Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archiving
- Please don't archive recent and ongoing discussions. I've un-archived some of today's posts. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- My experience has been that if anyone wishes to continue a discussion, it is easily un-archived. I left the one discussion which seemed still active. Apologies if I have caused any distress or unhappiness. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- and how do we even know what archiving is?
- You guys just talk on, assuming everyone knows what you mean. You think all persons here are
Wiki pros?
- How do you "archive", what do you "archive", where do you "archive", how do you
un-archive?
- tell us. Be a teacher.
- beckjordBeckjord 08:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- what is archive of a page?
- tell us in your words.
- And what gives you the right to archive, or un-archive any comments? What right?
- Who are you?
- beckjordBeckjord 08:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection
I'm unprotecting. See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy: "Is not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized." There's been no spike in vandalism whatsoever. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- bravo good call.
- beckjordBeckjord 07:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- True, but I imagine we're going to see a lot more crap like this real soon now, and when we do, semi-protection will make it a lot harder on the meatpuppets. android79 06:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- meatpuppet? ?????????explain.
- beckjordBeckjord 07:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Regarding your meatpuppet question, see Wikipedia:Meatpuppets DreamGuy 07:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
-
No, tell me here.
You know what a meatpuppet is. Just be a nice guy and tell us. It is really "cold" to send us to a web page, when you already know the answer. Do not be rude. This is my HUGE complaint about Wiki people... they lack common humanity --- would you act this way on the street? Face to face?
-
-
-
- A "meatpuppet" is the guy's or gal's friends. For more, see the article sockpuppet.
- Martial Law 09:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
How about "Wikipuppets?" Eh?
snort!
beckjordBeckjord 08:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sure, we'll semiprotect it if it becomes frequent. So far, I'm less than impressed with Beckjord's ability to marshal his forces, though. —Bunchofgrapes
now,now,
Just wait. My pals are not vandals however.
What did you expect in 4 hrs.?
beckjordBeckjord 07:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
(talk) 06:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
R U aware
I read everything you post?
beckjordBeckjord 07:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Read WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR thoroughly and prove to the rest of us that you have done so through your edits. The "call to arms" on your website pretty much guarantees that any edits you make to this article will be reverted on sight. And, for the last time, stop enclosing your comments in equals signs. It's very annoying. android79 07:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
how do I post a new title without = signs?
nobody says how to do it.
you criticise, but never instruct.
rading the rules pages will take 6 monthsm and i feel nobody here follows them anyway.
the skeptics here will delete anything I say NO MATTER WHAT I DO OR FOLLOW.
They have NO interest in the truth.
NPOV ? Impossible =I am profesional Bigfoot investigator. I report what I find.
If some do not like it, too bad. What is, is. Often, I have witnesses.
Also, get this: there are NO neutral scientific journals on this topic. If one does,
write on it, they select an ignorant PhD. Newsletters and websites is all you will get.
Edits andreverts will go on forever, due to the controversial natuire of the topic.
Some people HERE are dedicted to stomping out what they call "nonsense". It will never stop.
Rules violated all over, and nobody enforces them.
Wiki is a zoo.
smile ;-)
beckjordBeckjord 07:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- The point is to stop posting a new header for each thought you wish to add to the talk page. You don't need to be instructed on how to stop doing something.
- I am asking you to read three policy pages. That will not take six months. It will hardly take six minutes. If you are unwilling to follow the rules, you are going to get blocked for longer and longer periods until the length of your blocks makes them practically infinite.
- Wikipedia does not allow original research. Period. We don't care if you are a "professional Bigfoot investigator". You can't add your own research or findings to this article unless they are published in a respected journal or other credible source (magazine, national newspaper, etc.) We also don't care if there are no neutral journals on the subject.
-
- I do not care what you do not like.
Wiki polices are f*cked. You want to be another fuddy-duddy pedia?
You SHOULD care. You are AVOIDING HOT, NEw RESEARCH in favor old, dead authors who never did a d*mn thing. People like Pyle, who might as well be dead.
YOU SHOULD BE fighting for new ways to recognize NEW RESEARCH even if it means quoting newsletters.
WEBSITES.
jOURNALS OF ZOOLOGY AND anthropology DO NOT ACCEPT BIGFOOT ARTICLES, UNLESS 100 % SKEPICAL. They will not accept even neutral articles./ DO YOU GET THIS? BUt you sure will quote any newspaper if it is negative, won't ya? Predisposition.
However, there is some discussion by the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE) when the editor likes a contributor. I will submit some items, as I WORK DOWN THE PAGE, getting OKs from established ADMINS for edits. Newbies have NO chance.
Snort!
newbie on Wicki
BeckjordBeckjord 08:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
If there aren't, Wikipedia has nothing to gather source material from, and no material will be added to the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a research forum. If "newsletters and websites is all" we get, that's too bad. They aren't reliable sources and cannot be used. android79 07:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- We never instruct? You never listen to instructions, is more like it. I've told you twice that to make a normal, as opposed to an extra large, heading, you enclose it in TWO equals signs. Not ONE. Two equals signs on each side. Like this: ==. Not one equals sign like this: = . I see Dreamguy tells you this above, too. If you still have trouble with it, or with any other aspect of formatting, please open edit mode and look to see the way other people have formatted their posts. I don't want to bite the clueless newb here, but what is so hard? Bishonen | talk 14:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
-
Reference/source
Where is the ref for the reported size of eyes and head, please? Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 11:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Bigfoot Shot at
If bigfoot is a myth, what are people shooting at when it appears, or is spotted ? Several websites, data sites have reported people shooting at this thing, what ever it is. If you see one, and you're armed, will you shoot at it ? This explains that hoaxing this thing(Until I know what it is) is not a good idea. Martial Law 19:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Robbing banks isn't a good idea either -- for much the same reasons. But I believe bank robbers exist, and I belive bigfoot hoaxers exist. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Got two links that state that people should shoot them, Even have the advocate who wants people to shoot them. These are:
Link malfunctioning, copy it, go offsite. Martial Law 20:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I shouldn't shoot at Bigfoot for the simple reason that I wouldn't want to be found guilty of murdering a human in a gorilla suit. --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me get this straight:
- There is considerable danger of being shot at when dressed up in an ape suit pretending to be Bigfoot.
- Potential Bigfoot hoaxers are aware of this and no one would dare dressing up in an ape suit for fear of serious injury or death.
- Therefore, Bigfoot is real!
I dressed up as bigfoot once to scare people and I'm not brave just very stupid. User:perleatsworld January 4 2006
Is this argument for real? android79 21:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Just stating a dangerous outcome of perpetrating a hoax of this nature, since a Mr. Krantz advocates people should shoot these things. This is in both links. Martial Law 21:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, people do shoot at these things, mainly to satisfy skeptics, to keep it out of their property, to keep it from harming loved ones, themselves, other reasons. SEVERAL Bigfoot links have reported people shooting at these creatures. Martial Law 21:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I think it gets even worse:
- 4. If Bigfoot were a mundane animal, it would have been shot at and killed by now too.
- 5. Therefore, bigfoot is real, and is a pan-dimensional being who can phase in and out of our plane of existence.
- 4. If Bigfoot were a mundane animal, it would have been shot at and killed by now too.
- —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Oooooooorrrrrr, it's not real at all WOAH!
Seriously, Marshall Law, Wikipedia is not a how-to or advice guide. It's not WIkipedias job to warn people not to dress up as bigfoot and run around in the woods. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Did'nt say that either. Just provided two links that state that people will shoot these things and found by accident, the person who advocates that people should shoot them, no more, no less. Martial Law 21:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Although if someone was actually wounded or killed as a result of doing so that would make it notable and worthy of inclusion. That it hasn't happened means that all of those Bigfoots people have shot at were real transdimensional beings and not nearly hoaxsters. --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Who is going to call the police and admit to perpetrating a hoax of this nature, like," I've been shot, hurt really bad.", then the 911 operator asks", what happened ?", then the hoaxer says,"Me and some buds got the idea to hoax a Bigfoot when some rednecks shot me. I'M DYING here." ? Martial Law 21:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Can these links be used ? Martial Law 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- If you want to use them to point out the (obvious) fact that people have advocated shooting or otherwise capturing a Bigfoot, sure, they can be used. If you want to stretch that into an argument for or against Bigfoot's existence, or into a plea that people not impersonate Bigfoot, no, you can't do that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you place these, and why, while I find more concerning this matter. Martial Law 22:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Two more links say people should kill it. These are:
These links also have another person advocating people to kill these things. Martial Law 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Just saying that if a Bigfoot Kill expedition is set up, some hoaxer will definately get shot, or that some startled person will shoot at it. Martial Law 22:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Um, I don't think there are bigfoot hoaxers out in the woods 24/7; so I don't understand why you think a "bigfoot kill expedition" would be certain to find a hoaxer. Or maybe I am misunderstanding you. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
M.L., your arguments are atrocious, and worse than that you miss the fundamental point: Wikipedia is not the place for editors to try to argue in favor or against something, as that's a major violation of NPOV. Your little stream of consciousness flight of logical fallacies cannot go in the article, and it's annoying as all heck for you to still be trying to support it when the relevant policies (NPOV, WP:No original research, WP:Verifiability, Wikipedia is not a soapboax, etc. have repeatedly been pointed out to you. No offense, but it seems like we are dealing with a 12 year old here, since repeated explanations go completely over your head and you are so caught up in how your argument twists and turns that you don;t get that it's completely irrelevant either way. This is an encyclopdia, not a Bigfoot blog. Stop posting so many comments all over. Start reading policies. Calm down and start paying attention to your surroundings. DreamGuy 23:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
One may set up a expedition of this sort to go find one, say, in the NW. US for instance, then some member spots one, and shoots at it, then later on, it turns out that the expedition finds out that they have killed some idiot in a monkey suit. User:Dreamguy, did you see the links provided here ? They state that a Mr Krantz has advocated that if people see this thing, they are to shoot at it. These 4 links are in compliance with WP:V,WP:NOR, and these links go to prove that people do actually shoot at these things, mainly to bring a body to satisfy skeptics. I am not trying to prove, nor disprove the creature's existance, just stating what people do when they see this thing. Martial Law 04:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- "just stating what people do when they see this thing." No... those links just show that some people who most people never heard of recommends that people shoot Bigfoot if it does exist and if they happen to see it. Those links in no way support a statement that people actually do see it or would shoot at it if they did, or that that that means people wouldn't hoax things. And most hoaxes aren't people in suits anyway, it's just someone lying when they claim to have seen it. If nobody else can confirm the story, why dress up in a suit and run around on the property of some alleged trigger-happy Bigfoot believer who has read Krantz? that's a lot of work when it;s easier to just tell a silly story.
- If you want a sentence pointing out that some people have suggested shooting one if they see one, fine, that's not under dispute . But that's not what your earlier edits to the article werel limited to -- they specifically tried to use that to argue that Bigfoot really exists, as is also evident from your comment above that "If bigfoot is a myth, what are people shooting at when it appears" Just give the whole thing a rest. DreamGuy 05:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Where do I place this without causing a disruption ? Just being careful. Martial Law 07:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not one to disrupt things, thus I really need user:Dreamguy's help. Martial Law 07:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
No. Not gullible at all. Right now, I'm facing a war that I can't stop without Wikipedia's help. see the "WAFE" referral below. I've stopped two of these war attempts before, I don't know if I can stop this one without help. Martial Law 10:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Restating Known FACTS
- It is a extremely large creature.
- It really STINKS.
- Is extremely strong.
- Fur color varies, ranging from solid black to snowy white.
- Usually will not confront people.
- Makes horrifying noises.
- Is some kind of omnivore. Will raid property, such as farms, ranches, even compost piles and other trash for food, if there is no food in the wild. As to, how should I place this w/o violating Wiki policies, it's feces, like other feces is eaten by various bugs and bacteria.
- Has extremely BIG feet, thus is why it is called a Bigfoot.
- Is usually a muscular creature that is usually 7' to 12' tall(Taller than most NBA players)
These are the known and accepted facts concerning this thing. Martial Law 07:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Those are not known or accepted facts. Those are beliefs and claims of some pro-Bigfoot supporters, and even there not all of them agree on all those points. Huge difference. Please go read Wikipedia policies on NPOV, verifiability, etc., as you obviously have not bothered to do so when those links were given to you earlier. DreamGuy 02:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- DreamGuy is right. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Just read them, again. Thanks. I did find a site that may agree with User:DreamGuy. it claims that out of 10 alleged encounters, one reports the creature as being smelly. You are Right User:DreamGuy. I've seen this around: WP:WF. What is it ? Martial Law 04:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
WAFE
User:Beckjord is forming some kind of group that may oppose Wikipedia. It is called WAFE a acronym that stands for Wikipedians After Fair Editing
He is asking people to join this organization.
Please notify your Admins. of this. Martial Law 09:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Any Wiki response to this matter? I do NOT want to see a Civil War on this fine website.
-
-
-
- I am NOT joining this organization. Martial Law 09:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
Just ignore him. It's not going to get anywhere, as it's not like he has anyone on his side, and if he managed to do anything it'd be easy enough to undo. Giving him attention is what he wants. See Wikipedia:Do not feed the trolls DreamGuy 02:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Given that we got a grand total of two Bigfoot-is-an-alien editors to come here during Beckjord's "call to arms" on his website, I don't think we have anything to worry about. android79 02:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I do NOT coddle terrorists, I'm here to contribute. I'm a evidence kind of guy. As to Bigfoot, have yet to see one personally. I am also a field investigator, but I do not post anything that will be in violation of Wiki protocol at all, thus why I Google Search everything FIRST, then, place what I find on the discussion page for other Wikis to examine, so that I don't even remotely mess up a article at all. Only upon Wiki approval will what I find will go into this article, given the nature of this article. User:DreamGuy(Forgive the formalities), is this a good idea, so as to prevent article disruption with nonsense, of which I do not coddle either ? Again, I'm here to contribute. User:DreamGuy, I am considering creating a article about mythical weapons and armor, and list examples, such as Minerva's/Athena's shield, which will kill all living things, because it has Medusa's severed head on it. Will you assist me on this, given your expertise on mythical related matters ? Martial Law 04:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Should another war break out, what should I do ? Maintain vigilance and alert other Wikis ? What is the protocol ? Have'nt been able to contribute at all due to these wars. Who handles these matters ? Martial Law 04:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- As I've already said, one editor not getting his way does not constitute a "war". Beckjord refuses to heed WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR and his edits will be reverted until he does. Alert "other wikis"? What are you talking about? There are several admins watching this page already. android79 04:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
He has ten or more "meatpuppets"(I need a means of understanding Wiki jargon. Any resources I can use ?) to strike. You revert, the puppet "conter-reverts", until you are exhausted, he wins the war. Heard you guys caught a meatpuppet. Congrats. I'm like the watchman who had found something that is disturbing. Since you guys have this covered, I'll be "standing down", but will still be watching things. If I find something amiss in this article, who do I turn to to help me correct it ? Martial Law 06:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- A number of admins and myself and other editors now have this article on our watch lists. If Beckjord tries anything, with meatpuppets or otherwise, that violates policies here, there's a long line of people ready to respond. DreamGuy 06:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- How do you know he has 10 or more meatpuppets? So far, two have surfaced, and were quickly caught. There are ways of dealing with this problem that will not "exhaust" us. android79 06:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I monitor his website, and am always expecting trouble from this individual, since he had already initiated battle twice that I've seen already. Told him once already that The Boss might see this mess and throw him out. That is how I stopped the last one, until this "WAFE" mess appeared. Did I act correctly ? Martial Law 06:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
One other thing, he has been trying to get my E-mail and another Wikipedian had reported that he hit him with 6 viruses.
