Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 12

Bigfoot/Archive 12
Conservation status
	Critically endangered
Scientific classification

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 5

←

The Patterson film is fake! But don't get me wrong...

The patterson film is fake. The man that dressed up in that black gorilla suit,(Hieronimus Condemn), confessed that the film was fake. He was supposed to get One thousand dollars from Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, acting as the eledged "Bigfoot", but never got his cut, so he confessed that it was a fake film. He actually walked like he did in the film, in real life, coincidentily. They showed an episode about this topic on the History and Discovery channel a few years back but not many people must have seen it. Here is the link to Hieronimus's confession...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/Hieronimus_testimony.mpg

So I just thought that I should put something on here so people are aware that this particular film is a hoax. But don't get me wrong, I do beleive that there could very well be a Bigfoot out there, just not the one in the Patterson film.

                  67.208.236.157 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Aaron Kevern, Muskegon Michigan, My e-mail is    aaron.kevern@yahoo.com

The Patterson film is real, that confession is completely bogus. There are several different stories involving different people who claimed (or were suspected) to be the man in the costume. Hieronimous claims he was friends with Roger Patterson, and accompanied Patterson and Gimlin to Northern California with this ape suit. Patterson's widow says he's lying and so does Bob Gimlin. No one can corroborate Hieronimous' claim that he accompanied Patterson and Gimlin and the worst part is that there are real living witnesses near Bluff Creek that say Patterson and Gimlin were not accompanied by anyone! Hieronimous doesn't know where they went, or which route they took. The fact is that Hieronimous is trying to attach himself to the Patterson story with his own fiction.--Timpicerilo (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well done Timpicerilo ! You have done your homework and your reasoning skills are outstanding ! You shall be rewarded in the not too distant future with indisputable evidence of their lives, along with never before seen or documented hominin behaviors. Your agenda appears only to be seeking the truth. It is refreshing. Thank you on their behalf. Sincerely 67.165.216.135 (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Thomas Miller

"Homo robustus bigfooticus" is their scientific name

I think it is objectionable that the least likely people to see or preserve these beings are given credit and authority over their descriptions and futures. They are falsely referred to as ape-like when the only thing ape-like about them is that they are densely haired. They are not only hominids but hominins. Their young resemble robust Australopithecines and the skulls of adults resemble a cross between A. boisei and H. erectus. Their young are more alert and agile compared to contemporaries of human, bonobos, gorilla or chimpanzees of the same ages. Adult cranial capacity nears 1,000 cc which overlaps H. erectus and H. sapiens. Their young, starting at only 150cc craniums, have a skull and brain growth time period near double that of humans. Their comparative skeletal analysis and D.N.A. profile indicates that they are divergent from Sapiens by one to two million years. Their size is a function of "Bergmanns rule". They migrated out of Africa, crossed over the Bering land bridges during the ice ages when both eastern Russia and western Alaska were ice and snow free. They are omnivorous and partial to fish, grasshoppers and roots. Their body proportional ratios compared to Sapiens are: torso to legs are similar while their hand, arm, feet and ears are proportionally longer. An adult female stands just over seven feet and males just under eight feet on average, with the same variability and sexual dimorphism as humans. Their reproductive and survival strategies are unique. They are mostly nocturnal and prefer to rest during the heat of the day. They have a proportionally larger foot that is wider but near identical in shape and function to humans, with an arch and longer heel for necessary fulcrum propulsion of their large mass. They do not have a mid-tarsal break in their foot, which is a manufactured and promoted scientific myth. Whereas human shoulders approximate 1/4 their height, Homo Robustus are about 1/3 their height with total arm and shoulder mass ten fold that of humans. All of the above are referenced in the book:{BIGFOOTICUS and THEIR BABIES Our Living Hominin Kin "HOMO ROBUSTUS BIGFOOTICUS" TM by:Tom Miller DISCOVERER of 6(six) Individual BEINGS corroborated by INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE that PROVES they are REAL! & the scientific evidence of WHO & what they are & how they got here! Scientific Classification BCC 001 Order Primates, Family Hominidae, Genus Homo, Species Homo robustus bigfooticus, Nicknames: Homo Robustus TM, Bigfooticus TM, Copyright 2010} and also referenced at LivingHominids.com. For their protection and continuation as a species into the future- They should no longer be referred to as creatures, apes, ape-men or sasqu**** as that is a derogatory term. Bigfoot is appropriate as it refers to the size of their body as compared to humans. If you shaved a Homo robustus bigfooticus from head to toe, what you would see would be nearly human with proportional variations most notably in the skull. The evidence suggests mistaken identity shooting deaths have occurred. They are at risk. Many new species are being discovered and given scientific names based on one camera trap photo. Perpetuating Bigfooticus as creatures or myths does our shy, gentle, unique hominin cousins a grave disservice. They must be preserved and protected. 67.165.216.135 (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Thomas Miller 67.165.216.135 (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Thomas Miller 67.165.216.135 (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Thomas Miller 67.165.216.135 (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Thomas Miller 67.165.216.135 (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Thomas Miller 67.165.216.135 (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Thomas Miller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.216.135 (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Thomas. I can't find a single piece of evidence published by reliable sources suggesting that Homo robustus bigfooticus, Homo Robustus or Bigfooticus exist, or ever existed. LivingHominids.com is your personal website. Please read WP:Original research to learn more about contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Vejvancicky. Thank you for your comments. Obviously major discoveries have little precedent. I believe it would be near criminal for me or anyone else to suppress this information and knowledge which is corroborated by more than two years of quiet study, skeletal, photo and video evidence. A population of 1,000 rare Bonobos has just been discovered and announced. I have a tremendous responsibility to these beings and am proceeding with caution. I can assure you that this is no hoax or anything of that nature. As far as reliable sources, I suggest that you do a thorough listen to all of J. Goodall's lectures over the years where she states that she "knows" that these beings exists. She is in the know. The fact that she does not know exactly who and what they are - does not diminish her statements. If you would like to see what the skull shape of their young look like - see the cover of the college text book by Clark Spencer Larsen titled "Our Origins". Robust Australopithecus boisei lived over a time span of at least a 1.5 million years - side by side with Homo habilis and Homo erectus with a very robust body and skull. They are the first known beings associated with stone and bone tools 2 1/2 million years ago and presumed by most paleoanthropologists to be non-ancestral to H. sapiens. Also the 1.85 million year old A. sediba, which was discovered by a ten year old boy and announced in April 2010, was immediately pronounced by Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) discoverer D. Johanson, as being mis-genused and should be re-classified in the Genus - Homo. I agree with him. Between five and one million years ago in Africa - how many complete hominin skeletons have been found ? I am a Conservationist and freelance paleoanthopologist whose past contributions include the California Condor Recovery Program in 1987 when only 26 birds existed in the world. Today more than 350 exist. It was my suggestion - that when they had the numbers to begin releasing them back into the wild, that they use non-endangered WILD caught Andean Condors as bonded surrogate babysitters to teach the young releases to avoid humans and to do their first releases in safer Arizona. A couple of the new releases walked into the Grand Canyon Visitors Center as a result of the biologist allowing them to imprint on humans. They should be raised by Condor hand puppets and never associate humans as a food source. Those individuals will never fly again. I currently have baby Osprey and four baby owls on my platforms (photos available upon request). Since the main BF article seems biased toward myth, and our evidence suggests that - that perception has and is causing - mistaken identity hunting incident deaths, I thought it responsible and prudent to share some of the facts. What harm can come from preventing even one killing of an upright bipedal "bear" which walks on two feet. See: President Teddy Roosevelt's 1880's book. Each individuals D.N.A. is vital. Sincerely and Thank you.67.165.216.135 (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Thomas Miller

