Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 7

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

What is "WikiProject Rational Skepticism"?

Seems that this project has been added to just about every paranormal article in Wikipedia. I address this group this way. If I had wanted to read about the Skeptical Inquirer, I would had gone to their website, not Wikipedia. What is your purpose in editing every single paranormal article. Lets look at Crop Circles. It has been proven that at least a few of the circles are not man made. Yet it appears that this group has been allowed to totally declare the entire article a HOAX. And I look at this article about Bigfoot and suddenly it has changed from last time I saw it. Now it reads like a page from the Skeptics Encyclopedia. Some say improvement is good, but to totally twist the meaning of the original article to where it reads like a Skeptical Inquirer Encyclopedia entry is not acceptable in my opinion. I am very skeptical of several things but I do not believe in editing them to meet my views. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, not all scientist say Bigfoot is not real. A vast majority say, "Show me more evidence." and many more have open minds on the subject. A lot more than the Skeptics are giving credit to.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jane Goodall and Numerous Other Scientists say that Bigfoot Does Exist

This is a poorly researched article. A number of prominent scientists believe that bigfoot does exist. Jane Goodall the world-famous ape expert (primatologist) has publically stated that bigfoot does exist.

There are also a few dozen scientists who have examined hair samples and footprints and have also said that bigfoot is an unidentified great ape. These scientists also have examined hair from the "yeti" and said that the sasquatch, bigfoot, and the yeti are all the same unidentified ape.

This article deserves to be made balanced. Needs a major rewrite. Very sloppy and one-sided.

The majority of scientists do not believe in bigfoot's existence. Just because you find a handful of them that do believe does not change this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.70.143 (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

24.8.106.182 (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Sources are widely available on the net that indicate Dr Goodall's belief in the existence, or in the very least the possible existence, of sasquatch. Nonetheless, this is Wikipedia, the new ultimate source of misinformed truth. --Bentonia School (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for objectivity

This entry seems rather biased, with notable scientists supporting the theory such as Jane Goodall it might be better to be a bit more even handed and objective. For instance why do statements such as the folowing, "a subject that the scientific community classifies as pseudoscience" not need a citation? Since the only types of scientists that have applicable training are Zoologists Anthropologists etc and there are a number that are supportive these type of statements seem to be nothing more than opinion. 24.138.22.57 (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for "tweeking" intro paragraph

rework the intro paragraph to this article if you are talented in that ability. It seems that the intro paragraph sets up the idea of Bigfoot as being only forklore and no validity to the potential that this is a hominid or primate that either existed or remains in North America. My Great Grandmother, who was full-blooded Cherokee, used to tell me about Bigfoot and that he was/is known to our people. I am pretty much your average college educated "white-guy" (with only 1/16th? Cherokee blood) now and my "Mawmawl" has passed on to be with our Ancestors so I can't go back to her for more detailed info but I do believe her and think that the Native American experience in this land (10,000+ years) probably is more significant than the few hundred years that Non-Natives have been settled here and are now naysaying all the Sasquatch legends from All the tribes that were here long before the arrival of Columbus (I'm not touching the Viking exploration possibility though for sake of being brief). The bottom line to my request is this: would someone please make a more objective introdutory paragraph that would be acceptable to skeptics and believers alike. Sorry about the grammer/composition/spelling/etc- the Wife is hen-pecking me and I have to go before proofing. Thank you ahead for your contribution. P.s., I noticed that the description left out that there are blonde Bigfoot reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.68 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the intro paragraph should not be "reworked", because there is zero evidence of the authenticity of a bigfoot being a real creature. Mk1888 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. the bigfoot has been seen in southern Ontario There is plenty of evidnce, in the form of footprint castings, tissue samples, eyewitness accounts, etc. What there is "zero" of is conclusive proof, however to have the opening paragraph indicate that the subject is simply folklore is a blatant double-standard. There is even less evidence for the existence of subjects such as dark matter, yet their Wiki entries aren't dismissive of the subject. It would be wise to have the intro altered to reflect a more neutral stance, rather than the dismissive one presented. Kt'Hyla 23:40, 05 Dec 2007 (EST)

