Physical Evidence" section (along with the "Audio and visual evidence" section) could be chopped out into a separate article fairly easily. "Evidence of Bigfoor" or "Bigfoot Evidence" or something along those lines. Similarly "Formal studies of Bigfoot" looks to be another section that could be moved out to it's own article.

In general, sections can continue to be moved out, and short summaries written in their place, until the article reaches a much more managible size. - TexasAndroid 16:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TexasAndroid. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Will do. Totnesmartin 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I need a title before I can create the article. I can't think of a good one at the moment, so feel free to come up with something. Totnesmartin 16:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Physical Evidence of Bigfoot seems like a good title for an article, but perhaps some more general title could encompass both the formal studies and the physical evidence. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Slightly POV in favour of Bigfoot, I think. Totnesmartin 19:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something like Scientific attention paid to Bigfoot (but hopefully less awkward than that title) could include both sections. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought: Proposed physical evidence regarding Bigfoot? -- InShaneee 06:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I could get to work on something like that if we all agree it'd make for a useful article. I'm pretty well-versed on the subject and own some literature that'd provide the info. (Of course, I can only imagine how I'd be raked across the coals for providing *this* supposedly "wrong" thing and leaving out *this* supposedly "right" thing) Anyway, just give me a go-ahead. I think it'd be fun, coal-raking or not. Massofspikes 20:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest if you want to do that. All I was going to do was chop out the section from this article to make it shorter. If you have some good books, or know which websites are reliable, then you could do a better job of it than I could. For a title, Physical evidence regarding Bigfoot is the least awful, I think; let's go with that for now, we can move it when we find a better one. Totnesmartin 21:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Evidence Purported to Support Bigfoot's Existence would work. Granted, it's a little wordy, but...

Looking over the article as is, there seems little to be *added* so much as moved: we've got the dermal ridges, handprints, the PG film, the Gaussian curve, recorded screams, the deformed Bossberg tracks, the Skookum cast, etc. Maybe I could find some stuff on feces and hairs of unknown origin, as well as the other one or two bf films yet to be completely dismissed (the so-called "Freeman Footage" & "Memorial Day Footage.") Additionally, I know there have been found in the Pacific Northwest Native American carvings that unambiguously depict simian faces and forms. (I'm not sure off-handedly if the article mentions these. They certainly raise *my* eyebrows.) My original thought was that perhaps the "evidence" could be described and touted with quotes by "experts" who've come to accept the creature's existence; then, immediately below, point-by-point, we follow up with "Skeptical Responses," whereby we counterbalance the supporters' voices with the rebuttals of non-believers. Actually, it's the latter of the two that's going to be the more difficult because, in essence, the skeptical thesis is "since there's no corpse, all 'evidence' can safely be discarded." Anyway, I guess it could go something like this:

Purported evidence

1.)The PG film

Pro: Krantz maintained no way it could be a man in a suit, blah blah blah, etc.

Con: Bob so-and-so recently admitted being that man, etc.

2.)Dermal ridges

Pro: Some important fingerprint guy claims it'd be nearly impossible to duplicate artificially.

Con: All such footprints were discovered by a single individual with a history of hoaxing.

And so on.

What about something like that? (forgot to sign my name when I originally wrote this...)Massofspikes 21:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would add specific photos to illustrate. Like the footprints (including the "club foot" print); a comparisson of the Gimlin film to a pic from Planet of the Apes (both were made at the same time allegedly by the same man); hair evidence and who has it; evidence for Gigantopithicus...anything to make the article look good. Carajou 03:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There's already a Patterson-Gimlin film article which mentions Planet of the Apes, so that bit's covered. Pictures, if we can clear the copyright hurdle, would really help in a wordy scientific article.