Thomas, Wikipedia is not a good place for publishing shocking unverifiable news of this kind. I wish you all the best in your work with birds, it is an interesting and praiseworthy activity. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Patterson film is real!

People like to make things up. See above comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.30.247 (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Guy in a costume

Bigfoot is just a guy in a costume. Wasn't the hoax revealed a few years ago? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There's different stories involving different people who claim to be the man in the costume. Those bogus stories have been commercially exploited in books and TV documentaries. All for financial gain. There's much more evidence and history on the existence of Bigfoot than just the Patterson Gimlin film.--Timpicerilo (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if there are false claims of certain people having been the guy in the costume, it doesn't mean this monster is real. There are other ways to fake a film. Even more likely, bears sometimes walk bipedily for short distances, and yet those short distances can be longer than what the alleged monster walks in the film. Furthermore, an individual bear with ursinine dwarfism or some other deformity could look more humanoid than a normal healthy bear from certain camera angles. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this relate to any specific concerns about the article? Talk pages shouldn't be used as chat forums. --McGeddon (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does, even though this reply took a while. A bear walking bipedily (which they do for short distances in some circumstances) would in fact look deceivingly primate-like from certain camera angles. We should acknowledge this in the Article (who's chatting...this is about the Article) so that reader's don't assume the alleged monster is real merely because no human wore a costume. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, anyone that claims they were a guy in a costume to gain money is suspicious. CypherC2 (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Poor and Failed Sources

This article, particularly the section "View among the scientific community" contains several poor and failed sources WP:RS. There are also several statements which are not supported by their sources, and other statements which are controversial and should have been sourced, but were not. - Magic pumpkin (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Swedish Publication

The book, Berömda Vidunder, has long been a point of contention, due to its lack of availability, and publication in Swedish. It was used as support for what is prima facie an erroneous statement. The book has been found and read by a Swedish national, who confirms that it provides no content supporting the statement, "Beromda Vidunder Reviewed". Retrieved 2010-04-06. Because this problem was highlighted over a year ago, and an opportunity to present a better source was provided yet none was given, the reference AND the controversial, unsupported statement have been removed.- Magic pumpkin (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

USA Today

A pair of reprinted USA Today articles are provided to lend support to the inaccurate statement "The scientific community overwhelmingly discounts the existence of bigfoot". After reading the articles, it becomes apparent that 1) The author never states that the scientific community discounts the existence of bigfoot, 2) The statement "the Bigfoot search faces widespread scientific skepticism" is likely the journalist's opinion, and 3) the author interviewed a roughly equal number of scientists on both sides of the issue, indicating that the scientific community is split concerning skepticism. Only one of the interviewed scientists completely discounted the existence. The statements have been rewritten to conform with the source.

Also, these sources should be properly cited, back to the original USA Today issue and page numbers. - Magic pumpkin (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I take issue with your assumption that "the author interviewed a roughly equal number of scientists on both side.......is split concerning skepticism". This does not logically follow. If I am writing an article on issue x, and the scientific community is split, let's say, 95% to 5%, and I interview someone from both camp (1 for, 1 against), that does not mean there is an equal split. Selection bias in representing both sides should not be taken as a representative sample. Especially since a juornalist would actively seek out people to tell both sides. I'm not arguing for the USA today articles, I just think your assumption is not viable.Jbower47 (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

View among the scientific community - overly weighted?