Martial Law
One day he is my friend, next day he is not.
Bi-polar ?
Not sure
beckjordBeckjord 08:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Beckjord, I have to follow Wiki protocol. No more, no less. I have not lied to you, will not lie to you now. I said MY E-MAIL IS OUT, NOT' that I had no E-mail. I had it examined. It looks like it had been, hit, but NOT by you at all. Some spammer, maybe something from a "etightstrings.com" type of site has sent some bug that hit my E-mail. I an currently on the Yahoo system, and it is known to foul up royally. I am indeed your friend. Its these "call to arms" that are making a mess of things for everybody. You, on the other hand, have progressed very well. Call off this war, and initiate no more of these wars, I'll give you a site that does permit original reserch, BUT you have to be extremely civil at all times while you're on it, and while you're on here. As a symbol of "Good Faith", I'll give you a really strange Bigfoot link, and go to UFO Casebook to see a entry concerning a entity that appeared out of nowhere, was glowing like a firefly on steroids. It is in the main(center) listings on the site, and tell you, after you go to my User Talk page about two incidents that has taken place near Shreveport,LA. Martial Law 09:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
this is total cr*p
I do not send viruses. Tell me how? You are one person who loves to lay blame where there is no guilt, BAsed on ASSUMPTIONS. See "post hoc, ergo prosper hoc" in logic.
Now, what the H*ll should I use to introduce a comment? If not = ( )= then what?
WHY NOT JUST TELL ME?
Eh? Or is that too kind?
Beside, ML said he HAD NO EMAIL. Was this a lie? Maybe so.
I email Zoe, and she gets no viruses. Ask her. Just do not open attachments.
God, the lies and lies I find here.
beckjordBeckjord 08:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
beckjordBeckjord 08:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not releasing this Wiki's name. If I may, I'll reveal the attacked Wiki on either User:DreamGuy's Talk page or on a friend of his. Martial Law 07:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you actually did to "stop" anything. If you convinced Beckjord to take down the "call to arms" from his website, bravo.
- One thing that may clear these communications up: a Wiki is a website, not an editor. If you want to talk about a Wikipedia user, say Wikipedian, editor, or user.
- If Beckjord is sending viruses through email, there's really nothing that can be done about it; I'm sure they're rather ineffective. There's no way he can get editors' email addresses unless he uses the "Email this user" feature and the user replies, or if the user has their email listed somewhere on the Wiki. android79 07:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
May I do this ? Martial Law 07:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't condone terrorisim. Neither should Wikipedia. Martial Law 07:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Terrorism" seems to be blowing things out of proportion. Ditto for "war" you mentioned above. You're running around like chicken little here. The sky isn't falling, we just have a problem editor who is grumpy. Most of us have dealt with the kind of behavior many times before and we know what we are doing. I was going for several rounds with Sollog and others like him sending out death threats and trying to hack my websites before Wikipedia was even around, and the other editors here you've been talking to aren't newbies either. Chill. It's all under control. DreamGuy 07:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Will do. Am now "standing down". User:Dreamguy, you have any suggestions for a article I'm planning which will list mythological and fictional weapons and armor, such as Athena's shield, which has a Gorgon's head in it, the sword Excalibur, Conan's sword, ice cannons featured in some videogames, that sort of thing ? Your expertise is useful here. Martial Law 07:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
User:DreamGuy, I have created two recent articles called UFOs in Fiction, which is about fictional UFOs, such as those featured in Blockbuster movies and TV shows. Been told that this was one of my better articles by a Admin., and Fictional resistance movements and groups, which are about fictional resistance groups. Most are related to science fiction and "Alternate Histories", but the Alternate History genere is short on literature. Appreciate your critique. Martial Law 08:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Another User, a Admin requested the article, while commenting on something in the UFO article. Martial Law 08:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Seen your latest catch. Good job. What is that, 3 suspected meatpuppets now ? Martial Law 20:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Reference check
I noticed this link in the external links section and it discusses that hair samples found in a suspected bigfoot footprint were sent to the University Of Alberta for DNA testiing...and that results were expected back later in the week. Well, I found the results [1] and they are apparently hairs from a Bison. I was wondering why this second citation is not in the article but the first one is. If we are to have an article that is going to be worthy of being encyclopedic, then we must do our research more throughly.--MONGO 02:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- There are lots and lots of cases like that where DNA tests showed normal animal hair, often bears, goats, etc. Apparently the Bigfoot true believers don't want people to know that. Furthermore, I find the claims of the one study mentioned here that no match could be made highly suspect. It was made before DNA testing was routine, so it's doubtdul they did any test that could stand up to scrutiny by today's standards. The reference in the article covers up it's age, and people today assume hair is tested for DNA when it is tested so would believe that those tests had been done in this case -- as in fact one of our pro-Bigfoot people here claimed on this talk page when I pointed out that all DNA tests that have been done show real, known animals. These sorts of things need to be in there, or else there is a strong bias by ommission. DreamGuy 02:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm one of those that will not rule out the existence of such a creature. There is simply no physical proof that is accepted by the scientific community however. Basically, if they were to exist, there would have to be something close to at least 100 of them scattered across the U.S. Pacific Northwest and western Canada in order to maintain themselves through normal reproductive patterns known in all Great Apes and Humans, of which, apparently, this creature is most likely associated with biologically. Simply put...there has yet to be anything tangible in the form of physical evidence whereby we could honestly say, well, yes, here is proof of a previously unknown primate in North America. The section on skeletal remains is weak for the disbelievers as it is extremely rare for even an outdoorsman such as myself to ever stumble upon the remains of any animal. One of the reasons the great apes are so endangered in Africa is due to their relatively low reproductive capabilities and species thinning due to habitat loss and poaching. Taking all other factors out of the equation aside from species maintainability and the lack of physical evidence...the rest of the information probably should be covered for the sake of being exhaustive, but they do little to help the supportors or the disbelievers because they tend to cancel each other out.--MONGO 03:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. Martial Law 04:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
bison hair
No bigfoot researcher made any big deal of this, since the hairs were not yet tested. If you have questions on suhc things, ask Beckjord, who is here. The best hair analysis was done by three scientists, and no further need have been done. http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/bloodandhair.html Current hair analysis, a waste of tiome now, imho, is done by Dr Henner Fahrenbach.
In light of the statements of Dr Michio Kaku, CCNY Physics, and CUNY, saying UFOs may come here via wormholes, an idea I sent him a year ago, (said it on tv - ABC.) it would seem that hairy humanoids __could be__ temporary visitors and dna only proves they were humanoid "at that time". DNA was obtained by LA state researchers several years back, they claim. ( James Lansdale.)
Just because a newspaper makes a big deal of possible hairs of BF that later are buffalo, does not mean we need to make a big deal. Being "verified" as source, does not mean truth. Some sources lie.
beckjordBeckjord 07:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Beckjord, do not squeeze your own comments in between earlier comments to try to throw off the conversation. I moved yours to the end... but, frankly, your comments make you like liks a paranoic conspiracy theorist. We aren;t supposed to trust reliable sources because they all lie, but we're supposed to take the word of fringe publications and self-declared experts nobody ever heard of just because they support your side? Claiming current hair analkysis now is a waste of time completely m isses the fact that now they can do DNA tests and figure out for sure where the hair samples came from, instead of old, old "studies" which were just some guy eyeballing a clump of hair and trying to guess what it came from. The old studies are completely unscientific by current standards. New studies are indisputable. And all of the new DNA studies have ALWAYS come back with, goat, bison, bear, cat, whatever. Your arguments are nonsense and we need to update this article to reflect modern DNA studies instead of the wishful thinking of the pro-Bigfoot crowd. DreamGuy 23:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Time to semi-protect?
Looks like it to me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree. I just got done with removing vandalism from this article, but it looks like there's more. --Winter 19:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Semi-protected. I'm a little worried something in the article got scrambled around during all that; don't have time to look in detail right now, so someone might want to pick carefully through the history. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I don't know what happened there, but I've reverted it back a little ways... some sections had seemed to have gone missing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Unprotected. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
-
Notice to new visitors who want to make changes
Hi - there is a system here that allows old-time members to instantly WIPE OUT any changes you add in. Took me two weeks to figure this out. Thus, to work in the system, add your comments to the DISCUSSION page, which thousands of readers now are looking at, thanks to GOOGLE. Your points will be read and some may last a while.Some may be verified (found in a book,ANYBOOK, and then added to the main page, with a footnote reference. It is best if you take teh tiome and dig out a page saying what you want, in a known book, such as The Bigfoot Files, and not in old fart books like Pyle. These Wicki people are very,very uptight and jealous and resent newcomers. So try my idea. Quote things. Newspapers, tv shows, websites, journals, books, and newsletters. SOME info may make it. That is the game, so we must play it.
Ask for Zoe by name, or Bishonen, by name, or Bunchofgrapes, by name, or DanielCD by name, to assist. They will see it, and may help.
Ve must be cool, and no vandalism (wiping out sections) pleeze.
beckjordBeckjord 07:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Bishonen
You may have have instructed me on some level in some page, but what if I miss it in all this ,mess?
Just email me. THEN I see it.
Zoe does.
And best you send it to my talk page.
Thanks.
beckordBeckjord 08:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
all you people really,really think newbies are going to spend hrs reading polices they 100% hate?
Many do NOT LIKE these rules and laws. They want CHANGE. The organizers were WRONG. Many newbies do not see these policies as anything to respect. We might read them, someday, but do not respect them.
You use these policies to suppress new info.
Now, what about TV PROGRAMS AS A SOURCE?
Dr Michio Kaku is quoted on ABC that he feels UFOs use wormholes,
YOU GONNA IGNORE THAT?
I will send in the quote here.
Is ABC "reputable" enough for you? Or does it have to be a an author who has 50 libel items in her book? Is she "reputable" ?
RETHINK WIKI.
beckjordBeckjord 08:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- You wrote: "all you people really,really think newbies are going to spend hrs reading polices they
100% hate?" -- Well, if they hate our policies, they are free to leave. Ignoring and doing whatever the heck they want just because they want to will not be tolerated.
- Also, you have proven yourself incapable of determining what "libel" really is. You can;t simply remove a book from the biography because you disagree with it and then throw out ridiculous legal accusations against the author to try to support yourself. If you think the author made libelous comments, take it up with the publisher, not with us... DreamGuy 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
DreamGuy
name any author who says Bigfoot has small eyes.
Tell us, I can hardly wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
beckjordBeckjord 09:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Myself. I made a book about a completely different subject and in the back i wrote BIGFOOT HAS SMALL EYES!!!!! Signed, Perleatsworld
NOTICE TO DreamGuy and others of like mind
I, and others, of like mind, are not trying to "take over" the Bigfoot page.
We do not need to try to flood them page with PRO info, because if honestly reported,
much of the research shows something is there, and we do not have to stretch it, fake it or fudge it. But much of what is there now , ignores other objective info, and used bad, weak authors who never did field work. These are selected for their critical views. Pyle, for instance, never left his house to write his book. How ya gonna call that "Reputable" ? It isn't.
We, members of Wikians After Fair Editing, (which seems to threaten many insecure people here) just want all sides shown and we are confident that if all the info is laid out, it will present a positive showing, because the truth is never 50-50. It is usually 98-2
Support WAFE ! You get 79 Virgins in Heaven! - And you get to argue with Rene Dahinden -- or is that Hell?
- -)
beckjordBeckjord 09:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
skeptics have complained
They always will. They have no basis for any complaints, since they do no field work, and were NOT THERE. In one case, "Looking for Mr Goodape" Bob Sheaffer was told he might not see nor hear anything on the trip, since BF stays away from skeptics. When he left, a kid camped with family and did see a Bigfoot. Later, I did get pix, of beings not seen.
Dr Molly Hanson, organizational psychologist, skeptic, did go on two day hike and found BF trax on her own, and became a believer. Arizona trip, 1979.
"A skeptic is a person who, when he sees the handwriting on the wall, says it is a forgery" - Morris Bender (MarcusTCicero 21:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
famous person whom I forgot.
beckjord205.208.227.49 22:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
DreamGuy, screamGuy
I see he just cannot stay away... his skeptical hackles are up. He nitpicks and instead of helping with minor edits, he deletes. WHAT A GUY!!!!!
He should improve his own bad page, Mythology, which needs BIG TIME HELP.
hAPPY nEW yEAR, DG.
beckjord205.208.227.49 22:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Why are you editing as an Anon? It doesn't appear that you are (currently) blocked. Please refrain from attacking classes of people ("skeptics") and specific users (DreamGuy) and focus on the article's contents. Your personal anecdotes are useless to the encyclopedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- DreamGuy: I call him a vandal. He makes irrational edits, and deletes all sorts of valuable items. And he is influenced by skeptics, who have no clue on this research.
- Also please stop ordering me around. beckjordBeckjord 06:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- anon?' Prove this. Sounds likemore Wiki paranoia.
- BTW, sometimes people forget to log in. Ever think of that? :beckjordBeckjord 06:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I was just wondering about why you were editing as an anon, and asked politely... "I forgot to log in" is a perfectly good reason. Now who's paranoid?
- I will continue to "order you around" exactly as long as you continue to ignore Wikipedia policies. FOr example, calling DreamGuy a vandal is a personal attack, and saying someone influenced by skeptics shouldn't be editing the article is a violation of NPOV, which says multiple points of views should be neutrally presented. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
-
DG comments in edit box
(revert Beckjord on an anon IP (check edit history) blind reverting all changes I made because he irrationally hates skeptics, NPOV the WP:NOR policy and me (again, see his contribution history)
reply: this is garbage. I do not knowingly edit using anon. DG is the one violating NPOV. He has an agenda. DG reverts the entire article, just to dump a few edits he does not like. My researcxh is quoted in many sources. If you IGNORE current research, you make the article stale and passe'. Truth is important. What a non-researcher skeptic says in his office has no merit, even if in a bad book.
beckjordBeckjord 06:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
irrationally hate skeptics
No. I know Bob Sheaffer personally and have partied with him in local Mensa. (Goodape art.) One other skeptic went on a trip, found bigfoot tracks on her own and became my girlfriend.