I say let's make the article now, then worry later about titles, pictures etc. Quarry first, sculpt second. Totnesmartin 13:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I've got to say: this might develop slowly. I am, for one, a Wikipedia-editing newbie, so I'm still sort of getting used to the tricks of the trade. I *do* know the reputable sites ("reputable" being a sort of elastic term when we delve into this subject matter, of course) and own some literature by the late Dr. Krantz (probably the first academian to so vocally express his acceptance of the animal's existence, as well as the largest proponent of the validity of the club-footed tracks, and perhaps the first to suggest Giganto as the most likely suspect in the matter [but, just between you, me, and the wall, a bit of a grump: I actually called him long-distance one day back in high school to ask bf-related questions, and he didn't seem too pleased by the intrusion. Ha! Memories...], as well as issues of Skeptic covering the matter. Of the two "skeptical" mags out there, Skeptic is probably the fairest in its assessment of such phenomena; then again, CSICOP's Skeptical Inquirer, of all publications, wrote an article a good while back reviewing that The Making of Bigfoot book by Greg Long that claimed to blow open the story of how the PG film was phony, who was involved, etc., and whoever wrote the review basically said that, while bigfoot doesn't exist, Long's story doesn't hold up to scrutiny, either. The latest respectable book on the subject of bf in general, released just last year, is Jeff Meldrum's Bigfoot Meets Science, which I saw at Border's for close to $30. Uh...I don't think so. Perhaps I could find it used and cheaper somewhere online. Anyway, I suppose I could attempt to lay the rough groundwork for this, initially, and we could go from there. Someone tell me, though: is the basic idea to cut & paste the evidence info from the original article, take it to this new one, and then rewrite/expand on it? Massofspikes 17:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done the basic move, as people seem to be in a "Let's do it" mode, but noone seemed to be steping up to do the actual move. :) A few things are still needed: 1) A short summary in this article, and 2) an intro over at Evidence regarding Bigfoot, the new home. I'm not the one to do either, as that's not my strength. I dropped the word "Physical" from the proposed names, as I moved a lot of stuff that was evidence, but not "Physical" evidence. IMHO, at this point, further discussion of the name of the new article, if people want to rename it, and of major revisions of the information, should now move over to the talk page of the new article. The old article is still large, so I'm going to at least chop out the Formal Studies section as well, as that's fairly well self-contained IMHO. We're down to 41K with the latest revision, and removing Formal Studies should bring it down into the mid to low 30s, which is getting to be a much nicer size. - TexasAndroid 17:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Formal Studies section has also been mvoed out now. We're down to 34K on the main article. Looking good. - TexasAndroid 18:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm. I would not call what has just been placed back in a "short" summary. We really do not need a full, step by step evidence section in this article when all that stuff is off in the Evidence article, just a short (one paragraph at most) summary, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 19:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that in the next few days or so I can knock out the "one paragraph at most" section that merely touches on the issue of evidence, as well as the intro to the new Evidence page. If someone thinks they can do it faster and/or better, though...go ahead. Also, I changed the heading "Bigfoot sightings" (or whatever it was) to "Bigfoot sightings of note" because, as it was, one skimming the article not paying a lot of attention and/or not being very familiar with the subject might take the former version too literally and believe that these twenty or so sightings were/are the only ones in history. (Oh, and maybe the Evidence page could be entitled "Purported Physical and Anecdotal Evidence of Bigfoot's Existence." I mean, what else is there besides those two types? [Then again, who said, "Anecdotes do not equal evidence"? Michael Shermer? Maybe he was quoting someone else.])Massofspikes 01:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why Always "Blurry" When Photographed?

Someone in one of the older talk archives was asking why bf was always "blurry" when photographed, I guess tongue-in-cheek intimating that the animal doesn't exist. Two things you have to remember, though, when it comes to pictures purported to be of bigfoot:

(1.) From the reading I've done in books and at sites like BFRO, your typical encounter involves someone with little interest in bigfoot nor any knowledge of the animal other than its reputation as folkloric monster that doesn't actually exist...in other words, someone who certainly never intended to run into one as he/she strolled through the woods; also, the encounters are over and done in a matter of seconds, with the supposed creature ambling off elsewhere and the person having the sighting spending those valuable seconds trying to integrate into his/her worldview what's taking place (which is how most of us would react, I'd imagine). So, even if someone had the presence of mind to reach for a camera and get off a shot within the small window of opportunity presented, it'd probably be expected that it not be of the best quality.

Also, (2.) there *have* been taken relatively clear pictures supposedly of bigfoot, at which skeptics paradoxically scoff because it's TOO in-focus and therefore MUST represent a hoax. (Say someone, by some miracle, took a clear photo of a sasquatch sitting on a log just with the ease and calm of someone taking a picture of a hiking buddy doing the same, wouldn't most people's reaction be, "*Snort* Yeah, right"?) It's a real catch-22. Besides, in this age, photographic "evidence" of sasquatch is almost useless because any picture of just about ANYTHING can be enshrouded in reasonable doubt given all the advanced graphics programs out there. Even a video can be brushed off as the product of some fun-loving FX guys with too much time on their hands and a really expensive suit. About the only kind of video I can see being taken seriously is one in which the "creature" on film is doing something extremely difficult--if not close to impossible--to replicate with FX costumery: giving birth, maybe.

Massofspikes 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are not supposed to be used as forums for discussing the subject itself, only for discussing the state of the article and changes to it, actual or proposed. If you are suggesting some particular change you want to see in the article, please make your point more clearly as I don't get it. Otherwise, welcome to Wikipedia, we hope you enjoy editing here, and in the future try other forums for your general discussion needs. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I was offering a possible answer to a question asked on a *past archived talk page* about why bigfoot pictures are/were "always" blurry. (One person joked that the pictures weren't blurry, but that it's bigfoot itself that's blurry.) A disclaimer at the top of the that *particular* talk page warned against editing it because it was now archived, but to go to the most recent talk page, instead. Seemed like I was just following directions. I wasn't the person who originally used a talk page to raise the issue; I was merely responding to it months later. I'm not sure why that--or my "point"--is difficult to "get." Massofspikes 16:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I upset you. So you're suggesting entering material in the article stating that Bigfoot pictures are always blurry? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. But I don't believe the original poster who raised the question back at the archived page (or the two or three posters who responded) intended to make it a part of the article, either. I'd just been reading and, seeing the issue broached, wanted to chime in with what my take on it. I suppose that the next time if/when this happens, I'll just personally message the poster in question so this sort of misunderstanding won't arise. (And don't worry about "upset"ing me; I just get a little snarky--really at myself--when someone says that they don't understand the "point" of what I've written.)Massofspikes 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Since a photo of the actual bigfoot is difficult or impossible to find, I'd like more pictures. Pictures of Paranthropus, that Indian wall art, maps of sightings, "welcome to Bigfootland" signs,... --84.20.17.84 11:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've put your banners at the top where they can be seen better. Totnesmartin 12:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Changed the layout