I know this may be stirring a hornets nest, but as someone who really has no dog in this fight,I have to say I find the "View among the scientific community" somewhat overly weighted toward those who support. Based solely on the real estate taken up by the "support" side, it would seem that 66-75% support, and maybe third or a quarter are skeptics. I find it hard to believe that this is accurate. Regardless, the support portion goes into significant detail with names and quotes, while the skeptic section primarily contains short blanket comments. I realize people feel strongly about this in both camps, but let's be adults and leave the agendas for crypotzoology and skeptic forums. This is Wikipedia, let's keep it neutral. Jbower47 (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It didn't used to be that way. A Bigfoot proponent went in there and totally slanted it. I fixed it now. DreamGuy (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias and Aggressive Reverts: Admins Please Review This

The opening paragraph states that the "mainstream" scientific community says there is no Bigfoot, when in fact the scientific community is divided on the issue and a number of notable primatologists (noted later in the article and including Internationally recognized and award-winning primatologist Jane Goodall) believe that Bigfoot does exists. It is therefore obvious bias in the opening to say "the mainstream scientific community" says there is no Bigfoot.

Past attempts to correct this extremely biased and poorly-written opening have met with aggressive reverts by individual who camps out on this article and tries to dominate it.

I also just removed a line from the opening that states a serious of opinions about why there is no Bigfoot and then calls these opinions "facts". Very manipulative and biased writing. My prediction is that my edit will be aggressively reverted and I will receive threats from this editor (as has happened numerous times in the past).

Sean7phil (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read the cited transcript of Goodall. She is open about the weakness of the evidence. 'Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist...Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist....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.'

As a scientist she accepts the arguments against their existence but she wants them to exist and (in sections I don't quote above) she cites stories from Native Americans describing the same sounds, and "a little tiny snippet" in a newspaper suggesting the DNA has been examined but does not match any known animal.

So her position doesn't really strengthen the scientific argument for Bigfoot, it only shows that Jane Goodall doesn't dismiss the idea out of hand and is actively looking for evidence. I think the current wording does her statement justice:

Jane Goodall, in a 2002 interview, expressed her personal hope of the existence of Bigfoot, but allowed that there is no concrete evidence for the creature..

I've replaced your removed statement with one that doesn't refer to "facts". The import of the statement is that Bigfoot is significant within the fringe-scientific field of cryptozoology. --TS 14:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This section was just moved from the top to the bottom (attempt to hide complaints about aggressive edits?) Vandalism? 75.166.179.110 (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Goodall does say on video tape that she does believe that it exists.

See tape on BFRO website.

I just listened to the tape and she starts by saying that SHE IS SURE THAT THEY EXIST-- she only says at the end (about the past before she became sure that "she wanted them to exist". BUT IN THE PRESENT SHE IS SURE THAT THEY EXIST.

Someone on this site is lying-- because the tape was obvious. HERE IS THE LINK (Cut and paste it into your browser to get it to work) -- http://www.youtube.com/user/BFROVIDEOS#p/a/f/0/4NmCmfdFAhQ

75.166.179.110 (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Goodall is mentioned in the appropriate section, as are other notable figures that have expressed limited support for the existence of Bigfoot. I don't see what the problem is. ClovisPt (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's lying. Goodall clearly expresses a personal belief in the existence of Bigfoot.

On the positioning of the comments, Wikipedia convention is to place newer sections at the bottom and that is where regular editors will look. Placing the comments at the top makes them harder to notice because regulars will not look there. The conventional ordering also makes it easier to gain a chronological overview of discussion topics. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Following this same convention with all new topics also makes pages easier to archive once they become too long. As this page now has so archive 10 was started. If I took a topic I shouldn't have or if more can be moved please correct me.--Timpicerilo (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"A small minority of accredited scientists profess..." Really? I would say that there are many scientists that think these creatures exist and some who aren't sure. The fool who wrote that "small minority" bit has an axe to grind. And did you catch the citation for this? It has little to do with the comment! 75.48.30.247 (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is so out of control and one-sided we can't even tell the Bigfoot story properly. It's a mythological cryptid as it says on the bottom of the page! Give us a break people it's Bigfoot we aren't talking about a new scientific discovery!--Timpicerilo (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me remind editors taking part in this discussion to remain WP:Civil and keep WP:GOODFAITH.--Gniniv (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved this section back to its original location. Do not take old conversations and move them to the top or bottom of the page. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Last paragraph

Remade last paragraph with slightly more space given to the skeptics. Please comment on the result..--Gniniv (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have dialled down "The scientific community overwhelmingly discounts the existence of Bigfoot" to "Skeptics of Bigfoot say the evidence that does exist is largely based on hoax", and moved it below the arguments supporting Bigfoot's existence (which you have changed from "a few scientists" to "some scientists"). This seems like a misleading summary of the balance of opinion.