You really don't understand how evidence works. The footprint castings are only proof that people can make casts of faked footprints. That isn't evidence. There are NO tissue samples that haven't been conclusively proven to be something other than common REAL animals such as bears. The eyewitness accounts are poorly documented, unreliable, or otherwise uncredible. People claims to have been abducted by aliens; that doesn't make their testimony evidence.71.182.187.74 (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Shooting

Seen all references to THIS matter, so I went hunting and found THIS: hdbrp.com/Shooting%Cases.htm - Police, hunteres shoot at Bigfoot. Where can THIS be placed, since it referrs DIRECTLY to people shooting at these things ? 205.240.146.131 05:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Deleted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bigfoot is not gigantopithecus nor erectus.

Hi. I read a book that attempts to classify cryptzoological primates. Gigantopithecus is listed under "true giant", erectus is listed under "erectus hominids", and bigfoot is listed under "Neo-giant". The book's ISBN is 0-380-80263-5 , by the way, so should this be mentioned in the article? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 22:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Motivation of original author, is not well disquised

From page 1 "Bigfoot is one of the more famous examples of cryptozoology, a subject that the scientific community tend to dismiss as pseudoscience because of unreliable eyewitness accounts, lack of scientific and physical evidence, and over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation. Most experts on the matter consider the Bigfoot legend to be a combination of folklore and hoaxes."

This is how it should have been constructed. "Bigfoot is one of the more famous examples of cryptozoology, a subject that the scientific community is afraid to discuss openly for fear of retribution. Normally unrecordable audio evidence is readily available through field observation that most anybody can obtain in the woods nearest them. Physical evidence is much more difficult to obtain, due to Bigfoot as well as dozens of other little people, existing primarily in dimensions that are once, twice and three times removed from our own. Although thousands of eyewitness reports are on record of which hundreds are from highly reliable sources, those that are uncomfortable with the thought of an 8 foot tall hairy person living in the near vicinity, all work together to refute their existence so that they can live in denial. The few experts on the matter are normally driven out of town and into public disgrace, through clever plots of blacklisting, harassment, and slander. Although amaturish and shaky video hoaxes are on the upswing, there are several good recordings of legitimate Bigfoot that are owned by private citizens. They are the Patterson-Gimlin film and the Freeman footage. Although children today are far more familiar and comfortable with the scientific fact of people moving in and out of other dimensions, as learned through their video games, their non-game playing parents normally write it off as complete nonsense. Bigfoot used to be common knowledge on the West Coast of the United States, back in the 60's. But societal pressures all but wiped out the finer points of their supernatural existence. But it certainly did not and could not wipe out the Bigfoot because their U.S. population appears to number in the millions today, with the smaller interdimensional people sporting even higher numbers. Yet societal discrimination still prevails as the interdimensional nature people, that are all generally benevolent, go unnoticed and underappreciated. Except by the few experts of course, who continue to have contact, communication and great fun with all of the interdimensional nature people." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.166.121 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientific community "dismisses"

This line seems rather weaselish, as are many other words. First of all, the scientific community is not one entity, and to say that something is dismissed from science implies that it didn't get rightfully considered. The burden of a claim is not on scientists in its refute but in the claimants to prove. Failure to establish an idea under science is not science dismissing anything. Otherwise, I get to make awesome claims like that the scientific community dismissed the idea that I'm ten feet tall and from another planet.--Trypsin 13:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The scientiﬁc community never considered your claims to be tall, they have no place talking about them. The scientiﬁc community did, however, consider claims relating to Bigfoot, and their consensus has been to dismiss them as not being scientiﬁc.Esdraelon 18:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Monster Quest