I do not hate other skeptics as much as I have no respect for them.
beckjordBeckjord 06:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
sherpas
quote: In 2003, Japanese mountaineer, Makoto Nebuka, published the results of his 12-year linguistic study and postulated that the word "yeti" is actually a regional dialect term for "bear". The ethnic Tibetans fear and worship the bear (as do many primitive peoples) as a supernatural being. This does not match with what sherpas say,however.
The reference is in The Snow Leopard by Peter Matthiessen. The whole comment by Nebuka is insulting and implies that the local people are taken in by a linguistic trick.. or that we foreigners just do not understand the local language. This negative item is just a skeptic's POV item, and it smells. I'm not sure it is even true that local people worship bears since they do kill them. Further, the whole thing is absurd, since westerners have found Yeti tracks at altitudes where BEARS DO NOT GO, and with bipedal aspect, not quadupedal. Bears do not walk for miles on two feet. Basic common knowledge.
I think the Nebuka item needs to be erased. It is a red herring.
My opponent keeps putting in false or illogical items, as if this will Un-prove or debunk the Yeti and the rest. Yeti is neither proven nor disproven. He is into mythology and pedantry.
I hope you do not go that route.
Fighting illogical pedants is tiring. Evil energy abounds.
beckjordBeckjord 08:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
bunchofgrapes
Using "editors" who have no name, and no identity is extremely dishonest.
Re websites, that is all you have for recent publications. Normal zoological journals do not publish articles on Bigfoot. If you want cutting edge here, you must, as an online pedia, accept online info.
BTW, who are you?
I'm real, you are not.
beckjordBeckjord 21:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I personally am not opposed to websites being used as a source - though I like to see some discrimination regarding the likely reliability of the web site. That's irrelevant to the revert of mine you are talking about, though. [2] You cited information from your own website, www.beckjord.com. Now, even the most simpleminded among us can immediately see that this poses a problem: you are perfectly free to put whatever truth, half-truth, fiction, or fantasy you care to on your own website, at any time. Therefore, for you to try to use information from that site as a source in producing a neutral, balanced encyclopedia article is quite out of the question.
- Who am I? See my user page; I choose to reveal more biographical info about myself than many here, and I promise it's all true. If that isn't enough for you — if you have some need to know the true identity of those you interact with — then Wikipedia may not be an environment you will ever be happy in. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- PS Who said we wanted "cutting edge" here? "Cuttting edge" is usually a code-phrase for Original Research, in my experience. We don't want that at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Beckjord, if you continue with this "I'm real, you're not" taunting bullshit, you're going to get blocked. Wikipedia editors who want to remain anonymous are allowed to do so. Focus on arguments, and for the last goddamn time, read WP:NOR. android79 03:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have to second that, but add double bullshit.--MONGO 03:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Can...
Can I get some recomendations for this site before placement ? It is Mysteries Megasite Homepage Click on Bigfoot, related cryptids. This site has links to literally dozens of other sites of this nature ? Was going to place it in the "External Sources" section. Trying to avoid violations of the WP:NOR, related protocol, thus am seeking recomendations. Thought I may discuss this matter first. Martial Law 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:External links. A source, especially a Web-based one, needs to be reputable for use as a source, and preferably, sites listed in External links should contain material that is referenced by the main article, Based solely on the appearance of the site you link, I would say that it is not appropriate to place in the External links section. Flashing lightning bolts and other such garbage don't exactly scream "serious" or "scholarly". android79 00:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Admit the site is a tad too bit flashy. I clicked in the title "Bigfoot", and nearly 20-30+ Bigfoot links appeared. Can I add your two recomendations to my directory ? Martial Law 00:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
What about this site: Malevolent Alien Abduction Research Homepage ? This claims that some of the bigfoot creatures are aliens, but are seen with UFOs, other aliens. Was planning to place this in the "Alternative" section, because people has reported spotting them in, near UFOs, either going into them, or exiting them. You click on Sasquatch or Bigfoot on this site. Martial Law 23:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You click on "Alien Species" to get to Bigfoot/Sasquatch. Martial Law 23:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Edits by User:Dr Joe
User:Dr Joe recently showed up out of nowhere with no previous history to start putting beckjord's edits back in and to add similar NPOV-breaking comments. I'd say meatpuppet, based upon his trying to get people here, but it actually looks more like sock to me, especially with the strange habit of ending lines in middle of sentences (is he copying and pasting from some email or other application that forces lines to split after a certain width??) and the peculiar way things were phrased both in the edits and the edit comments. DreamGuy 07:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Who is "Dr. Joe" ? Can't find anything on this User. Martial Law 09:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Patterson-Gimlin film FAKED?
It was recently reported that one of the principles involved in making this film has confirmed that it was a complete fake. Why is this info not reported or even discussed here?
Seems to me this article is an embarrassment to wikipedia - it doesn't even come close to approaching the guidelines regarding NPOV.
- If you've got specific issues with the POV of this article, by all means, bring them up here. There are many problems with this article, that's for certain.
- Equally important to NPOV is verifiability. If you've got a reliable source that indicates the Patterson film was faked, by all means, add this information to the article. android79 20:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Source: Skeptical Inquirer, July-August, 2004 by Kal K. Korff, Michaela Kocis. Text available here. Also see The Patterson 'Bigfoot' film uncovered on KATU News. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
NOTHING in that rag is valid, nor true nor verifiable. It is 100 BS and bias. NOBODY in it has a copy of the film as film, and they go by ANY lie the see in the papers.
ALL BIGFOOT FANS NEW TO WIKI SHOULD GO THERE AND EDIT,EDIT,EDIT. It is YOUR Wiki also. Patterson-Gimlin Film. ( I did not log in yet, so do not get upset.)
DrJoe205.208.227.49 10:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's a rather extreme amount of bias there. They are a valid source, and we can (and on this topic, pretty much have to in order to keep NPOV policy in mind) list what they claim in the article.
- By the way, it would be nice if yo limited yourself to editing under one username instead of using a sockpuppet account and signed out as an IP address... It makes it look like you are trying to be three different people, Beckjord, and thus trying to trick people into thinking more people support your side than really do. DreamGuy 01:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, that's rich. Your personal website is a perfectly valid resource, but a well-respected magazine is not? android79 01:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am so surprised by this turn of events. Somehow I was sure Mr. Beckjord would be a big fan of the Skeptical Enquirer. Next, he'll crush me by revealing a disdain of the Amazing Randi or Michael Shermer. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
This Article
 |
This article sucks and its just ABSOLUTELY CRAP!! |
sorry had to do it. 
Paddy :-) 00:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you think this article's got problems, check out the POV mess that is Patterson-Gimlin film. android79 01:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Several months back I tried to improve things but gave up in disgust after a group of Bigfoot true believers came and not only undid everything I tried to fix but made everything else worse. At least we can thank Beckjord's campaign of POV-pushing and self-promotional original research for bringing these articles to our attention once again. DreamGuy 01:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
All new Wiki members have a right to edit
Bless the founder. :-)
DrJoe205.208.227.49 10:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Investigator
Just clarifying this: Would it be OK to publish material that a investigator has found ? Again, just asking for clarification. Martial Law 04:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I come in and post things, such as what I had found in places, like Fouke, AR., that sort of like what I've already seen here. Do NOT want to violate WP:NOR. Of course I would'nt do that. Just asking for clarification. Martial Law 05:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate the help. Martial Law 05:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- It would be fine if it was from a published and circulated source so that it could have been peer reviewed. But if it is just his/her word, it does not comply with no original research--MONGO 06:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Will have future sources,etc. placed here, persuant to examination, before placement, or not, pending outcome of the examination. This should reduce, if not eliminate nonsense. Martial Law 06:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 06:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Unusual link
Can I get a ruling on this link ? It is the Unusual Bigfoot Link. Doing this in accordance w/ stated idea. Martial Law 04:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think this quote from that page will answer your question for you: We have all of these strange cases, close to 100, many of them well-documented, but if you try to call that scientific evidence of anything, you'd be laughed at. About all this link is useful for as a source in Wikipedia is Awful Web design. (Why is it that every paranormal page out there looks like it was created in 1996 by a fourteen-year-old?)
answer to android79
Actual field workers have a choice between staying home and becoming expert webmasters, or in getting out, finding new info, and then using amateur skills at being webmasters. You pick. YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH. Of course Android can VOLUNTEER to edit websites. The best edited Bigfoot websites, have the worst field work. You-cannot-have-both. Understand? I mean, WHO PAYS US to have pro websites? Where is MY paycheck? Send me cash. I will hire a pro webmaster. (All this ought to be obvious.)
DrJoeDrJoe 10:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I gave you a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources some time ago. It seems you haven't read it. If you have, you must not have read it very closely. The Internet is a wonderful resource, but it's at least 90% garbage, and for paranormal-related topics it's probably a lot worse than that. There is very little on the Web that will be a useful reference for this article. Anyone with a computer can set up a website in no time at all with very little effort. It takes a lot more credibility to get something published in a respected scientific journal, magazine, or by a reputable book publisher. Please keep this in mind the next time you find one of these random Bigfoot websites. android79 04:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
books as sources, wiki people choosing what is "reputable"
Wikians have no credentials and no names. They are not qualified to decide what books,articles or websites are "reputable". Actual been-there-done-that researchers in this field are better qualified to judge. Wikians are not. HOWEVER, people like Android79 can assist by cleaning up grammar,footnotes style, references style, etc. WE CAN MAKE A "PARTNERSHIP IN CRIME". (tHIS DOES NOT MEAN REAL CRIME....TAKE NOTE FOR WIKI POLICE..) Strange bedfellows.
We produce the info, You do the cleanup. DEAL??????
The goal is to produce the most cutting edge, not-boring, not Britannica, not OLD,OLD Pyle stuff. This means you do use newsletters and the net. Yes, you do. My kid read some DreamGuy reverts, and he said it put him to sleep. On the newer reverts, he said, "far out!".
Give it your Kid Test. Print out two pages. Show them. One is beddy-bye, the other is stay up. DrJoeDrJoe 11:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Will do. Martial Law 04:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah...you got that right...even your kid said it was "far out"...that's because it IS FAR OUT...there is zero evidence that Bigfoot comes and goes on a spaceship! Next thing you'll tell us is that Nessie is Bigfoot's pet and every Thursday, they all play cards together with Elvis, James Dean and Marilyn Monroe.--MONGO 11:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Once again, we get the "no names" bullshit, now from someone who feels the need to edit from three different usernames as well as multiple anonymous IP addresses. This is getting tiresome.
- I'm qualified to judge the veracity of sources based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You are, too, though you choose to completely ignore policy. I'm going to continue to do more than just clean up grammar. I'm going to remove POV material and original research as long as it keeps showing up in this article.
- I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Wikipedia is not the place for "cutting-edge" ideas, in any subject, especially if those ideas include wormhole-surfing Bigfoots and Loch Ness Monsters from another dimension. No, we do not use random websites for sources.
- If you need to justify your edits as being more "exciting" to a child, regardless of the truth or veracity of the claims made, it's clear that you do not understand the stated goals of Wikipedia. Until you do, and until you choose to abide by policy, your edits will be reverted. android79 13:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
competence
Sorry, we, the members of the Berkeley Bigfoot Coop (Dr Joe) do not accept that someone is comptent to decide what sources are reputable or not, merely because they say they are. Anyone, my ten year old brother, can say that. It has no meaning nor validity. Just like validating Bigfoot, you have to provide proof of yourself, to us.
The DrJoe group.
DrJoeDrJoe 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ahh, but we're not trying to edit your website, see. If the day comes that we do start editing your website, you'll be entirely justified in demanding proof of our expertise. Friday (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
weak argument
And you admit this IS a website. (It is not a pedia, it is an info-site. An online source should have online links.)
- -)
The Dr Joe Editing Consortium
DrJoeDrJoe 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, I admit it, you win. Wikipedia is a website. Gosh, I hope nobody finds out. People might start trying to access it with a browser, or something. Friday (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
new hits on Wikipedia
This Bigfoot page is now on GOOGLE and more people are coming to see the fireworks!
This is GOOD for Wikipedia, good,good, good. It is GOOD!
Stand back and Laissez les bons temps roulez! Eh bien, mes amis?
DrJoeDrJoe 06:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
!
Lets keep this civil before things get out of hand. Martial Law 22:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been reading about a "Goodape". What is a "Goodape" ? Martial Law 22:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Goodape
This is Robert Sheaffer's cute play on the film title "Looking for Mr Goodbar".
Back in late 90s. Of course, Bigfoot is not an ape. Small detail.
Remember 10,000 or more people a DAY come here to learn the REAL TRUTH about Bigfoot.
They are readIng WHAT YOU SAY.
bESIDES, "gETTING OUT OF HAND" LEADS TO THE TRUTH. You want dull, as with Britannica?
They have maybe 50 words on Bigfoot. No b*lls. Wiki got b*lls. Bravo Wiki!
FIGHT WIKI BOREDOM!
DrJoeDrJoe 06:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- There are enough bad jokes out there for Wikipedians to get their kicks. What Wikipedia requires of you (as has already been stated) is for you to abide and respect the policies of Wikiedia and to provide verifiable facts from reputable sources. Take care, Doc. SoLando (Talk) 06:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- We are sorry Wikipedia does not meet your needs at this time. There's a whole internet out there. Enjoy! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
people making moronic jokes
Have no right to edit.
205.208.227.49 09:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- And your edit summary "rv- mongo, go play with the stars of that Mel Brooks Film" is supposed to be serious? Your attempts to continue to make this a fantasy article will ultimately lead to some long term problems I think.--MONGO 09:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- People who vandalize and make personal attacks get a time-out. Come back when you can be civilized. android79 18:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Documentary Channels
Today, on the History Channel, I have seen some material on Bigfoot and other cryptids. Channel link is History Channel. Type into the SEARCH area to get info about bigfoot. Martial Law 03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
For my area, this aired on 1-8-06 early morning on the History Channel. 1/2 of the show favored the skeptics, 1/2 favored the believers and those that have seen it. The skeptics do insist on a DEAD body for examination. Martial Law 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The show was called History's Mysteries, and has a old style key in the show logo. Martial Law 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to protect this page
A rare move for me, but until we can hash out what needs to be in this article, it is the only way to deal with the flow of vandal and sockpuppet acocunts. I will lift protection a couple of days unless someone beats me to it.--MONGO 09:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I doubt discussion will help matters, as the problem appears to be one editor stubbornly refusing to follow Wikipedia policies and making the same edits across a variety of sockpuppets. There already is very clear consensus that his edits are inappropriate. We can all discuss it and come to the same conclusions, but he won;t change his mind. The only thing that would put a stop to it without a permanent lock down is for beckjord to start following policy, leave, or get under some ArbCom decision. I've seen it happen all the time here. DreamGuy 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I certainly won't disagree with that. But, posted as much as a kinda ridiculous attempt to assume good faith...if we're going to be dealing with the editing as he wants it, always able to fall back on the fantasy to support the illogical and unproven, then it might have to go to arbcom...but he is using AOL, so that may make a permaban difficult.--MONGO 10:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- True... I'm just saying the ol' "protected, discuss this on the talk page" line when it has been discussed repeatedly and consensus has already been established is one of my pet peeves. Wikipedia has some major problems that make it tedious for people trying to do a real encyclopedia to do accomplish anything. Instead we let a single well-known netkook hold articles hostage. Marvelous. If this trend progresses every major article on this site will be permanently stimmied because it only takes one POV-pusher to beat out 5 or 10 or 20 or however many good editors weighed in on the controversy here. It's a recipe for making everything get worse and worse. We should just protect all the damn pages and not let anyone edit until there are reasonable guidelines for encyclopedia writing in place. DreamGuy 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
-
A better solution: semi-protection. Any objections? android79 11:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's fine, just he'll have to use one of his logged in accounts to edit, not that this will break my heart.--MONGO 12:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
prejudice, here, by Mongo
quote: always able to fall back on the fantasy to support the illogical and unproven,
Commenting on what Mongo says about someone else's alleged edits...