The section in question does need cleaning up, but I don't think we help the reader by avoiding mentioning the scientific consensus. And given that the section is only a couple of paragraphs in length, I don't think it's worth splitting it into two equal-sized "for" and "against" sections. --McGeddon (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a reference that absolutely confirms the strong statement "The scientific community overwhelmingly discounts the existence of Bigfoot" and relates how a overwhelming consensus of scientists accepts that, I will be happy to include it. If you look at the Support section though, you will see that several prominent scientists like Jane Goodall are not totally opposed to the topic, thus removing the "overwhelming consensus argument". If we are to adhere to WP:NPOV we need to say something more objective.--Gniniv (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, we're not required to find a source that represents science as a body regarding its non-acceptance of the existence of Bigfoot. The absence of Bigfoot research in mainstream scientific journals speaks volumes (sorry for the pun). Jane Goodall saying she would like Bigfoot to exist isn't "scientific support" for Bigfoot's existence by any stretch of the imagination. Additionally, we have overwhelming mainstream coverage to attest that "Bigfoot search faces widespread scientific skepticism", and "In the scientific community, Bigfoot is usually good for a few laughs" and otherwise characterizing activities of proponents as "research outside the scientific mainstream". You may want to read WP:FRINGE sometime. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No matter what point you are trying to make with your personal bias against the subject, WP:V stands as Wikipedia's core policy. As it is the article has references to confirm Bigfoot as a significant minority perspective worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I suggest that you consider working on an article where you can contribute more constructively, or help add to the sources of this article instead of removing relevant information. Another idea would be for you to make an article that deals with the Criticism of Bigfoot. Remember that this article is about Bigfoot not about what you think of Bigfoot. (See WP:IDONTLIKEIT)--Gniniv (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias? I love Bigfoot. And I think the Chupacabra is huggable too. But sadly, Wikipedia is a reference work and its policies require our articles to be weighted to reflect the verifiably mainstream view. Seriously, have you read WP:FRINGE? What do you think of it? Anything I can help explain or clarify for you? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv, you still don't understand our core policies. First, there are three of them. The others are WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. And "They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another" which is what you are doing. You don't appear to understand our NPOV policy and I have just discovered that you also don't understand WP:V or WP:NOR. WP:V says "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research". Yet in looking today at David Kyrle Down (where you did improve the article) I found you citing references that didn't back the material being referenced. And to suggest a content fork shows another gap in your knowledge. As for this article, what does 'confirm Bigfoot as a significant minority perspective' mean? A tiny, nay, miniscule number of scientists finding the idea intriguing or even needing more study, who get media coverage because their comments are good stories, is all I see. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the mythical figure "Bigfoot" and to maintain WP:NPOV it should cover all the aspects of this subject. What Daegling, David J. said in a book is not the final word or the complete scientific hypothesis on this subject. Many scientists don't discredit the best evidence.--Timpicerilo (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'd actually read the WP:NPOV policy (particularly WP:VALID) and also our WP:FRINGE rules, you'd already know what what you are arguing for is not allowed. Please do not try to use Wikipedia to advance your own extreme minority views on the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Bigfoot article content forks

Two content forks, Evidence regarding Bigfoot and Formal studies of Bigfoot, appear to contain mostly redundant information. Another, Bigfoot in popular culture, could be pruned and incorporated back into the main article, as well as Bigfoot trap, which doesn't appear to have enough notability to stand on it's own. Thoughts? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My only concern would be that it could make the main article to lengthy turning off readers after scanning through the first few sentences. Do readers want to wade through hundreds of words just to find the information they are looking for?--ChubsterII (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "too lengthy", considering this article is a long way from the recommended 32 KB limit. LuckyLouie (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My length concern is that it may become encrusted with information that don’t add to the understanding of the subject. If it does not I'm sure it will be fine. ChubsterII (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The evidence and formal studies articles are and always have been nothing more than POV-pushing content forks of this article, created to add content that does not meet Wikipedia standards and that would get deleted off this page. Those pages were created to make side articles that people wouldn't watch as closely so they could get away with whatever they wanted. They should be deleted outright, with no merging involved. DreamGuy (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you feel about the various articles about regional Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) or specific Bigfoot sightings? (Take a look at the See also list a couple of article versions ago.) I'm probably about to turn most of them into redirects to this article. ClovisPt (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation

In the second-to-last sentence in the introduction, there's a comma before the sentence's end period. 84.157.172.173 (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed it. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wilderness Hunter

I find it distressing that a simple matter of verifiable fact should continue to be subverted by a single editor. The text of The Wilderness Hunter is public domain, and readily available online. At no point in the Bauman goblin story is the creature ever identified as a "bear"; although, Bauman's initial thoughts about the animal were of a bear. Roosevelt speculates that Bauman may have given elven attributes to an "abnormally wicked and cunning wild beast" (e.g. bear, cougar), but states, "whether this was so or not, no man can say." The creature is in fact never identified, and only described as walking on two feet. Roosevelt describes the encounter as a "goblin-story".

In properly describing the story, a "bear attack" would be incorrect, a statement of opinion about a ghost story. "Bear attack" is not even correct as to Roosevelt's suspicion ("wild beast"). Roosevelt described the story as a "goblin-story". I have made the description in the article more in-line with the story as published. I also identify it as Bauman's story, as retold by Roosevelt. As to why Hunting the Grisly and Other Sketches is referenced... as long as the first publication (The Wilderness Hunter) is properly cited, I have no serious objections, other than brevity. - Magic pumpkin (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, you are the one distorting things. It is a verifiable fact that it is mentioned as a bear, they thought it was a bear, and it's in a book ABOUT bears. Good grief, the extent some people will go to to try to distort basic facts is disgusting. DreamGuy (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Book extract hidden to save talk page space

Frontiersmen are not, as a rule, apt to be very superstitious. They lead lives too hard and practical, and have too little imagination in things spiritual and supernatural. I have heard but few ghost stories while living on the frontier, and those few were of a perfectly commonplace and conventional type. But I once listened to a goblin-story, which rather impressed me.