See this on the History Channel Wendsday. First episode: Sasquatch Attack. Appearantly, it left DNA behind as it attacked someone. The show implied that the DNA results are "in". 65.163.112.104 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There's only been one death related to sasquatch, back in the Roosevelt days, and modern-day attacks are few and far between. This creature is mostly docile unless you decide to punch it in the face, then it will be mostly hostile until you're ripped to shreds. My point is that the Discovery Channel beefs things up to get more viewers on the edge of their seats. There probably was no real attack.DallasOConner 16:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It didnt attack someone. The guy left a board with a bunch of screws in it infront of his cabin door during the winter. He did this becuase something broke into his cabin and trashed it, I mean trashed it. After an expret reveiwed the tape of the after-math and he said that IT WAS NOT a bear that trashed this guys cabin. So when he came back after another winter something had stepped on the screw trap, and leaving a size 16 foot "print". They tested the hair, tissue and blood sample. After some problems (they had to take the galvinised (sp?) stuff from the screws out of the sample) the DNA came back to be a cross between a human and a chimp. They are going to run more tests to confirm that the hair and tissue have the same DNA, and also they want to get a full DNA sequence so they can fully classify it. However all of that will take a year or longer to complete. Its on again on Friday and this weekend, so if you missed it, you gotta see it. THIS IS THE REAL THING HERE PEOPLE!!! Gundam94 16:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The show was total overblown bullshit, about on a par with Alien autopsy. If you haven’t seen the show yet, don’t waste your time watching this utter crap!

The mitochondrial DNA that they tested turned out to be human mitochondrial DNA. The reason they somehow concluded that it wasn’t human was because one single nucleotide pair (out of 16,569 nucleotides in human mtDNA) was different from the map of human mtDNA that they were using.

Humans don't all have exactly the same mtDNA. The mtDNA of two randomly chosen humans will differ by about 50 to 70 nucleotides. There is no mapping of mtDNA available that exhaustively lists all possible variations of human mtDNA. Suggesting that the mtDNA was partially like that of a chimp because one single nucleotide matched the chimp map they were using instead of the human map is just jaw-droppingly bad science. the "bigfoot" was even seen in a city in southern Ontario, around the niagra region. If the mtDNA was really, say, halfway between that of a human and a chimp, it would differ from human mtDNA by a heck of a lot more than one nucleotide. MrRedact 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Monster Quest is a joke

Referring to woo-woo tabloid shows like "Monster Quest" for evidence for bigfoot is on par to citing "The National Enquirer" for proof of aliens living among us. Puh-lease....

Dead body ?!

Would a DEAD BODY satisfy the "skeptics"? I've heard this each and every time this matter is discussed, especially on the Discovery Channel and the History Channel. Anyone got a .44 Magnum cal. revolver and/or a .410, AR-14 ? 65.163.112.104 05:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC) People say bigfoot is fake. But on July 15, 2008 two teenagers walking in a forest, working on a project. when they saw bigfoot right in front of them. Then they were never seen agian. May they rest in peace Kelly& Jasmine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.81.85 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It would satisfy the skeptics, but you would be forever famed the worst person that will ever exist by each and every sasquatch enthusiast across the globe. Prove it lives by killing it?DallasOConner 16:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, these things have been shot at before. Listen to the Westmoreland, Pennsylvania recordings of one after it'd been shot at and wounded. Doesn't sound to me like this thing is going down with three shots from a .44 Magnum. And it's not gonna sit around and let you pop off at it.DallasOConner 16:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ask a "skeptic" and they'll say "Bring in a body", especially the likes of CISCOP and Skeptical Inquirer". Blame it on them, not me. 65.163.112.104 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume that good quality non-blurry video lasting for a reasonable amount of time would also qualify. 76.64.156.168 (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing is its not the cameraman's fault bigfoot is blurry. I think that's much more scary, there is a large out of focus monster on the loose!

Brandonha (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bourne?

I think in the section about Gigantipithicus we need to have an introduction as to who Bourne is before simply stating what it is he thinks about bigfoot. I was reading it, and saw Bourne, and tried to scroll up thinking "who on Earth is this fella?" but he was not introduced anywhere in the text. My guess is that he was there at one time, but the paragraph that introduced him was part of a section that was deleted. Perhaps someone would go and ﬁnd out who Bourne is and create a breif introduction so that his credibility on the subject is well-established before his opinion is introduced. Something like... "XX Bourne, a [insert his credibility here], writes that..." Wouldn't take more than a semi-parenthetical note, really :-). Anyway. just a suggestion.Esdraelon 18:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

!!!! Bigfoot is REAL !!!!