Mongo has to show this is fantasy, and ol Mong just is unable to use real logic to criticise what HE says is illogical. I feel this discussion is above the mental level of most Wiki admins and of bureaucrats, and some outwide logician needs to be brought in to make a detrmination on the logic of these CLAIMED ideas, things __not__ presented as facts , but just presented as speculation, based on actual events. Mongo, Android79m, and worst - DreamGuy are unable to differentiate between a CLAIM (speculation) and an alleged FACT, proven hypothesis. Due to lack of scientific training, no doubt. Better qualified editors need to look in. So, show the "fantasy" and the "illogic", or go away and edit the mundane.
205.188.117.7 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- 205.188.117.7....I have a masters in forensic anthropology and can tell you that if anyone here lacks scientific training, it's not me. My advisor during my masters thesis was Ellis R. Kerley--MONGO 21:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection
I've semi-protected this page; this will stop AOLers and other anonymous users from editing, as well as new sockpuppets (as well as some old ones, hopefully).
Note that this won't be permanant, and I've had to use a rather liberal definition of "vandalism" to justify semi-protection. I consider the ongoing, willful defiance of Wikipedia's core policies on verifiability, original research, and neutral point of view that this article has been experiencing to be vandalism. Usage of sockpuppets has only made this problem worse. Established editors who want to add new material to this article are welcome to do so as long as their edits are sourced and do not run afoul of the aforementioned policies. Newer editors who want to do the same can discuss changes here on the talk page first. android79 13:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Item needs attention of an editor very badly
+ - interdimensional traveller, due to disappareaing tracks evidence, and vanishings before witnesses. If this proves to be true, + - it will make this comic-book and tabloid joke being become a Nobel Prize material item. Of course, +
This shows blind prejudice. The incidents are not only true, but some of them
have been documented on videotape. It has no relationship to tabloids unless a tabloid has lifted information from a website or newsletter. Obviously, as the most junior of editors knows, there is no way to get an alleged bigfoot creature to cooperate with an experiment that shows that it can disappear, before cameras, and measuring machines. If anything of that type shows up, it may be form a surviellance camera, and one such incident, involving __alleged__ shape-shifting is in the possession of Jack Lapseritis, MA, in Northern WA. (Proceedings of the 2005 Bellingham Bigfoot Convention.)
Reports of vanishings, and also disappearing tracks in mud and snow,
are found in the book "The Locals" by Thom Powell, listed in refs. below. Also other reports are found in the archives of the discussion site, http://www.bigfootforums.net , as well as on some controversial minority-view websites.
It is the __conclusion__ to be drawn from such events that greatly disturbs
some Bigfoot fans, in fact, most, as well as some of the highly prejudiced editors here in Wiki, who have skeptical POV, and not NPOV.
That conclusion is that space-time wormholes may access this Earth, from other parallel universes, (as discussed re UFOs by Dr Michio Kaku on ABC TV in Feb 05, with Peter Jennings,) and that alleged (unproven - see- NPOV)Bigfoot creatures, and also missing persons, missing aircraft, etc, may use or access these to go to other parallel worlds or universes. Yet this idea of tranversable wormholes is greatly discussed in Physics, and hundreds of website references can be found on the topic in Google. Scientific American discusses them, (Dec 05) and so does "Taking the Quantum Leap" by Dr Fred Allen Wolf, Harper and Row, 1981, isbn 0-06-055137-2 . This makes it hardly "comic book material".
Perhaps Android79 might use his epxertise in editing to enter this material and information into the Bigfoot site.
If not, it is guaranteed that new members will do so, over and over until it sticks.
205.188.117.7 20:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- You know, Beckjord, for one who regularly chastises the rest of us for not using our "real names", you sure do like to pretend to be other people. android79 22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Beckjord, you'll have to provide links to the video tapes and and the images, as well as all documented evidence, and it must be from mainstream sources, not from your own website...as that violates WP:NOR.--MONGO 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Beckjord, STOP changing other people's comments
Listen, you can't go in and put in your own header and change and modify what previous editors said so you can insult them and derail the conversation. That is simply despicable. No anyone trying to read that conversation can;t follow it because you've messed it up completely. And your comments have absolutely nothing to do with making an encyclopedia, they are just personal attacks and contempt for our policies.
And, yes, we all know it's you on the IP addresses and using fake names, especially with all the exact same things you do like inserting your comments into the middle of other people's comments and using the same insults and peculiar ways of typing. Give it up. You have no way to win here, all you can do is prove to the world that you are just as bad as your critics say, willing to vandalize websites, make threats, etc. DreamGuy 23:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
do not
do not tell anyone, anyone, what to do. You do not own Wikipedia, nobody hired you, you re not paid, you do crappy edits on your own artricles, you are not a cop, you have NO authority.
Go stand in the outhouse, and flush yourself.
(unsigned but by beckjord) 07:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- I most certainly can tell you what not to do when those things break Wikipedia policy. For example, don't make personal attacks. Changing what other people wrote is obviously not allowed either. Now... are you going to A) read the policies and follow them, B) leave on your accord, or C) get kicked off? Choice is yours. Note that "refuse to follow the policies and do whatever you want" is not an option. DreamGuy 08:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
bigfoot researchers world-wide are viewing this article
and will be editing every day or week, over and over and over.Correcting false info, erronenous info, inadequate claims, correcting such simple things as Wiki listing 8-9 "sightings" as if these were the ONLY sightings, when some 15,000 people have turned in reports to John Green, the author and even to the BFRO group and the BIRO group. Some will be adding, over and over, the fact that one researcher has videotaped tracks in snow that end suddenly, and start suddenly, (Brian Smith, reported in the Bigfoot Coop Journal, June 2003) that just are not in the "mainstream" journals because such journals refuse to report __anything__ about the alleged Bigfoot. You skeptics with skeptic POV will have to permanently freeze this article, with all its flaws and bad editing,bad references, FOREVER. The editors currently involved are not working in good faith, are not honest, and have zero qualifications to edit this topic. Britannica, at least,does identifiy authors. Assume good faith? No. Assume quality? No. Assume ability? No. Assume they have read __even a single book__? No. As for accusations of identity, in America there is due process under law, and people are innocent until proven guilty. Stop the stupid and paranoid accusations. Anyone can write like anyone. Take it to court. You guys are amazing, fighting to be backward and retarded. People like DreamGuy are Thought Police, and would be comfortable in Saddams former empire, and in Orwell's.(1984). Petty rankings like "admin" give them power without any merit nor name. The founder has set up a police state, on-line. Good subject for a PhD thesis. You earn my utmost contempt.
207.200.116.138 07:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry you feel that way. When you come up with one piece of information that doesn't violate no original research then we'll take alook at it. So far, all we see is opinion, not one fact, and that is unencyclopedic. Also be careful with the use of wording like "Take it to court", as that could be perceived to be a violation of no legal threats--MONGO 08:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Gee, beckjord, you keep talking about how we should be expecting a massive inundation of Bigfoot supporters to take over the article from us lowly encyclopedic types following the policies here, but it never happens. You had a call to arms on your website to have people come here and revert back to your version, yet all we got was one guy on an anonymous IP address and then you yorself again on a couple sockpuppets account. Fact of the matter is that the majority of those who believe in Bigfoot don't respect you either. Your threats are meaningless, and, worse than that, they are repetitive and boring. DreamGuy 09:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Gee, Dreambarf, visitors will come slowly, not all in one day, and EB is not liked by
the great unwashed majority of Bigfoot fans, who are only one step over Wiki admins in IQ. Intelligent people in the Bigfoot field, about ten, are continually trashed on the net by losers,drop outs and good ol boyz with gunracks and six packs. WHY DON'T YOU KNOW THIS? Because you are too busy fighting off those who DO NOT LIKE YOU over at your own userpage, and the pages you started. Lots of Wiki people do not like you, dude. Not just me... lots of others. I see it, I read it. It is true. Back in 1606 or whatever, YOU would have burned Galileo.
Jeff.
-
-
- IF that is the case, let's keep it civil. Martial Law 20:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Actually, I thought he was pretty subdued when answering someone who said "you earn my utmost contempt". When will you tell your pal Beckjord to keep it civil? Moriori 21:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Just did. I hope he stays civil. Martial Law 03:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
?!!!!
?!!!! Martial Law 08:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Can I get this link examined ?
The link is Bigfoot Sightings Homepage. This may be a bombshell. Martial Law 08:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did read all pertainable matter. I do NOT know what to make of this site. Martial Law 08:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Appears to be a blog...get us something from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, any published work from a university, anything from the National Science Foundation or the journal Scientific American, or better yet from the American Anthropological Association. To be creditible, it must come from credible sources.--MONGO 08:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sigh, Mongo, Mongo, Mongo! Those orgs have NO FUNDING for bf research, and according to our lord and master, EB, and to some extent, Dr Michio Kaku, CCNY, there is no point in endlessly
barking up the flesh and blood animal tree. Of COURSE there is no "animal" Bigfoot. What there is instead is more complex, a shape-shifter, and perhaps(maybe) an interdimensional group (mothers, kids, fathers) that travel to here and out again. The skeptics are 100% right - there are or is, NO normal animal bigfoot. It is something else.
jeff
- Here's something for you to read. [4]--MONGO 08:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- This may be even more interesting. [5]--MONGO 08:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Can I also get a ruling on this as well ? Sasquatch Data ? Martial Law 08:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't personally mind having that link put in the additional or external links section, but I scanned a few of the internal links and they mostly answer questions with questions, so they don't really provide anything more than sparce evidence, little of it scientific.--MONGO 09:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
This link appears to support all sides. Martial Law 08:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Also found this as well Project Bigfoot Martial Law 08:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- That one is just a website, not a scientific jouranl or anything of the like...as far as your question below, Beckjord can read it here as I'm sure he does.--MONGO 09:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you send a copy to User:Beckjord as well: Re.: what you have discussed w/ me ? Martial Law 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, he'll benefit from this. Martial Law 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Just maybe he'll benefit from our discussion. Martial Law 09:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) I know I have. Martial Law 09:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Beware websites that HAVE NO AUTHOR NAME. Whereas I advocate using some websites, I do not
endorse using ALL websites. 99% of all Bigfoot websites are garbage. 97% have no author name, and no contact info. Good ones are http://www.bigfootresearch.org many ususual sightings and http://www.bigfoot.org most photos and PhDs. Another one is http://www.bigfootencounters.com Bobby Short. If any of these are wrong addresses, try putting net or org in place of com. Martial Law is overly impressed by fancy graphics and expensive style. No name, no game. I admit MOST websites are not good sources. Look for members who are scientists, and not even then is it perfect. One site, not named, has tons of sightings reports, and some claimed scientists on its staff, but is run by a hoaxer who has chased off 80% of his best researchers. Most of those scientists have also left. Trust no one.
jeff
Newspaper Link
Is this a credible source ? It is from a local Florida newspaper. Martial Law 19:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Most reports from FLA are from a hoaxer named Shealy, and can be ignored.
Others report a Bigfoot (BF) running across a road, but--- so what? ALL THAT COUNTS IS DEAD BODY AND NOBODY HAS THAT. Endless clippings prove nothing.
good try tho.
jeff
What of these:
Old site, outdated links, old concept
Jeff
These Texas people find broken sticks and tracks
So what? They DO NOT FIND DEAD BIGFOOT.
Stick with http://www.bigfootresearch.org paracontacts, http://www.bigfoot.org most photos, and http://www.bigfootencounters.com Bobby Short
Jeff
Martial Law 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- The newspaper appears to be a local newspaper. I'm not even able to verify that it's an actual, printed newspaper and not some web-only thing. The smaller and more local a newspaper gets, the less useful it is as a source. android79 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The National Geographic site
Perhaps the most compelling photographic evidence of Bigfoot is a controversial short film shot by Roger Patterson in 1967, which appears to document a female Bigfoot striding along a riverbank in northern California.
"It certainly wasn't human"
Email to a Friend
RELATED Loch Ness Sea Monster Fossil a Hoax, Say Scientists Rare African Predator Photographed for First Time Elusive Snow Leopard Seen in Rare Photos Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps or New Species?
Now, Bigfoot advocates are increasingly turning to forensic evidence to prove the existence of the giant creature.
Investigator Jimmy Chilcutt of the Conroe Police Department in Texas, who specializes in finger- and footprints, has analyzed the more than 150 casts of Bigfoot prints that Meldrum, the Idaho State professor, keeps in a laboratory.
Chilcutt says one footprint found in 1987 in Walla Walla in Washington State has convinced him that Bigfoot is real.
"The ridge flow pattern and the texture was completely different from anything I've ever seen," he said. "It certainly wasn't human, and of no known primate that I've examined. The print ridges flowed lengthwise along the foot, unlike human prints, which flow across. The texture of the ridges was about twice the thickness of a human, which indicated that this animal has a real thick skin."
Meldrum, meanwhile, says a 400-pound (180-kilogram) block of plaster known as the Skookum Cast provides further evidence of Bigfoot's existence. The cast was made in September 2000 from an impression of a large animal that had apparently lain down on its side to retrieve some fruit next to a mud hole in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington State.
Meldrum says the cast contains recognizable impressions of a forearm, a thigh, buttocks, an Achilles tendon and heel. "It's 40 to 50 percent bigger than a normal human," he said. "The anatomy doesn't jive with any known animal."
A few academics believe Meldrum could be right.
Renowned chimpanzee researcher Jane Goodall last year surprised an interviewer from National Public Radio when she said she was sure that large, undiscovered primates, such as the Yeti or Sasquatch, exist.
comment- well, this still talks about Bigfoot, but did you guys think some souirce will say Bigfoot is PROVEN? Never. It cannot be proven, since it is paranormal.
I do not know where ML is going with all this. Good tries, bit he misses the main point=
with so many sighitngs and some film, why is there no f&b BF ???
Ans: It is paranormal and beyond ability of science to study now.