A grizzled, weather beaten old mountain hunter, named Bauman who, born and had passed all of his life on the Frontier, told it the story to me. He must have believed what he said, for he could hardly repress a shudder at certain points of the tale; but he was of German ancestry, and in childhood had doubtless been saturated with all kinds of ghost and goblin lore. So that many fearsome superstitions were latent in his mind; besides, he knew well the stories told by the Indian medicine men in their winter camps, of the snow-walkers, and the specters, [spirits, ghosts & apparitions] the formless evil beings that haunt the forest depths, and dog and waylay the lonely wanderer who after nightfall passes through the regions where they lurk. It may be that when overcome by the horror of the fate that befell his friend, and when oppressed by the awful dread of the unknown, he grew to attribute, both at the time and still more in remembrance, weird and elfin traits to what was merely some abnormally wicked and cunning wild beast; but whether this was so or not, no man can say.

When the event occurred, Bauman was still a young man, and was trapping with a partner among the mountains dividing the forks of the Salmon from the head of Wisdom River. Not having had much luck, he and his partner determined to go up into a particularly wild and lonely pass through which ran a small stream said to contain many beavers. The pass had an evil reputation because the year before a solitary hunter who had wandered into it was slain, seemingly by a wild beast, the half eaten remains being afterwards found by some mining prospectors who had passed his camp only the night before.The memory of this event, however, weighted very lightly with the two trappers, who were as adventurous and hardy as others of their kind. They took their two lean mountain ponies to the foot of the pass where they left them in an open beaver meadow, the rocky timber-clad ground being from there onward impracticable for horses. They then struck out on foot through the vast, gloomy forest, and in about four hours reached a little open glade where they concluded to camp, as signs of game were plenty.

There was still an hour or two of daylight left, and after building a brush lean-to and throwing down and opening their packs, they started upstream. The country was very dense and hard to travel through, as there was much down timber, although here and there the somber woodland was broken by small glades of mountain grass. At dusk they again reached camp. The glade in which it was pitched was not many yards wide, the tall, close-set pines and firs rising round it like a wall. On one side was a little stream, beyond which rose the steep mountains slope, covered with the unbroken growth of evergreen forest.They were surprised to find that during their absence something, apparently a bear, had visited camp, and had rummaged about among their things, scattering the contents of their packs, and in sheer wantonness destroying their lean-to. The footprints of the beast were quite plain, but at first they paid no particular heed to them, busying themselves with rebuilding the lean-to, laying out their beds and stores and lighting the fire.While Bauman was making ready supper, it being already dark, his companion began to examine the tracks more closely, and soon took a brand from the fire to follow them up, where the intruder had walked along a game trail after leaving the camp. When the brand flickered out, he returned and took another, repeating his inspection of the footprints very closely. Coming back to the fire, he stood by it a minute or two, peering out into the darkness, and suddenly remarked, “Bauman, that bear has been walking on two legs.”

Bauman laughed at this, but his partner insisted that he was right, and upon again examining the tracks with a torch, they certainly did seem to be made by but two paws or feet. However, it was too dark to make sure. After discussing whether the footprints could possibly be those of a human being, and coming to the conclusion that they could not be, the two men rolled up in their blankets, and went to sleep under the lean-to. At midnight Bauman was awakened by some noise, and sat up in his blankets. As he did so his nostrils were struck by a strong, wild-beast odor, and he caught the loom of a great body in the darkness at the mouth of the lean-to. Grasping his rifle, he fired at the vague, threatening shadow, but must have missed, for immediately afterwards he heard the smashing of the under wood as the thing, whatever it was, rushed off into the impenetrable blackness of the forest and the night.

After this the two men slept but little, sitting up by the rekindled fire, but they heard nothing more. In the morning they started out to look at the few traps they had set the previous evening and put out new ones. By an unspoken agreement they kept together all day, and returned to camp towards evening. On nearing it they saw, hardly to their astonishment that the lean-to had again been torn down. The visitor of the preceding day had returned, and in wanton malice had tossed about their camp kit and bedding, and destroyed the shanty. The ground was marked up by its tracks, and on leaving the camp it had gone along the soft earth by the brook. The footprints were as plain as if on snow, and, after a careful scrutiny of the trail, it certainly did seem as if, whatever the thing was, it had walked off on but two legs.

The men, thoroughly uneasy, gathered a great heap of dead logs and kept up a roaring fire throughout the night, one or the other sitting on guard most of the time. About midnight the thing came down through the forest opposite, across the brook, and stayed there on the hillside for nearly an hour. They could hear the branches crackle as it moved about, and several times it uttered a harsh, grating, long-drawn moan, a peculiarly sinister sound. Yet it did not venture near the fire. In the morning the two trappers, after discussing the strange events of the last 36 hours, decided that they would shoulder their packs and leave the valley that afternoon. They were the more ready to do this because in spite of seeing a good deal of game sign they had caught very little fur. However it was necessary first to go along the line of their traps and gather them, and this they started out to do. All the morning they kept together, picking up trap after trap, each one empty. On first leaving camp they had the disagreeable sensation of being followed. In the dense spruce thickets they occasionally heard a branch snap after they had passed; and now and then there were slight rustling noises among the small pines to one side of them.

At noon they were back within a couple of miles of camp. In the high, bright sunlight their fears seemed absurd to the two armed men, accustomed as they were, through long years of lonely wandering in the wilderness, to face every kind of danger from man, brute or element. There were still three beaver traps to collect from a little pond in a wide ravine near by. Bauman volunteered to gather these and bring them in, while his companion went ahead to camp and made ready the packs.