See Re.:Monster Quest above. 65.163.112.104 23:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

i am a fool who believes in monsters

Quit censoring comments. Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED(oops). 65.163.112.205 05:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Description

Bigfoot's strong musk odor and wide shoulders should be mentioned. Also, bigfoot's commonly reported behavior should be added: nocturnal, howling, stone throwing, wood-knocking, etc. Most importantly, the reason he is called bigfoot is not present: for the large footprints discovered. That should be mentioned first. The Humboldt Times in Eureka, California, coined the term "Bigfoot" in a 1958 story. [1] Before that, bigfoots were called hairy giants, devils, and the Sasquatch, a word from the Coast Salish Indians meaning "crazy man of the forest" or “sesqec” which means “wild man.” Other Native American bigfoot names: Gekelemukpechuck, Ot-ne-yar-hed, Shookum, Hoquiam, Oh-mah, Nik’inla’eena, Pahazo, Seo-ah-tik, Toki-Mussi, etc.76.81.194.199 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Add information to the the "sightings" paragraph

While listing sightings, can it also be mentioned that there are databases including www.bfro.net which record sightings and sounds from all over the US and Canada. It also has an introduction by Jane Goodall. They also classify and follow up on their sighting reports, which can also be read. It keeps the article balanced (it is real or is it not?) and would indicate more sightings than shown on the article.ArLeeKay3 (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)CE

Sexy Bigfoot

Should it be allowed that the porn sites, porn books and magazines refer to this thing ? Example:

"The woman stripped naked by the monster, her P*** lines itself up to Bigfoot's telephone pole sized D***, then it C*** all over her". then she c*** all over the monster."

I've been told that these kind of sites, books, etc. explicitly have this on them, in them, like a female Park Ranger forcibly stripped and raped by this thing. I'd list one or two that were given to me, but Wikipedia may frown on including stuff like that here. 65.163.112.205 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not generally opposed to pornographic themes when they are appropriate. Just a little bit of browsing the encyclopedia will show you that. But mentioning Bigfoot-related pornography in the Bigfoot article would not be appropriate, because it's not a very significant aspect of Bigfoot. (If Bigfoot-related porn starts becoming widespread and highly popular, then it probably would warrant mention in the article, provided that the increased popularity were well-documented by reliable sources, etc.) It has famously been said that there is porn based on every conceivable theme (see Rule 34). It wouldn't be practical or useful to put a little blurb in every single article that says: "And, oh yes, there is porn of this." Dave Runger (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Sightings ?!

Who or what says they're "alleged" ? IF "YOU" see one, are "you" going to call it alleged ? No wonder people are looking for it, and I don't mean with a camera. IF someone brings in a body, will the "skeptics" finally accept that it is real ? According ot the show Monster Quest, someone got some Bigfoot DNA via some kind of booby trap. Some people I met are using "hot loaded" .44 mag handguns and other "hot loaded" caliber weapons. A "Hot Load" is a charge of powder in a shell that comes pretty close to blowing up a gun, yet does not, and sends more kinetic energy into the target, in the case of Bigfoot, a centermass or a headshot will certainly kill it. 65.163.112.205 05:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Credulity in the face of complete absence of credible evidence is incredible. The answer of course is that we want you to produce the body; we long for it; we plead for it. In its absence, we ask for something, anything more than anecdote. Until then, to paraphrase Bertrand Russell, we will continue to find it undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it to be true.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you killed Bigfoot and brought in the body, what would be the point? That could have been the only Bigfoot in North america and you killed it. The Yeti and Almas are different types of apes, not like Bigfoot. People shouldn't want a body, for that would mean no more Bigfoot, and as I said, what would be the point of a body? The only sensible things that would come out of killing Bigfoot and bringing a body to scientists would be people knowing that something like Bigfoot exists, and the scientific research on what this animal was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiFanatic777 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

only bigfoot in n. america? do they reproduce parthenogenetically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New sighting: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article713438.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.25.88 (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see the Wisconsin "Beast of Bray Road" be mentioned as a sighting. The beast has been seen for decades in Wisconsin, with the most recent sightings in 2007 that made national news. CBS58news.com has video on footprints that is attributed to this beast that they also refer to as bigfoot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.28.8 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Much of the “Skeptics” section is second-order criticism