THAT is your big story.
gOT IT?
Jeff.
Two links
Two links say "Bigfoot is REAL". They are:
This may be a real bombshell. Martial Law 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
If link is malfunctioning, go offsite. Martial Law 01:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- The NatGeo article was published in 2003. If it were a bombshell, why are we still debating this in 2006? It says, essentially, what our article already says: there is a vocal minority of Bigfoot fans that insist he is real. Nothing more.
- I can't get to the first link, and I have no idea what you mean by "go offsite". android79 01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
You get off wikipedia to access sites that may be malfunctioning on Wikipedia. Martial Law 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Could I insert the National Geographic site ? Martial Law 01:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I've accessed the 1st link off Wikipedia, site comes up w/ NO problems. I accessed same site on Wikipedia, the server says that a 401 error or some kind of error happens instead of the site comming up. Martial Law 01:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The tech boys need to have a look at this. Martial Law 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you mean by on or off Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot control your access to other parts of the web in any way. android79 01:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia's server has a few bugs. Access the link while you're off of Wikipedia, then access the same link from this talk page.
- I'm almost absolutely sure that's got nothing to do with Wikipedia. android79 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Just found this link as well. It is Bigfoot Biologist. Martial Law 01:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Martial Law, I gave you a list of what would be construed as reliable witness as far as referenced based information. I certainly mean no offense, but a loy opf those links are to websites, probably set up by one or two people that are simply providing their original research.
For crying out loud, the National Geographic article does not say Bigfoot is real, it quotes one guy who works at a police department as him saying he thinks Bigfoot is real, but then it also says "But the vast majority of scientists still believe Bigfoot is little more than supermarket tabloid fodder." National Geographic itself does not take a stance. Please do not link to sources and claim they say things they do not. DreamGuy 05:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
note
In many cases, such websites quote the research of others, not just their own.But I agree many are not credible. You must pick and choose.
But also note that NO UNIVERSITY funds and BF research, and NO PROFESSORS except Dr Jeff Meldrum, have done out on their own to do such research.
One PhD skeptic, Dr Molly Hanson, did go on a BF expedition, and FOUND TRACKS OF HER OWN, and became a believer.
In general, in amateur BF res., most alleged researchers do nothing, know nothing and criticize any that do anything. A seething soup of jealousy. Beware.
Dr Meldrum has a loose advisor relationship to the BIRO site, http://www.bigfoot.org BIRO
He has DROPPED OUT of the BFRO group.
- -)
Jeffry
If a scientific paper or research is published, then it has been peer reviewed and fact checked for the most part. I would also be leery of books on the subject, unless they have been published by the scientific community. The National Geographic simply quotes another source, they themselves take a neutral stand.--MONGO 03:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
That is why I have them checked out, instead of being just thrown in. Cheers User:MONGO. Martial Law 05:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC) :)
- I think Mongo's point was, that given the previous track record of the random websites you've asked us to vet, it should be pretty easy by now to tell, for yourself, whether or not a given website would be a useful source. android79 06:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Got it. There is some really weird sites out there, thus is why I needed those found checked out. One claimed that it was a scholarly site. One really strange one, the Bigfoot Biologist site claims that the creature is for real, another claimed a hoaxer was killed impersonating a Bigfoot. I've seen some that make User:Beckjord's site look scholarly. Some of them claim that Bigfoot is some kind of demon. Personally, I thought I had seen it all. Appreciate the assisstance. I was in the Fouke, Arkansas area myself investigating the Bigfoot incident there. It is a small town, all are well armed, and one idiot threatened to shoot ME if I was, as he put it, "one of those (expletive)(expletive) skeptical (expletives)." Only proof I have is just a verbal conversation between this guy and myself. I'm a evidence man myself. See the article The Legend of Boggy Creek, which is based on horrifying police and civilian reports. I am no longer in the Fouke area. Again, appreciate the assisstance. Wikipedia has already helped me crush one rumor already. Martial Law 07:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, is Science Frontiers credible ? It airs on PBS, on ther documentary channels from time to time. I do NOT know if it is still on the air. Martial Law 08:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Link is Science Frontiers Homepage. The TV show did air on PBS many times, as well as the other documentary channels. This is one site I do need a ruling on. I placed "Bigfoot" in the SEARCH icon. 1/2 is like what Wikipedia has, 1/2, well you have to see it. Martial Law 08:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
It appears to be a UK originated documentary type of site. Martial Law 08:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
!
>> I do not think Mongo, or anyone else here, is qualified to judge the reputation of a source.\ Also, it you want this article to be old,old, and stuffy, limited, then ask for "mainstream" sources. Those all have their heads up their ***es and they all are terribly biased at the onset. They predetermine their outcomes. Have to, to keep their jobs! Same goes for most tv docs. They are instructed by their network, "This is how your show will look." One semi-decent one, just semi, was Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science by White Wolf Productions, now on dvd.
Jeff
Please sign your statements. Martial Law 08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Beckjord: I have been instructed to tell you that like you, I have to follow Wikipedian policies. Martial Law 08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
This means that you have to be CIVIL. Martial Law 08:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I am NOT lying to you at all, never have, never will, and I will tell it like it is. What is the nature of the DVD you had just referred to ? Martial Law 08:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- MOngo say do not tell Jeff what to do.
Now the DVD is on sale and is a copy of the program that came out last year nationally, maybe 2003. Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. It is not perfect, but has many good items in it, and a new BF video, plus the PG Film . Link to sales site is via http://www.bfro.net or http://www.bfro.org BFRO . I do not recommend this site except for some links to reports.
In general, hoaxers and frauds are Loren Coleman, Tom Biscardi, Matt Moneymaker, Paul Vella.
Good guys are Dr Jeff Meldrum, Idaho State, Dr Thomas Tomasi, SW Missouri State, Dr Henner Fahrenbach, Beverton Primate Center, OR, author John Green,MA, BC Canada, Peter Guttilla, author, Overland, CA, Dr Molly Hanson, Eagle Rock, LA,CA and other PhDs unable to reveal names.
Admns can take this info and edit into the page in soime manner that makes them feel good aboiut doing it. THIS IS AN ONGOING MYSTERY. IT IS NOT A PROVEN FACT. But then, so is evolution.
- -)
Jeff
Overview for Mongo and Martial Law
Jeff feels that ML is missing the point on this page.
The skeptics are CORRECT. There is NO flesh and blood normal animal Bigfoot species. None.
There is no need to try to show that anyone thinks there is a real BF. Because BF is a
PHENOMENON and not a normal real animal thing.
10,000 books and sites will not prove it.
What is needed is wormhole research, so see this guy;'s site. http://www.beckjord.com/wormholesinuse bigfoot and wormholes
So, the skeptics WIN!!! But Bigfoot is beyond their feeble concept.
We need to address THE BIGFOOT PHENOMENON.
Consider this in your editing. SKEPTICS ARE RIGHT!
But BF is more than that.
Smile,
jeff
- Beckjord, I am one of those that am willing to concede that Bigfoot has a one in 50 chance of being real. This is based on the slim chance that Paranthropus boisei or Paranthropus robustus has survived with only minor evolutionary changes. There is NO evidence that Bigfoot travels through wormholes...only your conjecture...I'm sorry, but that is the best I can state it.--MONGO 10:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
>>> Bigfoot is not real, not flesh and blood zoologically real.
Paranthropus would last three days here, and get caught in a dumpster.
Wormholes is a speculative theory and deserves mention.
Jeff
- Beckjord, your first task is to stop pretending to be "Jeff" and the "DrJoe Editing Consortium" and whatever other names you've used for yourself in the past. Using other accounts to create the illusion of broader support for a position is a violation of Wikipedia policy. android79 19:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
>> Abdroid79 -- "G.F.Y." understand?
Jeff
>>>>Major fallacy.
I,Jeff, have never said that there was proof that Bigfoot or ufos go thru wormholes.
You typical non-scientists, often HS drop outs, do not understand the word "speculation".
I, and various others, SPECULATE' that bigfoot does this, based on vanishings and disdappearing tracks in snow.
We advocates NEVER said this was proven. For that matter, Black Holes are never proven,
and neither is much of astrophysics.
Now go to tHE evolution page, and wipe it out. There is no proof.
Bonk!
PS : do not tell me what to do. Your best bet it to take some of what I edit, and make the references changes that make you pedants happy, and save it. Cooperate. Because I WILL NOT go away. Go work on your own pages. I will accept NO orders. I will come back in a 1000 otehr means and ways. Got it? Now go home to momma.
Jeff....
- Erik, stop pretending to be somebody named "Jeff" and stop threatening us. You will either follow the policies of this project or your edits will be erased soon after they are made, just like they have been for a while now. Following Wikipedia policies is not optional if you want to contribute here. DreamGuy 19:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Beckjord: All that will result from this is that the article will end up being locked from further editing. As stated, I'm NOT lying to you at all. There are ways of handling matters on Wikipedia. Martial Law 21:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC) :)
I've already seen it locked twice, semi protected once that I know of. Martial Law 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC) :-)
Bigfoot hex
DG will find his wife or gf in bed with his best friend. He will lose the little hair he has left, along with his teeth. Children will throw stones at him on the street. All his mythology edits will be reverted to the end of time. A movement will start to strip him of his admin. Jimbo will personally kick him out and ban him forever. Bunchofgrapes will pour rancid butter all over him. Stangers will invite him to go up Brokeback Mountain. A plague of locusts will cover his beet garden. Dogs will snarl and cats hiss.
James
- So, since we won't let you put the fantasies you support in here, you post this garbage. Nice you can hide behind AOL with it's dynamic IP range...we can block entire ranges of IP's too, you know. Do not engage in any more personal attacks as they will be removed on sight, James, Beckjord...--MONGO 13:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Looks like a Gypsy Curse to me. This is NOT any kind of bias,etc. When you investigate paranormal matters, you literally "see it all.". When I saw this, I thought I had seen it all. Martial Law 21:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Nominate User:Dreamguy to be a Admin.
User:Dreamguy is not a Admin. If you like User:Beckjord, I could have him nominated to become a Admin. Martial Law 10:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Beckjord as an admin? You can't be serious. android79 13:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- He meant "If you like, Beckjord, I could have him nominated to become a Admin." ("him" meaning Dreamguy, who Beckjord had fantasized about stripping of nonexistent admin power in his recent weird attack post). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- User:DreamGuy(Excuse the formality), Would you like to be nominated to be a Admin. ? This is your call. Martial Law 21:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't think "well, someone who makes personal attacks on him seems to think he already is one, so why not?" is a valid reason to nominate someone for admin status. You already asked me about a month back on my talk page if you should nominate me, and I already declined your offer. Thanks anyway. DreamGuy 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No, DreamGuy is too immature to be an admin, and Android79 should be stripped of his and go back to being a regular user.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
beckjordBeckjord 07:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikimood ?
Can someone explain this, and the needle's current position ? Martial Law 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's a parody of meta:Wikimood. Someone found it humorous that the parody uses "Bigfoot" as a stress indicator. android79 22:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hex ?
I thought I had seen it all, until now. Martial Law 10:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protected
And, surprise surprise, once the semi-protection is lifted, we get an inundation of AOL IPs making the same changes. Semi-protected again. android79 12:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Either keep it this way or place it under full protection, as a precaution, until this new Edit War is over, and there are no more of them. Martial Law 22:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
From Sports Illustrated
You have got to see THIS one. It is allegedly from Sports Illustrated. Link is: Bigfoot Article in Sports Magazine. Someone found this in a magazine called Sports Illustrated, and submitted it to a Bigfoot organization. Martial Law 04:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Should this be placed in the article ? Martial Law 21:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I was going to place this as a External link. Martial Law 21:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
TRUTH
User:Beckjord, I have told you the truth, no more, no less. The Bigfoot page is now protected. Call off this nonsense before you get tossed out like a rot riddled egg. You know I have NOT lied to you at all, and am not lying to you now, will not lie to you. If Jimbo sees this mess, he may have you tossed himself. Like you, I have to follow Wikipedian Protocol myself.
How do you know that they use wormholes, and are'nt they disruptive ? Who is to say that they're beamed down to Earth, and removed, like what is depicted in Star Trek ? After all, some web sites and data sites do mention UFOs seen with Bigfoot, such as the UFO being overhead when a Bigfoot is seen in some of these cases.
Again, you must call off this mess before things really get out of hand. I've seen the results of a really bad Edit War. They make Hiroshima(1945 era) and Nagasaki(1945 era) look good. Martial Law 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC) :)
- I agree with everything you said up until "Hiroshima". That kind of hyperbole really isn't necessary. android79 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Some people don't understand how bad a Edit War can get. Martial Law 23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Sorry about the last comment, even if you think it's vandalism, it's very true. There is a massive difference between an edit war (Lord knows I've seen enough in my time) and the deaths of tens of thousands of people. While it is true that some conflicts can get nasty and some people like to take things off the internet into real life, it no where is in the scale of that. I'm sorry for the terseness of my other comment, that sort of thing tends to sneak up on me when I see poor hyperboles.--141.157.252.125 03:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Just stating how bad things can really get, no more,no less. Martial Law 20:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Even I cannot edit the Bigfoot article, even if I had found a real bombshell. Martial Law 03:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Other really bad one I've seen is on the "Otherkin" article. That one was a real nightmare.Martial Law 03:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- What is a "Otherkin" ? I've read the article, and I'm still curious about this matter ? Martial Law 02:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Try Talk:Otherkin, though you'll probably get no more information there, either. I have my own opinions, but in the interest of civility, I'll keep quiet. android79 02:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
-
MERGE?
It has been proposed that Arguments against the existence of Bigfoot and Arguments for the existence of Bigfoot be merged into one article called Existence of Bigfoot. I think would probably be a good idea, but I wanted to get the opinion from the parent article, so to speak. Does Bigfoot need another article or is this one sufficient? Kerowyn 03:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting idea. Martial Law 04:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge all into this article. Martial Law 04:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- What the heck? Those are just WP:FORK files from content already on this page. When we improve those sections here they stay unimproved over there. There's no need to even vote, those need to be redirected to the main article, because their existence is a violation of policy. DreamGuy 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- In any case, the Bigfoot article will need to be broken up eventually as it becomes bigger. Articles should stay relatively short if possible, and if not they should be broken up. See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. --Every1blowz 05:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- It actually needs to be trimmed down quite a bit as there's a lot of fluff on it. There shouldn't even be pro and con sections within this article, it should be discussed as one whole and not take sides back and forth. furthermore, if sections are eventually spun off, there are a lot more logical sections to do so with. The existence of Bigfoot... kind of has to be on the Bigfoot page, yaknow? DreamGuy 05:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-
I'll be bold and redirect these. I've no prejudice against moving content between the articles, but I agree that they should all be merged. Friday (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Whoops, I didn't even noticed they've already been redirected. In case anyone couldn't tell, this redirect looks like a good idea to me. Friday (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirects: yes, please. Splitting this article: no, it needs to be trimmed. android79 06:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Sweet. Thanks, guys and/or girls! Kerowyn 11:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- The article just needs to be trimmed? No, I don't think so.