On reaching the pond Bauman found three beavers in the traps, one of which had been pulled loose and carried into a beaver house. He took several hours in securing and preparing the beaver, and when he started homewards he marked, with some uneasiness, how low the sun was getting. As he hurried toward camp, under the tall trees, the silence and desolation of the forest weighted on him. His feet made no sound on the pine needles and the slanting sunrays, striking through among the straight trunks, made a gray twilight in which objects at a distance glimmered indistinctly. There was nothing to break the gloomy stillness which, when there is no breeze, always broods over these somber primeval forests. At last he came to the edge of the little glade where the camp lay and shouted as he approached it, but got no answer. The campfire had gone out, though the thin blue smoke was still curling upwards.

Near it lay the packs wrapped and arranged. At first Bauman could see nobody; nor did he receive an answer to his call. Stepping forward he again shouted, and as he did so his eye fell on the body of his friend, stretched beside the trunk of a great fallen spruce. Rushing towards it the horrified trapper found that the body was still warm, but that the neck was broken, while there were four great fang marks in the throat. The footprints of the unknown beast-creature, printed deep in the soft soil, told the whole story. The unfortunate man, having finished his packing, had sat down on the spruce log with his face to the fire, and his back to the dense woods, to wait for his companion. While thus waiting, his monstrous assailant, which must have been lurking in the woods, waiting for a chance to catch one of the adventurers unprepared, came silently up from behind, walking with long noiseless steps and seemingly still on two legs. Evidently unheard, it reached the man, and broke his neck by wrenching his head back with its fore paws, while it buried its teeth in his throat. It had not eaten the body, but apparently had romped and gamboled around it in uncouth, ferocious glee, occasionally rolling over and over it; and had then fled back into the soundless depths of the woods.

Bauman, utterly unnerved and believing that the creature with which he had to deal was something either half human or half devil, some great goblin-beast, abandoned everything but his rifle and struck off at speed down the pass, not halting until he reached the beaver meadows where the hobbled ponies were still grazing. Mounting, he rode onwards through the night, until beyond reach of pursuit.”

He hasn't distorted anything from Theodore Roosevelt’s 1893 book, The Wilderness Hunter. Albeit there's other versions but in that one it does not say that it was a bear anywhere. --Timpicerilo (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're after with this, as you've posted this exact same book excerpt to the Talk page before? - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I posted the excerpt for all to see if it's a verifiable fact where is it? Clearly it's not in "The Wilderness Hunter".--Timpicerilo (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the answer is, we'd have to go by what some reliable source wrote about it rather than posting the text here and trying to decide what what we think it says. But the bear/no bear issue isn't really the problem. The fact that some Bigfoot proponents believe the "goblin story" in The Wilderness Hunter is an account of a Bigfoot encounter needs to be cited to a reliable secondary source such as Daegling's commentary and not to the primary source of Roosevelt's book. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Archiving discussions

I just set up automated archiving of the discussions on this page. I set it to archive anything older than two months, guessing that that was about the right amount of time to avoid clutter. Does anyone think this setting should be changed? (This is assuming that I've done it correctly, which is always a big assumption.) Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally, you can just set it to a reasonable time period up and if an editor objects, they'll adjust it or say something. That said, I'm going to increase the time by quite a bit. This talk page doesn't see a lot of movement. Jess_talk|_edits 21:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Automated archiving is a great idea. I've done it manually the past couple of times because it does tend to get cluttered over a few months.--Timpicerilo (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. 5 months seemed excessively long to me, so I've changed it to three. ClovisPt (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be experiencing some technical difficulties. "Poor and Failed Sources" and "Sweedish Publication" talk ended in April long past the three month limit.--Timpicerilo (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe not. "USA today" must have prolonged the archiving.--Timpicerilo (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah, Houston we have a problem. "Guy in a costume" talk ended around August.--Timpicerilo (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems as if little Miss zaBot I is now doing her job, thanx.--Timpicerilo (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is bias to continue to promote them as myth - two months is definitely too short a time frame as it continuously deletes significant input. I thought five months, which was agreed upon earlier was too short. Much significant historical discussion, critique, ridicule and science has been lost at a disservice to the public by premature deletions of this small site. Sincerely 75.71.85.247 (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Tom Miller

Not lost at all. Archiving is not deleting. Check out the template at the top of this page, and you will see the links to the archives, twelve of them. [/me starts to worry about the repeated claim that the supposedly lost stuff is "significant." ] How so, 75.71.85.247? The content of the page as it looks now is pretty insignificant, for instance, since it's mainly soapboxing. The talkpage isn't for that, it's for discussing improvements to the article. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

rodger patterson

that guy was out of control yesterday!--Zed127 (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

pictures?