By that I mean, we’re criticizing the skeptics! We talk about why scientists haven’t taken Big Foot more seriously. That’s a good discussion, but maybe for another section. What we are missing are specific examples of skepticism. For example, if we quote a skeptic where he or she is criticizing a particular sighting or a particular claim or a particular report, that’s something substantial we can kind of hold in our hands, take a good long look at, and kind of wrap our minds around. At least we’ll see where the skeptic is coming from. Actually, we might need to include the skeptic looking at three such examples. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reporting the direct observation of your own eyes as you look at a photograph. Is that ‘POV’?

Two examples from the Great Depression: If someone says, these aspects of Roosevelt’s first hundred days were helpful, and these were not, that would be very much a conclusion in which you’d want to cite experts. If, on the other hand, there’s a photograph with the caption saying, ‘there was only 10% of seriously hungry children’ (and I’m merely guessing at the number), and you say, ‘Look, Look, these kids are pot-bellied, and that is a sign of serious malnutrition,’ that is a direct observation and a helpful observation and you do not need to provide experts. I mean, what experts could there be? Okay, maybe an expert linking pot-bellied-ness to malnutrition. But the part where you say, ‘Look, Look, the kids are pot-bellied,’ you are pointing out the direct observation of your own eyes of a photograph. Anyone else can look at the same photograph. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you be less abstract please, what are you asking about. Jefffire (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The creature in the Patterson-Gimlin film has a rectangular eyeslit. That's what I'm talking about, and I don't know why we just can't go ahead and say so. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Reporting the direct observation of your own eyes as you look at a photograph. Is that ‘POV’?"

Yes, it is, as people can look at the same thing and believe they see different things. It also counts as original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

history and original folklore - the Wild Woman of the Woods

I'd like to see some information about how the stories came about and what drove it. I believe it was an author in Vancouver who discovered stories among the Salish First Nation bands of Sasquitich or something like that and that it was a Salish variation of the Wild Woman of the Woods. There are dozens of variations of the name among Pacific Northwest bands I am to understood and sometimes she merges with other characters. One of the most famous variations is D'Sonoqua. Paintings by Emily Carr can be found here [2] and here [3]. Sononqua hypnotizes women with her Oo-ee-oo call and steals their babies to take to her cave (Sonoqua is stupid though. You can trick her by giving her a rock).

The folklore of Sasquatch is a fascinating example of how stories become co-opted to meet the culture. White people obviously created a scientific bent to it. There is the obvious change from being a woman to a man, to an entire idyllic race of proto-humans.

And as seen by the first paragraph the new mythology seems to co-op other cultures like the Lakota story when their's is entirely original. The way it is localized while giving lip service sometimes to BC where it started. There seems to be a competition for ownership as opposed to the Loch Ness monster. Nessy stays right where she is.--12.152.181.160 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Bold text'''BIG FOOT IS REAL!!! OMG!!!

Cain

why hasnt anyone ever said anything about Cain yet? God cursed him so that he will wander the world restlessly and he cant get killed, that will explain why somw people say tha t the dont kill him because its like killing a person or something, and so like umm.............yeah...hes Cain.....Ô.ô wow ô.ô (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that should help in the process of researching the possibility of sasquatch's existence. --Bentonia School (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem is the God placed a mark on Cain so that his parents couldn't hunt him down and kill him. His curse was that he would be a wanderer, not that he would live forever. And the description of bigfoot doesn't really fit the description of Cain. The biggest thing that people need to grasp is that if in fact bigfoot is real then it wouldn't just be one animal/being. Digitbro (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Only way that people will believe that bigfoot is real is to find one and shoot it and drop it off at CSICOP HQ, say,"You want a body?! What do you think this thing is?".65.173.104.138 (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free. That would be an amazing discovery. —Fiziker ^t 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Did Morris confuse Patterson with Marx?