I've done a layout change for the entire article, including some changed to sentence structure and word editing. What the article needed was a flow of thought throughout, because previously the arrangement suggested that subsections were simply thrown into the mix without anything coherent (there may be some of that remaining).

The layout I chose was to arrange the article first: with regard for bigfoot as an animal, arranging the facts for the animal in the proper position on the page, followed by second: that part of the article which describes both the pros and the cons for the animal's existence. The lead paragraph at the top had to be changed drastically; it was too-weighty, had too much wording, and the whole had to be reduced to the simplest terms possible...and that is to introduce the animal to the reader while providing a brief statement for or against the animal's existence.

Now it needs some good pictures to illustrate. Tracks, Native American art, any photos of the animal, etc. Carajou 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with the general rewrite, but I don't like what you did with the Evidnece section. I just got done moving the bulk of the evidence to it's own article, to cut down on the size of this one. IMHO what is needed in this one is a (at most) one paragraph summary of the evidence. If people want any more than that, the new article is prominently linked. What has just been placed back in is, IMHO, far too much detail, including a couple of sections that are returned completely from the material just moved out. - TexasAndroid 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The evidence section, if it is too long, is best the way you have it in a separate article. I think some brief mention of evidence should be listed in the main article itself. Besides, I didn't know what you were doing at the time. Carajou 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So it was an edit conflit of sorts then. Ok. I've removed the recreated material then. We still need someone who knows the material to write up a one paragraph or so summary of the types of evidence. - TexasAndroid`

Yeah, I'll get to that ("a one paragraph or so summary of the types of evidence") either this evening or tomorrow morning. Massofspikes 14:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, wait...did someone already do it? There's a short paragraph following the "Evidence" heading that mentions evidence being found but always being disputed, or something to that effect. Does it need to get any more specific than that? Massofspikes 14:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

If you check the history page, there is an individual who got in this article and did as much damage as he wanted, several times over, and this included other pages as well. He also got the "dreaded" last warning tag...last week, which never stoped his behavior this week. We need administrators who can make these last warnings stick. Carajou 12:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A few things about blockings. First, they are preventative, not puntative. They are used to prevent future actions, not to punish for past actions. So, once vandalism has stopped, as the vandal in question did last night, the need for blocking lessens. Also, the vandalism is coming from an IP address. Blocking of IP addresses is handled quite differently than blockings of accounts. Mostly because IP addresses shift and change. With a few specific exceptions, we do not indefinitely block IP addresses. The IP address being used by person A today may end up being used by person B tomorrow. So, also because of this likelihood of IP addresses shifting people, any warnings, especially "final" warnings, need to be recent. Like withing the last 24 to 48 hours. Anything beyond that, and you really cannot safely assume that earlier warnings were given to the same person.

There's also the fact that not all articles are being watched by an admin all the time. So, if you are not getting admin assistence, the next step is to bring the situation to the attention of the admins. The best way to do that for vandalism situations like this is to use WP:AIV. This is a page specifically for reporting of vandalism for admin action. Lots of admins watch it. Read the instructions there carefully. Do be aware, if the vandal is an IP address, and has not been recently warned as I describe above, the report is likely to be removed without blocking, as the warnings do need to be given. - TexasAndroid 13:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

By making the "last warnings stick" I mean't that sometimes these warnings get nowhere. This individual is an example in which he was warned about vandalizing, blocked for a short period of time, unblocked, vandalized again, warned again...and yes he will be blocked again only to have it removed and the pages vandalized all over again. I've also seen worse than what he did from other individuals, and on their user-talk pages I've seen enough last warning tags to choke a horse (and yes, that is an administrator problem). Now, if you truly want these blocks to be preventative, then we do just that. We work with the administrators to ensure that these preventative blocks stick by ensuring the vandals do not have the access needed to damage the pages. It's pretty simple. They damage one day; they get blocked for one day. They're back doing it the following day, they get blocked for a week, then a month, then 6 months, then a year. You have to look at it from the writers and editors point of view. We've invested too much time and effort to make Wikipedia work, and we cannot afford to have some clown come in and damage what we've put here just because he thinks it's funny. Carajou 14:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a proposal for changes to policy on blocking on the dispute/talk page. I don't expect an immediate change, but I do want the subject discussed among admin staff to see if it could be implemented. Carajou 15:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)