why is it that the pictures of all these hoaxes always out of focus? i mean that why no one can prove half of these things cause THEIRS NO CLEAR EVIDENCE! we need clear pictures to prove anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.113.97.8 (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Most often people are not expecting to see a Bigfooticus. Except for Roger Patterson - they are caught off guard, full of adrenaline and have little time to react - as the first instinct of their shy subject is to flee for safety. That is one of several reasons bipedal Bigfooticus hominids have been able to survive side by side H. sapiens for a million +- years. Next is the evolutionary advantage of their camouflaging hair cover which diffuses and absorbs light much like a Mountain Gorilla baby's hair does. Bigfooticus are divergent from gorillas by more than 10 million years and are not closely related. Conversely they are divergent from humans by only about one million +- years. Gorillas are only used as an example to explain the usually FUZZY pictures. Lowland gorillas are easy to photograph with their short hair however; the colder environment of Mountain Gorillas - much like the environment of Bigfooticus - require a denser, more insulating hair covering which are also perfect for visual cover and camouflage. Mountain gorilla babies often look like a black blob even in clear close-up non subject-moving photos. That is why the Mountain Gorilla was only proved real in the early 1900's and the NEWLY discovered - 300 pound ( Chimpanzee like ) NEW APE - which I mentioned as POSSIBLE in my 2010 Wikipedia article - has finally been proved, filmed and dubbed the Bili Ape late last year. Photos ( backed up by video ) of Mona Zuzu seem fuzzy for these same reasons. Digital cameras of today are not as precise at capturing moving subjects. Most Sincerely 75.71.85.247 (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Tom Miller

so your telling me that no one can get a pic that's clear because they are startled?--zed127 high school student 17:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zed127 (talk • contribs)

yes! - because the people are of the species Surprisibus! surprisibus! HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

No no the problems is that Bigfoot is blurry.Moxy (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

pictures

i agree these pictures are not clear enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zed127 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question or what? Clear? How on earth would you hide the zipper?!!--Bishophop (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

so are u agreeing or denying?--zed127 high school student 17:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zed127 (talk • contribs) you just need to be more clear with our answer--Zed127 high school student (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

good external links

has any one read Dr. jane goodalls disscustion bout the big one himself(bigfoot)--zed127 high school student 18:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zed127 (talk • contribs)

It sounds like it's time for Dr. Goodall to come in from the wild for a while. Her comments are just idle wishful-thinking without any grounding in one scrap of real physical evidence. I'm very surprised at her comments - she, of all people, should know better. She'd also be very hard-pressed to explain the total lack of fossil evidence in the western hemisphere for any apes or hominids outside of homo sapiens, and with the need of a minimum number of creatures to maintain a surviving population, how biologists combing North America for decades have never, ever come across any such creature. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

or how about csi's evaluation of a half a century of bigfoot evedance?--zed127 high school student 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zed127 (talk • contribs)

also thers bigfoot hunting--zed127 high school student 18:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zed127 (talk • contribs)

There's also an annual 'Nessie' hunt over at Loch Ness, with just about as much success. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

"Prominent reported sightings"

I was a little surprised at the way the "reported sightings" in the section "Prominent reported sightings" became simply "sightings"—in other words, actual sightings—in the text. To put it as kindly as possible, they may or may not have been sightings, but it's presumably a fact that they were reports. I have changed the word to reflect that.

Our old friend "alleged" appears here and there in the section, but often not in the best position: "Beck wrote a book about the event in 1967, in which he argued that the alleged creatures were mystical beings from another dimension." I've removed the suggestion that the event was real but the creatures merely alleged—how would that work?

For the numerous appearances of the verb "claimed", see Wikipedia:Words to avoid. I've changed most of them to "said". Bishonen | talk 22:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC).

I'd have preferred "hallucinated", but sure, you rock. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Duke U 'scientists'?

I also have a question for you about the Scientriffic Magazine citation given in the article. Seeing as Scientriffic is a magazine for 7-10 year olds, I'd like to know what other opinions the team of Duke University scientists gave regarding Bigfoot, other than (apparently) supportive of the Bigfoot Field Research Organization's conclusions regarding the photo in question. Since Duke's science department is somewhat prominent, there must be fairly wide coverage of this particular study. Can you point me to it, or to a transcript of the article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the other I checked the "Scientriffic" Bigfoot article. It is a classroom science publication for ages 7 to 16. The Bigfoot article in it is pretty straightforward containing only the opinions of the writer and scientists from Duke University not the BFRO. It mainly is on teaching students how to properly investigate a Bigfoot sighting. It does not list Bigfoot or the Jacobs creature as a "real creature". It does list several famous sightings including the "Pattersons" as hoaxes. It displays a survey from the Jacobs creature site with a photographic recreation on location. It displays some type of wire model that was used during the recreation and survey by scientists to measure and determine the limb proportions were not similar to a bears. Unfortunately the article does not determine the Jacobs photo was indeed Bigfoot or that Bigfoot is real.--ChubsterII (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Who were the other Duke U. scientists involved? Names? - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Scientists" that have worked on that Bigfoot Science Fiction or Science Fact article. It doesn't identify a specific team member anywhere in the article. It only displays how these "scientists" worked out the proportions and size in that particular photo. Along with their generalized opinion on Bigfoot, other major sightings they believe are hoaxes and how-to properly investigate.--ChubsterII (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. "Scientists" worked on the article but were not named? They expressed "generalized opinion" on Bigfoot? They believe other sightings are hoaxes but had no opinions on this particular one (other than it wasn't a bear)? - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I read it over carefully and it names Vanessa Woods from Duke. She was the writer of the article in the science publication. She was the investigator on the subject along with some fellow scientists that are left as unnamed colleagues. They left that particular sighting as unidentified. They showed through investigating the proportions of the subject that they're not of a bear. It also covered several other sightings that they believed were hoax's. The writer explains how to investigate to the students that the publication targets. It also covers her thoughts on the subject and how she believes that in science when investigating it sometimes requires faith. "Just because you can't see or touch something it still may exist." There's not much more to it but it does not give credit to anything in the article from an english professor. If it needs to be more descriptive I guess it could be something like, "Scientist Vanessa Woods along with fellow unnamed scientists worked out the size…" because it does list all involved as scientists and not english professors.--ChubsterII (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be an article one could selectively quote from to either create an impression of criticism (e.g. "scientists say Bigfoot sightings are hoaxes") or support ("scientists determined the size of the creature was not consistent with a bear"). Unfortunately, in this case it's being used to create the impression of support; i.e. since Duke U. scientists say it wasn't a bear, it supports Jacobs and BFRO's "Bigfoot explanation" that was "challenged" by the Penn. Game Commission. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Displaying that the proportions are not similar to a bears doesn’t give the impression Bigfoot is real. It’s no different than what is quoted from Jeff Meldrum about the same sighting. It explains why the photo is interpreted as a Bigfoot but is not proof of one. It is better understood with more detailed information, numbers and models. Should we include more from that article along with its photographic recreation of the scene, model, sizes and survey photos? I could probably copy them for downloading into the article with a fair use rationale. We could add the possibility of it being a hoax or something else. I believe the MSNBC Keith Oberman coverage touches on the possibility of it being a hoax or trick but I haven't seen any others to reference.--ChubsterII (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think we'll need that additional material. I did a copyedit to clarify the points we discussed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