- The current Bigfoot article is like 120kb! You'd have to do a ton of trimming to conform to 32kb standards. It's in this article's best interest to follow the simple guideline "Articles, other than lists, should aim to be less than 32kb in size." Although this is not policy, it’s a good idea nonetheless as the current article is much too cluttered. This may also give us the edge in becoming a featured article.
- Not to mention removing or otherwise trimming information is really defeating the purpose of Wikipedia. There is no such thing as "fluff" and I argue we should not remove anything as all information is valuable. Just rewrite some stuff to polish up the current article and split it up the rest.
- For instance, the current article can discuss what a sasquatch is and et cetera. The pro and con thing can go into another article named something to the effect of "Bigfoot controversy". --Every1blowz 00:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Leaving aside "there is no such thing as fluff" -- there most certainly is -- there are plenty of ways to shorten the article without removing information. Use more concise prose. Eliminate redundancy. Summarize and paraphrase quotations from references where appropriate. Not to mention that there's probably a lot of unverified, unsourced junk in there that we've missed. android79 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree with Andriod79 completely, and, more to the point, as I already stated, if we do have to split things off, there are much, MUCH, much better sections to split off than one so central to the entire topic. For example, many articles have split off the popular culture section to a new article to avoid having only marginally related trivia take up so much space, so we could have a Bigfoot in fiction or Bigfoot in popular culture article and save space there. We could trim the info on the Patterson movie. We could get rid of the alleged sightings as a list and have an article on all those (but then w'd have to watch that one like a hawk too, as people like to put unsourced and biased info there). An article like Bigfoot controversy is the last thing we should do.DreamGuy 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Concur absolutely with android and DreamGuy, with the exception of Bigfoot sightings, which I reserve judgment on. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Andriod79 completely, and, more to the point, as I already stated, if we do have to split things off, there are much, MUCH, much better sections to split off than one so central to the entire topic. For example, many articles have split off the popular culture section to a new article to avoid having only marginally related trivia take up so much space, so we could have a Bigfoot in fiction or Bigfoot in popular culture article and save space there. We could trim the info on the Patterson movie. We could get rid of the alleged sightings as a list and have an article on all those (but then w'd have to watch that one like a hawk too, as people like to put unsourced and biased info there). An article like Bigfoot controversy is the last thing we should do.DreamGuy 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Unsourced? Then we try to find sources. Removing stuff which cannot be verified is, I believe, a last resort rather than the priority.
- I can hardly believe that "Using more concise prose", etc. will shorten the article THAT much.
- Whether you like it or not, I think it’s obvious that as the Bigfoot article becomes larger it will be split up eventually by others. I think we might as well start now.
- --Every1blowz 01:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I agree absolutely we need to look for sources, as well as fix footnotes, and do cleanup. I regret that I cannot agree with you on splitting the article at this point - I think DreamGuy is correct, and we should split the article as appropriate, but I feel cleanup takes priority - we can organize and split intelligently that way, rather than be chasing bits of text back and forth across different articles, all needing attention. I feel we need to focus on organization and structure, and where to spin off child articles will become more clear. The article is overlength, true, but not horrendously so, and "desired" is not the same as "absolute upper limit" - there have been several FA's which were "overlength". One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
“Eliminate redundancy.” With an article so long, you cannot possibly hope to eliminate redundancy. Things will be duplicated and misplaced with so much editable text present.
Well anyway, since the majority disagrees with me then by popular vote the article will probably stay unsplit for a while. But for the meantime I do think that organization is the best option. Dreamguy has excellent ideas as to splitting up certain sections "Bigfoot in fiction" so if anyone decides to do it in the future please start there.--Every1blowz 01:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well in regards to the 32kb limit rule, that was created back in the day when most people had dial-up connections. It's no longer considered a hard-and-fast rule, more like actual guidelines. Kerowyn 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Correct, but it needs a savage haircut nonetheless. If ever there was an example where someone started with a theory and then amassed screeds of questionable "evidence" to try to prove the theory, this one is it. It's a true mess. . Moriori 03:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Is..
Is your keypad acting up User:Beckjord ? I had to replace one some time back, and now use one of those wireless models. I had accidentally spilled a coffee into the other keypad, and it was smoking real bad. This may explain some of your typos. Martial Law 02:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you've got messages for Beckjord, use his talk page, please. android79 02:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Beckjord blocked
I have blocked 205.208.227.49 for 48 hours for threats and disruption on this page.[6] Also Beckjord, while I was about it.[7]. See this edit for proof that they're the same. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC).
Article has given birth to new article
Visit Bigfoot Controversy .
See if it lasts one day.
Takes pressure off this article, since current editors __refuse__ to mention the issue.
luminary666Luminary666 07:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
!
! Martial Law 09:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Ever / Wikipedian Martial Law
Ever hear about the Wikipedian version of Martial Law User:Beckjord ? Here, it means the article is permanently "locked down" (protected) and only Admins. and those of higher ranks may edit the locked down article. All it takes is one more Edit War, one more personal attack, and some Admin may initiate the Wikipedian version of Martial Law. Other Editors, such as I will not be permitted to edit the affected article. We will have to recomend any and all edits in the article's discussion page, and hope a Admin will edit what was presented to the said article. This is the Wikipedian version of Martial Law.
As stated, this would be done to negate any and all Edit Wars. Even those editors using sock puppets would be negated on articles that have been placed under "Martial Law", and the Check User tool is also used on any and all suspected sockpuppets.
You want to edit, follow Wikipedian protocol and be civil at all times. I have not lied to you, am not lying to you, will not lie to you. Martial Law 10:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Simply put, this allows no disruptions at all. Martial Law 05:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- To other Wikipedians: I do apologise for any inconviences this may cause. This is intended to put a stop to any and all Edit wars, rampant vandalisim and personal attacks, etc. that may disrupt Wikipedia. Martial Law 10:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC) :)
-
- I love this site far too much to have it disrupted. Martial Law 10:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- To other Wikipedians: I do apologise for any inconviences this may cause. This is intended to put a stop to any and all Edit wars, rampant vandalisim and personal attacks, etc. that may disrupt Wikipedia. Martial Law 10:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC) :)
-
-
-
- as far as I'm concerned (not that a newbie's opinion matters) this article NEEDS to be locked down. There isn't a single other article on wikipedia that I'd say that about, but this thing is like a freight train full of chlorine that has derailed and is rolling down a hill towards a daycare center. Jafafa Hots 20:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Protection request
Martial Law has requested that this page article be protected until content disputes have been resolved. I would prefer that if there is consensus regarding this request, that it be made on WP:RFPP. The article is currently sprotected, which means unregistered and new accounts cannot edit it. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Martial Law worries a lot. The page doesn't seem to be in need of full protection. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Have either of you seen the latest attacks ? They've been reverted due to the disgusting nature. Martial Law 02:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Bigfoot hasn't been touched in 3 days. This page has, but if something pops up on this page occasionally that says I'm an asshole, I can live with that, as long as unsourced, unverified POV doesn't make it into the article. Semi-protecting the talk page, if the article is also so protected, would prevent any anonymous-user input to the article. At least with the talk page free, people can leave comments. android79 02:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Things must be getting bad when the article is stable but the talk page needs to be protected from edits. People might think we were working on an encyclopedia or something. Endomion 19:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Bigfoot hasn't been touched in 3 days. This page has, but if something pops up on this page occasionally that says I'm an asshole, I can live with that, as long as unsourced, unverified POV doesn't make it into the article. Semi-protecting the talk page, if the article is also so protected, would prevent any anonymous-user input to the article. At least with the talk page free, people can leave comments. android79 02:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Have either of you seen the latest attacks ? They've been reverted due to the disgusting nature. Martial Law 02:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- UNqualified newbie users and half-a&& admins are doing a lousy job on this article.
-
-
-
-
IF YOU HAVE NOT READ AT LEAST FIVE OF THE BOOKS LISTED, STAY AWAY! If you never played golf, do not write about golf.
%^&*()
Bigfoot Hunters
Can I get a ruling on this link: Sasquatch Odyssey Homepage This site has a few Bigfoot hunters on it, incl. pixes. If this is a good link, can it be placed ? Martial Law 02:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's an ad. Moriori 02:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
And this link:CFZ Homepage Martial Law 02:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Add Wikipedia:External links to your policy reading list. android79 03:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
More silliness ML. Your link was to a website dedicated to "the study of unknown animals." ML, as they would obviously include Bigfoot in their study, shouldn't we remove all physical descriptions of Biggie from Wikipedia articles. As he's an unknown animal, then we can't possibly describe him. No? ):-. Moriori 03:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
That's two links that are going nowhere. Had to find out. Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 03:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Bigfoot Museum
Can I get this examined: Bigfoot Museum Homepage. Is this link a good one ? It appears to be a scholarly link. Martial Law 07:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Science Link
This link is to a website that examines matters in a scientific manner. Here, they're examining Bigfoot. This link is:How Stuff Works:Bigfoot Martial Law 08:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Only following protocol to help cut out nonsense. Martial Law 08:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
From USA TODAY
This one is from USA TODAY Martial Law 08:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
This one as well
Bigfoot Discovery Project. Is this one any good ? Martial Law 08:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Yes. It is a BF museum in Felton,CA. My work is on display.
beckjord205.208.227.49 09:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Really do appreciate the assisstance with these 4 links. Martial Law 21:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- The template says to discuss any and all changes, incl. these links. Martial Law 00:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC) :)
-
- Really do appreciate the assisstance with these 4 links. Martial Law 21:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Martial Law...do me a favor...please use Google and do a search query of "bigfoot + hoax" These websites you're finding are just websites. They are not from reputable scientific journals, academic institutions, or government agencies. Anyone can set up a website and put whatever they want in it, but they are not going to be scientific. None of the links you have provided here are credible, sorry.--MONGO 21:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Would have to agree here with MONGO on this one. Some of the websites you have mentioned are information poor in respects that they seem to "borrow" information from other websites. And some have not been updated with anything new and interesting. The only thing that peaked my interest was the book Making of Bigfoot by Greg Long about the Patterson-Gimlin film being a hoax. He even had the "individual" who wore the suit. It was rather disappointing due to the fact the conclusion he came up with was rather lame and nothing new. MarcusTCicero 00:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
-
Greg Long
Well intentioned, a 7TH dAY aDVENTIST, but on wrong track with 5'10" Bob Hieronimus. An unlikely hoaxer. Met him. Not impressed. Blind in one eye.
beckjord205.208.227.49 09:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This page is a forum page
Many outsiders come to see the sparks fly.
Beckjord205.208.227.49 09:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
A Suggested Link
You might want to try this website Bigfoot Encounters Martial Law. Has a really good collection of newspaper articles, sightings reports, and other items related to the Bigfoot question.
Something else you might want to be aware of. And believe you have experienced here is the rift between the different types of bigfoot "researchers". Basicly there is a difference of opinion of if Bigfoot is flesh and blood verses the views already expressed here. And they get heated. There was a really good forum board, Bigfootforums.com, that had some really good discussions going on. However, do to a hacker it is offline for now. Please note, do not mistake this one for the .net one. MarcusTCicero 07:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
For a little bit of humor, Sasquatch Militia MarcusTCicero 13:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC) this articule sucks...... what a interesting observation, what exactly is a articule? MarcusTCicero 00:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Bigfootforums.com
Is offline due to nonpayment of server. But there is a link where Beckjord and others formerly banned, are raising hell, and nobody there has any decent replies. Try also http://www.bigfootforums.net forum run by beckjord
beckjord205.208.227.49 09:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Alright Erik, let us play nice-nice, ok? Do not cut up posted topics and replies. I do not appreciate people moving my replies around like that unless there is a reason to do so. MarcusTCicero 14:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
New terms in Bigfoot world
"Earthly f&b" -- means flesh and blood like a dog, bear or human.
"Non-Earthly F&B" = means carries in with it, the F&B traits it had in another universe. Like not getting killed, telepathy, mind reading, weight of 5000 lbs. Etc.
Memorize, do not forget.
beckjord205.208.227.49 09:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
IF
Question:'If someone had brought one in, would the news services carry the news ? Some people claim it'll be "covered up". I've heard these rumors on Coast to Coast AM and seen similar rumors on Jeff Rense's website. I'm not being uncivil,etc at all, just asking if one of these things were captured, would the news services carry the news ? Martial Law 07:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You would'nt believe what is on the Internet,etc. Martial Law 07:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, the media would be all over it...it would be the biggest story of it's type ever...no reporter would stay away...it would make the recent finding of what was thought to be an extinct bird (Ivory-billed woodpecker) look like no news at all.--MONGO 08:27, 20
Jan 06 UTC
all of you who discuss capture
are morons. No capture-will-ever-happen.
Under what rock have you been hiding? get truth http://www.bigfoot.org
I mean EGADS!
beckjord205.208.227.49 09:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Where is Beckjord ?
Really, where is he ? Martial Law 09:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I believe he is back.MarcusTCicero 14:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Guns
What is the best weapon to use when hunting something as LARGE as this creature ? Seriously. I was told that a "Bernudi Slug"(a type of shotgun ammo, which can take out several engine blocks) is the best for this. I favor the explosive round personally. Even a .22 cal bullet can be rigged to be a explosive round. Martial Law 09:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
This knowledge comes from a military upbringing. Martial Law 09:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course I'm not actually going to go after it. Its just that others who have read this article, the tabloid articles, have actually seen one may actually try to hunt this thing. Martial Law 09:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be wise to offer assistance to anyone reading this on what weapon is the best if they intend to go bigfoot hunting.--MONGO 10:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Martial Law this one of the top ten heavily discussed and debated topics on any forum board about Bigfoot. I have in my travels on the internet forum boards about Bigfoot have read many of these topics concerning types of weapons to use to hunt it. They have ranged from large caliber handguns to field artillery. It sort of one those topics of my gun is bigger than your gun debates. These type of discussion topics do get rather humorous after awhile. MarcusTCicero 12:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Now you know why Law Enforcement does'nt want people hunting this thing, other than someone getting hurt or even killed by someone who'll shoot first, ask questions later. Rural people will shoot and kill tresspassers, since there is hardly any law enforcement in rural areas. Martial Law 07:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I think that is a bit of sterotype regarding Rural people shooting tresspassers. Actually you more likely to get shot during hunting season by the people who travel from the big city to go hunting. I have witnessed some of these idots do things that I wish law enforcement was around to arrest them. And most likely it would be the Wildlife Division responsible with the protection and enforcement when it comes to wildlife issues. MarcusTCicero 13:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- What would you do if you had seen this thing ? After all, I've seen many documentaries on TV, heard on the radio that skeptics actually want a body of this thing. Reason is this: Pixes can be faked, people could be lying or are idiots, evidence is sparse at best. Now you know why people will try to bring in a body, in spite of what law enforcement indicates, in spite of laws against taking a Bigfoot in some areas of the world. Only being truthful, no more, no less. Martial Law 08:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If I saw this thing? Hmmm? I hope that I have my camera, instead of weapon, and clean shorts, LOL. MarcusTCicero 13:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I do apologise if I had been in error at all. Martial Law 08:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No errors at all, it good to question rather than just accept things blindly. MarcusTCicero 13:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Currently, I am in a rural area, and the people here will shoot and kill intruders. Cheers. Martial Law 21:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC) :)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
all of you are morons who discuss guns
GOD! --- don't you get it? Bigfoot (hairy humanoids) can-not-be-killed!