Has anyone heard the rumor that Morris may have actually sold a gorilla suit to Ivan Marx and not Roger Patterson? Marx also made a film of "bigfoot" about the same time as Patterson. His bigfoot looks more like the suits that Morris made. It's not hard to understand how Morris could have mixed the two up after 35 years, especially since he never kept a sales slip with the name of the customer. Maybe that's why Bob Heironimus description on the suit he wore (made from a skinned horse) was completely different from the dynel/ zipper suits that Morris made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

...

Heironimus cannot prove that he was ever in an alleged bigfoot costume prior to 2004, when he was photographed by the Yakima Herald in a grotesque Morris suit. Heironimus's own photograph without costume, gives us adequate reason to trust him no further than he can be thrown. But the "living in denial crowd" and the "sowers of seeds of doubt crowd", relied entirely on Heironimus as their figure head on which they could claim that the Patterson-Gimlin film was a hoax. Heironimus has contradicted himself on exactly what hide the supposed costume was fabricated from. Since he can't get that right, but he was raised in an agricultural environment, then he is clearly fabricating his entire involvement.208.100.241.155 (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If Morris did not sell a suit to Patterson, is it possible that he sold one to Marx and confused the two?

Picture nominated for deletion

I went ahead and nominated the picture for deletion. As I said in my nomination, it is not a picture of the subject of the article and therefore not fair-use. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a possible alternative: Image:Bigfoot-at-socrates-sculpture-park.png Steve Dufour (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the suggestion that the Patterson-Gimlin film frame 352, as not being a representative picture of a Bigfoot, as complete bunk. The film has been analyzed ad nauseum by brave experts who stepped up to the plate, and correctly concluded that the film is a legitimate documentation of a real Bigfoot/Sasquatch. Furthermore, the Patterson-Gimlin film remains the cornerstone of proof, of the Bigfoot people's existence. I am well aware that there is a national underground movement to wipe out all Bigfoot knowledge, because those men cannot deal with the benevolent Bigfoot people. Especially since they are paranormal. I am also aware that the meaning of the phrase, INTER-DIMENSIONAL, is being reintroduced into high school curriculum. This is an effort by our children's educators, to counter the subversive propaganda efforts of that underground movement. The reeducation of America in regard to the truth about the Bigfoot people, is well underway. The suggestion here to delete the P-G photo, appears to be another key tactical move that is specifically designed to ham string the spread of the truth. And don't forget, there are people in this country, that put in their work week flooding the internet with false propaganda that seeks to refute the existence of specific subjects. Those subjects appear to be Bigfoot, UFO's, aliens, wood gnomes, and anything else that appears to be paranormal to some degree. I see their presence constantly, on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.174.246 (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Youve gotta love people who say Bigfoot is bullshit, when they believe in God. Which is basically the same, except theres been no recorded sighting of God. Kind of a double standard there? ::comment I think your right bigfoot is a phony he's like 300 years old so go home u hippys69.34.2.116 (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Sharonlee123 (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)please visit this website tonight: http://www.kentuckyincident.com/livefeed/videos.html live feed of Bigfoot research. We are baiting the fire pit for Bigfoot with chocolate, bacon, deer meat, apples.Sharonlee123 (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unattributed quotation

Currently, the section Skeptical view contains the line:

Scientists and academics overwhelmingly "discount the existence of Bigfoot because the evidence supporting belief in the survival of a prehistoric, bipedal, apelike creature of such dimensions is scant".

Who is supposed to have made this comment? It is meaningless to provide a quotation without citing the source. Unless a source is provided, the quotation marks should be removed. Gihanuk (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No Native/Aboriginal section about Sasquatch???