Not even a 20 mm cannon, or an 8 inch shell.
Under WHAT ROCK have you been hiding?
beckjord205.208.227.49 09:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Warning sarcastic remark, Thank you for those kind words and comments, the Morons of the world appreciate it, end of sarcastic remark. Why must you throw insults at others? Didn't your mother tell you it that it isn't nice to call others names? MarcusTCicero 13:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Monitoring vandalism
This tool may be useful in monitoring vandalism rates and deciding whether to lift semi-protection status. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tony, that looks very useful. I've been mulling lifting the semi-prot for a couple days now; the drop in vandalism has been apparent even without the help of your nifty graphs. android79 18:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
IF
If this thing is a alien, what is it and its point of origin ? I've seen evidence on Google that it may be a demon to the religious fundamentalists, a spirit guide of some sort for the New Agers, and, yes, people has shot at it. Input the following in Google: 1. Killing bigfoot, 2. Bigfoot as a alien, 3. Bigfoot as a demon, 4. Bigfoot. The listings go on and on. Martial Law 21:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- where is bf from? how should we know? Just not from here.
- snort!
- Martial Law: We're writing an encyclopedia here. Wikipedia isn't an appropriate place to have speculative conversations about Bigfoot being an alien, demon, or Elvis. There are a lot of other message boards out there for that sort of thing. Here, we report data from reliable sources. That's it. As many have told you, over and over, googling for "bigfoot" almost never turns up a reliable source. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Grapeboy, There are no "reliable sources" re Bigfoot. Don't you get it?
- The old,old souirces just have unabswered questiuons and no findings except failure.
- And trhere is no "we" here. Just neurotic admins and users on collision cources.
- You butter is melting.
- Forth force from Danubia
-
-
- You're wrong. There are plenty of reliable sources; they just don't say what you want them to say. What the reliable sources say is that nobody has reliable information about Bigfoot, but what information we do have points to legend and hoax. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-
totally wrong grapeboy
Your head is so far up your ### it not even amusing. Sadly, your POV is typical here. State the "reliable sources" and state what things you think I want them to say. That means you use words, and write them here, not just implications and hints.
Bigfooty (hairy humanoids) are/is a murky topic and little is, proven. The sleptics so far, are correct that ther is no verified zoological Bigfoot species. On this I agree. I wonder if you read this and are not just dashing about reverting things all over?
Now, STATE THE RELIABLE SOURCES . Who are they and why are they reliable?
(This is sooooooooo fucked.) Do I assume good will? Hell no. Are wikians nice? Nope.
Now, for all you idiots here, which is 90%, here is what I am trying to do, which most of you ignore, and gloss over in your mad rush to have power with no credentials and no names, by reverting all over, all over, all over, all pages.
"The goal of most Wikians is NOT to write good articles, but rather to get power so they can freeze articles, do more reverts, and tell ordinary users what to do, which in meatspace, they cannot do, being nobodies with no names." --Jon-Erik Beckjord
Bold text I SEEK ONE OR TWO INTELLIGENT ADMINS OR BUREACRATS WHO REALLY, REALLY WANT THE BIGFOOT AND PG FILM ARTICLES TO BE ACCURATE AND UP TO DATE. I can submit info and references to them, and they can insert them into the articles, with proper wikian references. I am writing a book and a screenpaly for tv, and have no time to waste becoming a good Wiki editor. Let others who know, do that. I am really doing wiki a favor by this, and anyone who thinks this is all a game on MY part, is simply deluded. I just see bad,bad,bad, outdatedinfo, and weird power-hungry anonymous freaks playing power trip games. I have zero respect for 90% of the people I see here. I'm looking for some actual "INTELLIGENT" PEOPLE who have an interest in the topic. Contact me at rudy@stealthaccess.net for privacy, or on my user page or here, if you really want everybody to see what you do and think, which is realllly weird, imho.
I do this since BF page is really a popular page, and may be getting more hits than any Bigfoot site anywhere. Yet, Wiki feeds the readers old, old, outdated info by really bad authors, like Pyle, (not an ecologist, BTW) instead of John Green or Peter Guttilla. Image:Http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/ebsuit.jpgBold text
beckjord205.208.227.49 07:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Beckjord...no personal attacks. Nothing you want in the articles will ever be in there under any circumstance if all you do is call everyone an idiot, or state things like "Your head is so far up your ### it not even amusing". That kind of behavior doesn't have to be tolerated by anyone and that is why their is arbitration filed against you.--MONGO 07:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
RE: Martial Law, Bigfoot Question
Martial Law, It seems you are some what interested in the Bigfoot question. I would suggest that you look into a couple books that help with understanding it. One, I will highly recommend is John Green's book, Sasquatch - Apes Among Us. This is a prized book by those who do research and investigations into this. John Green spent some time in gathering information and witness stories. It is sort of a primer for those who are really into finding a answer. Another is Chris Murphy's book, Meet the Sasquatch. Another interesting book to read. It approachs the question from the researcher point of view. I think you would find them both a great read and help with all these questions you have. Good luck and happy hunting MarcusTCicero 03:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Will do. Are you a Coast To Coast AM listener ? a Jeff Rense radio show listener ? These two shows have, from time to time, various Bigfoot researchers, and on the Coast To Coast AM show, the listeners are permitted to call in to ask questions, report their experiences, as long as there is NO profanity/obscene language involved. Martial Law 04:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) :)
-
-
-
-
- I did listen to the Jeff Rense show when the the book by Greg Long, Making of Bigfoot, came out. This was going to the tell all book about Roger Patterson and the infamous footage. Instead of being a run away best seller, it flopped.MarcusTCicero 05:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
?
Link is: Bigfoot Investigative Organization. Is this one credible ? Function of this is to investigate any and all Bigfoot reports, and conduct research. Martial Law 08:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Nope...they are just trying to get your money from you.--MONGO 08:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- That is one link that is definately going nowhere. Martial Law 21:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Bluenorth
Run by one guy, is one guy, a gun-toten state welfare fraud investigator who, to his credit, did start the technique of "call blasting".
Request to intelligent admins, bureaucrats, etc for edit
I saw this and it is a good idea.:
Quote: (Beckjord) I SEEK ONE OR TWO INTELLIGENT ADMINS OR BUREACRATS WHO REALLY, REALLY WANT THE BIGFOOT AND PG FILM ARTICLES TO BE ACCURATE AND UP TO DATE. I can submit info and references to them, and they can insert them into the articles, with proper wikian references. I am writing a book and a screenpaly for tv, and have no time to waste becoming a good Wiki editor. Let others who know, do that. I am really doing wiki a favor by this, and anyone who thinks this is all a game on MY part, is simply deluded. I just see bad,bad,bad, outdatedinfo, and weird power-hungry anonymous freaks playing power trip games. I have zero respect for 90% of the people I see here. I'm looking for some actual "INTELLIGENT" PEOPLE who have an interest in the topic. Contact me at rudy@stealthaccess.net for privacy, or on my user page or here, if you really want everybody to see what you do and think, which is realllly weird, imho.
I do this since BF page is really a popular page, and may be getting more hits than any Bigfoot site anywhere. Yet, Wiki feeds the readers old, old, outdated info by really bad authors, like Pyle, (a dilettante, BTW) instead of John Green or Peter Guttilla.
>>>an idea whose time has come<<<
Jacob
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
- Just because Pyle didn't try to milk his whistling midnight visitor's footprints for cash doesn't make him a dilettante, it makes him a biologist who is wary of hoaxes. Ruby 21:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Pyle
99.9% of all Bigfoot researchers do not try to "milk cash" from seeing a set of tracks. Believe it or not, most are just seeking evidence for the truth.
Pyle never did any __serious__ sustained research.
Foxy
Who are...
Who are these two personnel: John Green and Peter Guttilla ? Martial Law 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Any "paper" on these two ? Martial Law 21:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
"Paper" in this context is this: Any info. on these two people ? Martial Law 21:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
.....>>>>>> John Green - famous author. "Sasquatch:the Apes among us" Hancock House Publishres, BC Canada, 19878 ISBN-0-88839-018-1
>>>>>>>Peter Guttilla - "The Bigfoot Files" Timeless Voyager Press, 2003, ISBN 1-892264-15-3
BIgfoot Sighting by family
Hello! These pictures are fantastic. We would just like to share this story. we are doing so after hearing the re-broadcast of Robert. W. Morgon tonight on Art Bell from 2001. In Jan of 2001 in the early morning around 4 to 5am, my husband and his fishing buddy of 11 years were fishing in Roosevelt Lake right where the Mogollon Rim borders the area. His buddy saw the figure first and , could not figure out what it was and quickly told my husband to look . My husband looked where he was pointing and saw what looked like a 9 foot tall man covered in dark brown hair walking quickly along the mountain ridge above them perhaps less than 100 feet away.. He said it was extrordinary because the "man" was taking huge strides unlike a human could walk and was able to walk the entire ridge in five minutes or less. He said the being swung it's arms as it walked and walked straight ahead. For a second, he wondered what a man was doing up on the ridge?It begun to dawn on them this was no man!They were able to view the hairy being" for five whole minutes.He said you couldn't miss it. It was HUGE and certainly from that distance it had to be. He said it had huge long arms, but not like an ape, and long hairy legs but not ape like. My husband said there is no way it could be a human since the area it was walking in was inaccessible, as there is no ingress or egress up there. his buddy shook his head in disbelief and said he;'d never tell anyone what he saw. But my husband is convinced the huge 9 foot tall early morning strider is abosolutely 100 percent BigFoot. He said there is no way it was a man because of the way it looked. when we heard the Broadcast tonight , Morgon validated that BigFoot sightings have occured around The Mogollon Rim. And that BigFoot families do live around there. We believe it !My husband knows they saw something most unsual that morning, and that it was something other than human as we know it. Thanks for allowing us to share this true story. BigFoot is not a myth! They exist, as my husband saw firsthand. Stephanie Stevens foxy loxy
- Brrrrr. If I had been fishing up there in January I would also have been sipping moonshine all through the night to keep warm. As the area was inaccessible, without ingress or egress, did the fisherman fly in there on a UFO? ):- Moriori 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Roosevelt Lake. Some people might hike in. Even in Jan. ( Harry Dickens)
- Becky, they can't. Got a short term memory problem? Let me remind you that you said -- the area was inaccessible, without ingress or egress'. So please explain how anyone could hike in?
- Roosevelt Lake. Some people might hike in. Even in Jan. ( Harry Dickens)
-
- AZ is not famous for heavy snowfall. The point is that researchers get hundreds of similar reports, from people who do not need fame, do not need money, and just want to repport what they encountered. Often, researchers may, as I have, go to such places, and sometimes, not always, they fnd tracks, or make sightings, or get photos of creatures they did not see directly. And yes, yes, some reports are faked, but our experience is that most of them are not, and are submitted by honest people who seek answers. The photo and follow up photos re "Old Yellowtop" were taken as part of such a followup effort. See http://www.bigfoot.org photos Then of course, many other followups result in nothing. Wikians should understand that despite some big nothing efforts by hoaxers, that the great majority of of researchers and also witnesses are jut good plain honest folks who want to help solve this mystery. 5%-10% are hoaxes, and the rest mostly not so. Now understand that a report is not "proof", and only a dead body is proof of a zoological flesh and blood creature. We know this. It is not news to us. Harry Dickens
- Not entirely true Becky. A live body would be proof. No? Funny thing is that no-one has ever produced one, or even a whisker of DNA to prove that Biggie is anything but the result of imagination. Funny thing that! Moriori 06:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- AZ is not famous for heavy snowfall. The point is that researchers get hundreds of similar reports, from people who do not need fame, do not need money, and just want to repport what they encountered. Often, researchers may, as I have, go to such places, and sometimes, not always, they fnd tracks, or make sightings, or get photos of creatures they did not see directly. And yes, yes, some reports are faked, but our experience is that most of them are not, and are submitted by honest people who seek answers. The photo and follow up photos re "Old Yellowtop" were taken as part of such a followup effort. See http://www.bigfoot.org photos Then of course, many other followups result in nothing. Wikians should understand that despite some big nothing efforts by hoaxers, that the great majority of of researchers and also witnesses are jut good plain honest folks who want to help solve this mystery. 5%-10% are hoaxes, and the rest mostly not so. Now understand that a report is not "proof", and only a dead body is proof of a zoological flesh and blood creature. We know this. It is not news to us. Harry Dickens
kindly reply to Moriori
1) many reports change the date and even location, to "protect" Bigfoot from shooters. I doubt anyone is fishing in January, but that may be the reason. The basic report jibes well with thousands of others. Vist http://www.bfro.net or http://www.bfro.org for 10,000 reports. Ignore the owner, see the reports.
2) To many, the world is black or white. But there is grey. Yes, there is NO acceptable zoological evidence for Bigfoot. Yet, it is seen often, and even photogaphed. Why? Perhaps, maybe, as a theory, they may come in via space-time, as ufos may also. And have non-earthly f&b char. See wiki's most famous BF researcher on this http://www.beckjord.com/wormholesinuse If it was good enough for Einstein, it's good enough for you. Remember, this is NOT proven fact. Never said it was. Got that?
I did love Lucy
- Speaking of Einstein, I see you have adopted his advice where he said "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." As soon as someone points out the absurdity of your "facts" that two people were in an area that they could not get to, fishing in the middle of winter, early in the morning when it was as cold as charity, when it was as dark as the inside of a cow (pre mutilation), and they watched something walk the entire length of a ridge - you change the "facts". Anyway Becky, at least you agree there is no zoological evidence for Biggie. Can we quote you on the Biggie page?
_____________________________________________________
Mn Twins guy
Something "verifiable" by being quoted in a journal does not mean it is true or false. You guys will quote even the worst garbage simply because someone wrote it down and got it into a newspaper. For reports, you can only compare them to existing ones, and this one jibes well. One of the only two skeptics to actually go into the woods looking for Bigfoot, Dr, Molly Hanson, found tracks on her own near this lake area, in AZ, and became a believer!
Have a good baseball day
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Legitimate to add links to photo sites
- re alleged Bigfoot, and alleged photos. Nothing wrong with letting readers view alleged photos.
Paul
Grapeboy,android
Readers of wiki come here in droves,and WILL read the corrected version of the article in the thousands, between idiot reverts by you guys. Some will see your junk, some will see the truth. Tne game goes on.
Billybob
Protection Template
Just complying w/ the template. Martial Law 23:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
WHAT TEMPLATE?
where???
- $@%^&*()
Smokey Crabtree
Can I get a ruling on this link ? Smokey's Book about the Fouke, Arkansas Monster Martial Law 06:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Why would you want to link to a book that has never ever been sold in bookstores? Moriori 00:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Bravo! Smokey Crabtree is a full of **** like Android79. Another ARK. bser like Clinton.
Just words, words, words. "Ah deed this and Ah seen thet" etc.
Moriori how about you doing a cleanup here and connecting the proposed changes with references that are mentioned from the authors at bottom? Most people here are dead-head cop types who love to use unearned authority. Maybe you can assist.
zz
That template says I have to bring any info here first. Martial Law 06:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Need help here. Just complying w/ this template. Martial Law 07:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
From Arkansas Travel
This is from the Arkansas Travel a state tourisim magazine:Arkansas Tourist magazine: Fouke Monster Martial Law 06:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
From...
This is from one of Arkanasas's news archives:Fouke Monster in the news Martial Law 07:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
From the Texarkana Gazette
This is from the Texarkana Gazette:From the Texarkana Gazette: The Fouke Monster, Arkansas's Bigfoot Martial Law 00:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Link from this newspaper is this: Arkansas's Bigfoot Martial Law 00:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Edit request approval
Bigfoot has been reported in China. Dr Frank Poirer, Ohio State Un Anthro. Many articles in International Society of Cryptozoology. Also RUSSIA. Dmitri bayanov, "On the Track of the Russian Snowman." Also Austalia. The famed Yowie.
WHY IS THIS EDIT BEING RESISTED? Android79? DreamGuy?
Why do you resist this addition? It is ALL OVER THE LITERATURE.
It is like denying 2+2=4
bf RESEARCHER
- Show me the DNA analysis. Ruby 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
>>>>> repeated additions are made, that add that Bigfoot is seen and noted world wide, and you, and others, efFectively delEte them by doing reverts. This info is COMMON KNOWLEDGE, and authors Green, Krantz,Bayanov, and others, listed in the references section, ALL MAKE REFERENCVE TO THIS. Bigfoot is seen in Australia, Russia, China, South America, etc.
How about YOU, Android79, adding these locations? If you do not, it is like removing yellow, blue and brown from the crayon box. I'd love to add more choice words, but....(deleTed, deleted, censored). !!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU INFURIATE ME. Do something positive, instead of being a mindless Minnesota Twins fan, and COP! You need to work for Stalin's NKVD, back in time.
tHERE ARE no RELIABLE, REPUTABLE SOURCES, AND PYLE IS A BUTTERFLY COLLECTOR, NOT PRACTICING PROFESSiONAL ECOLOGIST and this is not a topic for "ecology" anyway.
ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!
Basically, I do enough field work on this, that I should not have to become a Wiki bullshit expert as well. YOU DO IT. Become useful. Apply your pedantry and do something wothwhile with your miserable life.
xx
-
-
-
-
-
- User:Beckjord, you'll need the link that states what you're stating, so it can be examined. I have to, due to a template on this article, state links and the like here first. Martial Law 01:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm only being truthful here, nothing more, nothing less. Martial Law 01:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC) :)
-
-
- User:Beckjord, you'll need the link that states what you're stating, so it can be examined. I have to, due to a template on this article, state links and the like here first. Martial Law 01:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
>> What template? Where? What makes you think anyone knows about it? And what IS a template? Since Android79 is a useless piece of **** how about you quit telling us how you "do not lie" and put yourself to work, reading the references, and adding items so idiots like Android will be happy. ?? Forget Fouke, do some work here.
xxx
xx
-
-
-
-
-
- The template is on the article itself, has a depiction of a padlock in it. It is in the top of the article. Lets keep things civil, shall we.
-
-
-
-
Martial Law 20:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
If it is a book, list it. if it is a website, list it. Same with newspapers and the like.
Martial Law 21:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any contact data for the publications that you are citing, User:Beckjord ? Martial Law 00:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
WHO KNOWS HOW MANY HITS THIS BIGFOOT ARTICLE GETS PER DAY?
any way to find out? Relative popularity within Wiki page. Wiki is said to be no. 34 in web ranking. How many hits a day is this? What is best estimate of Bigfoot article hits?
WHO WILL BE A HERO AND RESEARCH THIS?
adurrruuff,
- I don't think we have any tools to actually tell us that. I've never seen info regarding page hits for any particular Wikipedia page. The answer might be fewer than you'd expect — Wikipedia as a whole may be the #34 web site, but we've got almost a million articles now... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding your other issue - could you write up something neutral (ie, something that doesn't take Bigfoot's existence as a given) regarding Bigfoot in other countries, citing specific page numbers in your resources, and also, perhaps, addressing confusion with yetis or other non-bigfoot cryptozoological entities? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
we on the editing coop
neVer take Bigfoot as a given. We are always careful to say "the alleged Bigfoot" or the "unproven bigfoot". IOHO, the other negative editors REFUSE TO TAKE NOTE OF THAT. Anyway, the "so called Bigfoot", the unproven Bigfoot, is alleged to have been seen (what nonsense to do this..), maybe, in an unproven way, (got it?) in China, in Russia, in Australia, in South America.
You know, whenever we mention the word Bigfoot, it is ALWAYS A GIVEN that this is an unproven animal.So, it is NOT proven, it is Not a fact, it is not verified by zoologists. OK??
ok??? ok???OK????? Jesus!!!!!! You pedants. DO YOU UNDERSTAND, NOT PROVEN!!!!!
christ!!!!CHRIST!!!!!JESUS!!!!!OK???????????????????
Now, you want references? We have put these in 500 times.
John Green (listed below), Dr John Bindernagel, (listed below) Dmitri Bayanov (listed below)
these are all in the master list of books as references below IN THIS ARTICLE.
And frankly, none of you are going to buy one of these books and search for the page.
But all of them list this. WHY IS THIS SUCH AN ISSUE?????????????
And note the alleged Bigfoot is often the same as the alleged Yowie, the Alleged Ye-ren,
and the alleged unproven ALMAS. Just different names for the same this,until proven otherwise.
Did you assume that because a different name is used, that this makes it a "different" animal or creature?
We need some Bigfoot-savvy editors. None here so far.
Now, you want to gave wrong info to 10,000 people a day? LOOKS LIKE YOU DO.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRUMPH!
-
-
-
- Do a Google Search: Wikipedia/Bigfoot Hits. Done this. It gets a estimated 10,000 hits a day. Martial Law 00:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Still need
We still need the source info. that you are citing. Is it a newspaper ? Is it a website ? Please be civil. Martial Law 00:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
books,books,books
all those in ther reference section in the article. all of them.
they all agree.
WHY DON;T YOU READ SOME???? Go to the library, do a google search.
grrrrrrrrrrrr!
LOOK!
"Bigfoot, also called Sasquatch, is described as a large, bipedal apelike creature living in the remote wilderness areas of the United States and Canada, 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."
This gives a FALSE impression that this phenomenon is only in the USA!
What about Russia? Aus? China? etc!
How can wikians be so stupid? Get out the THREE STOOGES MALLET!
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sEEKER sAM
tHIS GUY IS AN IDIOT, also a liar.
The Patterson-Gimlin film shows a creature that is definitely not a bear, and this film was for a long time considered the strongest evidence for Bigfoot. However, Wallace claimed to have been involved in hoaxing the film, and opinions remain divided as to the film's authenticity. Many experts have judged it as a hoax, Napier among them. In late 2005 the film was stabilized to make the action clearer. It can be seen here, and clearly shows the action of a man walking. See Patterson-Gimlin film for further information.
iT DOES NOT CLEARLY SHOW A MAN. The limb ratios are all different from a man. Dr Jeff Meldrum.
But it could be a humanoid.
grrrr!
who says alleged Bigfoot is seen in other countries?
all these people:
Bayanov, Dmitri, "America's Bigfoot: Fact, Not Fiction," 1997, Crypto-Logos, ISBN 5-900229-22-X Bourne, Geoffrey H and Maury Cohen, "The Gentle Giants: The Gorilla Story," 1975, G.P. Putnam's Sons, ISBN 399115285 Bryant, Vaughn M . and Burleigh Trevor-Deutch, "Analysis of Feces and Hair Suspected to be of Sasquatch Origin" (in Halpin and Ames) Byrne, Peter, "The Search for Bigfoot: Monster, Man or Myth," Acropolis Books, 1975, ISBN 0874911591 Clark, Jerome, "Unexplained! 347 Strange Sightings, Incredible Occurrences and Puzzling Physical Phenomena," Visible Ink, 1993, ISBN 0810394367 Coleman, Loren and Jerome Clark, "Cryptozoology A to Z," Fireside Books, 1999, ISBN 0684856026 Coleman, Loren and Patrick Huyghe, "The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide," 1999, Avon Books, ISBN 0380802635 Coon, Carelton, "Why Sasquatch Must Exist" (in Markotic and Krantz) Daegling, David J, "Bigfoot Exposed: An Anthropologist Examines America's Enduring Legend," Altamira Press, 2004, ISBN 0759105391 Gill, George "Population Clines of the North American Sasquatch as Evidenced by Track Lengths and Average Status" (in Halpin and Ames) Guttilla, Peter, "The Bigfoot Files", Timeless Voyager Press, 2003, ISBN 1-892264-15-3 Halprin, Marjorie, "The Tsimshan Monkey Mask and Sasquatch" (in Halpin and Ames) Halpin, Marjorie and Michael Ames, editors, "Manlike Monsters on Trial: Early Records and Modern Evidence", University of British Columbia Press, 1980, ISBN 0774801190 Hunter, Don with Rene Dahinden, "Sasquach/Bigfoot: The Search for North America's Incredible Creature," Firefly Books, 1993, ISBN 1895565286 Krantz, Grover S., "Big Footprints: A Scientific Inquiry into the Reality of Sasquatch," Johnson Books, 1992, Markotic, Vladimir and Grover Krantz, editors, "The Sasquatch and Other Unknown Primates," Western Publishers, 1984, ISBN 0919119107 Mozino, Jose Mariano, Noticas de Nutka: An Account of Nootka Sound, Iris Higbe Wilson, editor and traslator, University of Washington Press, 1970 Napier, John "Bigfoot: The Sasquatch and Yeti in Myth and Reality," 1973, E.P. Dutton, ISBN 0525066586 Powell, Thom, "The Locals" , Hancock House, 2003, ISBN 0-88839-552-3 Pyle, Robert Michael, "Where Bigfoot Walks," Houghton Mifflin, 1995, ISBN 0395441145 Shakley, Myra, "Wildman: Yeti, Sasquatch and the Neanderthal Enigma," Thames and Hudson, 1973 Sprague, Roderick, "Carved Stone Heads of the Columbia and Sasquatch" (in Halpin and Ames) Sprague, Roderick and Grover Krantz, editors, "A Scientist Looks at the Sasquatch II," University Press of Idaho, 1978, ISBN 0893010618 Suttles, Wayne, "On the Cultural Track of Sasquatch" (in Sprage and Krantz) Wasson, Barbara, Sasquatch Apparitions: A Critique on the Pacific Northwest Hominoid, 1979, self-published, ISBN 0961410507
See also Almas - Mongolia's Bigfoot Barmanou - Afghanistan and Pakistan's Bigfoot Brenin Llwyd - A Welsh Bigfoot Ebu Gogo - A similar creature from the Flores Islands of Indonesia; and Orang Pendak - A similar creature from Sumatra in Indonesia Fear liath - A Scottish Bigfoot Nguoi Rung - Vietnam's Bigfoot Patterson-Gimlin film Sasquatch - A super hero named after the creature Skunk Ape - Florida's Bigfoot Woodwose - Medieval Europe's Bigfoot Yeren - China's Bigfoot Yowie - Australia's Bigfoot
External links Texas Bigfoot Research Center for information about Bigfoot in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas & Louisiana Sasquatch Research Initiative (SRI) - an association of independent researchers investigating Sasquatch in the US and Canada. Georgia Bigfoot Investigating the Bigfoot Phenomenon in Georgia West Coast Sasquatch For information on Sasquatch in British Columbia, Canada Hancock House is the synopsis of the book the picture at the top of this page was taken from Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization Indiana Bigfoot Awareness Group for information about Bigfoot in Indiana and surrounding states. Pennsylvania Bigfoot Society for information about Bigfoot on the East Coast "Bigfoot" - from the Skeptic's Dictionary (includes other such stories) "Lovable trickster created a monster with Bigfoot hoax" Information on Sivapithecus the common ancestor to both orangutans and Gigantopithecus "Wallace Hoax Behind Bigfoot?" - a Bigfoot supporters view "Is Bigfoot Really Dead?" - by cryptozoologist and Bigfoot supporter Loren Coleman Does Bigfoot exist? Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot" Categories: Semi-protected | Legendary creatures | Bigfoot | Hominid cryptids | Cryptids | Pseudoscience
got it? zzzzzz222222
Definition of Vandalism
"Vandalism is when you edit and change things I had edited and changed."
behemoth
Bigfoot alleged sighting
I remember seeing something about shapeshifting. Bigfoot possibly changing into odd looking people. A few years back my brother and I were hiking up the north side of Mt. Hood in Oregon. We were headed up the trail towards Elliot Glacier. At this point the the trail is somewhat like a knife edge. Up ahead we could see dust being blown UP the side of the canyon. We were thinking it was possibly rock fall causing this. As we came further up the trail, we saw a "man" sitting at the edge of the canyon throwing rocks and causing the dust blowing. I decided to take some pictures of him. From where we were, he could not see us. I zoomed in on him and he instantly looked directly into my lense. Now, I was hiding behind a rock and some Alpine fir trees. As I looked at him I realized that he didn't look like your average hiker or backbacker. He was wearing old ratty bib overalls, only one strap was buckled. That was it, no shirt, and I don't remember if he was wearing shoes or not. The odd thing was he was HAIRY. He also had a crudely shaved head, and a large browridge. His facial features were very neanderthal looking. This guy was weird. He continued throwing rocks and we continued up the trail. When we were even with him, I said Hi, hows it going. He turned slowly looked me in the eye and let out this ODD glutteral sound, I said "pardon me?", he puffed his cheeks and did it again !! I just kinda figuerd he was some weirdo hanging out at like 6000 ft. I didn't think much of it until I saw the post on shapeshifting. I would also like to add that I am a beleiver in Sasquatch. I had an experience in 1996? on Mt Hood just below Timberline Lodge. Only vocals and scent, no sighting. I will try to find the slides of the stranger near Elliot Glacier and e-mail them to you and see what you think. Thank you and take care. Also feel free to e-mail with any questions you have. Brother Cain
Note; "Bigfoot" can be any odd variation on humanoid that involves lots of hair.
Posted on Jan 24, 2006, 12:53 PM from IP address 24.22.58.169
by Able