I would like this article to have a section on the Sasquatch of aboriginal folklore. There's virtually no mention - the name is an aboriginal word, so I think that there should be at least a small section on Sasquatch in Northwest Coast Aboriginal culture or mythology, either their viewpoints on Sasquatch or how they feel about Sasquatch.....It's very disappointing that this article goes straight to the cryptozoological standpoint while ignoring the native culture from where this "myth" (if that's your view) or historical figure originated. Any thoughts? --Mezaco (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just coming on here to say the same thing. What were the features described in the myth that led people to believe it was the same creature? 70.210.164.197 (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewards

I added these 2 due to the significance of the sightings: Eastern Minnesota residents claimed to have seen a large, serpentlike creature, which locals named "Pepie," in the Mississippi River's Lake Pepin below Maiden Rock. Accordingly, the Lake City Tourism Bureau on June 4, 2008, set up a $ 50,000 reward "for hooking, netting or capturing the creature on a camera."yahoo.com, Minn. city sets reward for legendary creature Also, Larry Nielson, a boat owner from Lake City, Minnesota, offered a reward for their local lake monster, "Pepie", which was last seen on April 28, 1871. Further, Binocular manufacturer Bushnell, with "Field & Stream" magazine, offered $ 1 million to one who can "provide an unaltered photograph/video, verified and substantiated by a panel of scientific experts [including a zoologist and biologist], the evidence required to prove a Sasquatch/Bigfoot/Yeti exists." The contest started ends December 15.livescience.com, Bigfoot Bounty: Reward Offered for Mysterious Monsters--Florentino floro (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Pepie" has nothing to do with Bigfoot. This is an article about the Sassquatch, not about any and all supposed creature sightings. Please stay on topic. Thanks, Gwernol 11:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

News

Beckjord's site and his organization is down. See www.beckjord.com as of the time displayed here.65.173.105.27 (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Transcript of Dr. Jane Goodall's Comments on NPR Regarding Sasquatch (Bigfoot)

Transcript of Dr. Jane Goodall's Comments on NPR Regarding Sasquatch

On Friday, September 27, 2002, during National Public Radio's (NPR) Talk of the Nation: Science Friday with Ira Flatow, Dr. Jane Goodall made a striking comment on her strong beliefs that large "undiscovered" primates, such as the Yeti or Sasquatch, do indeed exist.

The following is a transcript of the relevant portion of the program:

Dr. Goodall: As for the other, you're talking about a yeti or bigfoot or sasquatch.

Ira Flatow: Is that what he's talking about?

Dr. Goodall: Yes, it is and ...

Ira Flatow: Is that the message I'm missing here?

Dr. Goodall: I think that's the message you're missing and ...

Ira Flatow: (To the caller) Is that right?

Caller: Pretty much.

Ira Flatow: (Laughing) I'm out of the loop. Go ahead.

Dr. Goodall: Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist.

Ira Flatow: You are?

Dr. Goodall: Yeah. I've talked to so many Native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them. I've probably got about, oh, thirty books that have come from different parts of the world, from China from, from all over the place, and there was a little tiny snippet in the newspaper just last week which says that British scientists have found what they believed to be a yeti hair and that the scientists in the Natural History Museum in London couldn't identify it as any known animal.

Ira Flatow: Wow.

Dr. Goodall: That was just a wee bit in the newspaper and, obviously, we have to hear a little bit more about that.

Ira Flatow: Well, in this age of DNA, if you find a hair there might be some cells on it.

Dr. Goodall: Well, there will be and I'm sure that's what they've examined and they don't match up. That's what my little tiny snippet says. They don't match up with DNA cells from known animals, so -- apes.

Ira Flatow: Did you always have this belief that there., that they, that they existed?

Dr. Goodall: Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist. (Chuckles.)

Ira Flatow: (To the caller) Alright?

Caller: Thank you.

Ira Flatow: Thanks for calling. (To Goodall) Well, how do you go looking for them? I mean, people have been looking, right? It's not like, or has this just been, since we don't really believe they can exist, we really haven't really made a serious search. Dr. Goodall: Well, there are people looking. There are very ardent groups in Russia, and they have published a whole lot of stuff about what they've seen. Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to.

Reference:

Atulsnischal (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)