On Rick Jacobs images, another point of view that hasn't been presented is malfunctioning of the camera. As proposed the shadow behind the creature could only have been made by motion blur since the flash in that model of camera as in all cameras is mounted at the same level as the lens or above the lens. The purpose of mounting the flash above the lens is to eliminate a background shadow around the subject such as would appear around the head of an individual in a portrait. The reasoning then says that you are looking at multiple images caused by malfunctioning of the camera as evidenced in the photo itself rather than subjective reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.176.9 (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn’t a debate forum on whether the picture is real or fake yet the article can only represent reliable sourced information. Reliable references are a available that state it was not a “flash” picture but was taken using the infrared mode. There is no reliable source stating the camera malfunctioned. The facts are that the manufacturer Bushnell used a biologist, zoologist, camera technicians and several wildlife photo experts to examine the original photos along with the camera. They all have determined the creature was unidentifiable, everything was working properly and that it was not an altered photo.--Csikszentmihalyi (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read the article about the camera flash behind the animal it too states that the apparent shadow was simply motion blur rather than a shadow created by a flash (IR or otherwise). The contents of a YouTube video (Bigfoot or Bear?) shows that the three bears captured earlier were the same animals that created the images. The movement of at least one face is shown in a 3D sequences extracted from the multiple images capture on the two photos. Additionally, other images are displayed in the video that show problems with Bushnell Cameras operating in IR range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.14.177 (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There was only 2 cubs in that one. I like the YouTube video (Was It BIGFOOT?) better as it shows the complete series of photos.--Bigponder (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness this is the way it went down: There were deer and bear photos but the day of the young sasquatch everything was gone for half an hour when "it" showed up. This is one thing every professional that examined and has publically commented on the photos agrees with. According to those involved and investigating it was as if everything was scared away. There was no other photos taken for several days until the owner picked up the camera and it snapped a photo of him. I would ask the hunter himself whom I believe still lives in Elk County before I jumped to any conclusions. Or for the best information on the story in video form watch it here. --Bigponder (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Still no explanations for these (in the middle of that page) sounds it made that were recorded from the location after it was photographed . Or these people that witnessed it in the same area.--ChubsterII (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Proper limb proportions comparable to both Patty & Mona Zuzu. Clearly a thin youngster. Not a bear - a hominid. Camera flash shows through her hair covering to reveal hip bone, stretched butt and arm muscles, flexed leg muscles with tight back of knee and hip tendons. Clearly more flexible than most humans. If - likely real - the photos reveal some behaviors about their interest in deer scent, their skeletons & differences to H. sapiens of body strength and movement. It also reveals the light diffusing nature of her camouflaging hair cover.75.71.85.247 (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)75.71.85.247 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Tom Miller

"Clearly"? Um ... Look, why don't you take these conclusions to a few scientists and see how far they agree on this. It will be a humbling experience, at best. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

As for recent changes these particular scientists are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject of various mammals proportions. The published material was done with a reliable publication process complete with the ISSN of 1442-2212. Similar credentials are often considered as reliable sources in many Wiki articles.--ChubsterII (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Would be best not to fill the encyclopedia with guess work.Moxy (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Then remove the guesswork of the Pennsylvania Game Commission whom never investigated, measured or analyzed the original pictures not the work of scientists that have. Can you show us one reliable source or another scientist that has found discrepancies in her article and measurements? After all it was NOT her opinion that it was indeed Bigfoot and if it was proportioned like a normal bear it wouldn’t have been talked about at all. If someday someone were to come forward and confess it was a child or model she will still be correct and the POV from the Pennsylvania Game Commission will be dead wrong.--ChubsterII (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

We do not know if these "particular scientists" even said what was claimed in the unreliable source, and certainly nothing was done to demonstrate that they are regarded as any way authoritative. This just proves how ridiculous pro-Bigfoot editors have to be in trying to come up with sources: no real sources exist so hearsay claims in kids' publications are attempted to be used instead. Tell you what Chubster, when those supposed Duke University scientists put their reputations on the line by actually publishing something about their alleged claims in a peer-reviewed scientific journal or get directly interviewed by an actual source THEN you can include that comment. Until then it's unreliable fluff. And if there are indeed other similar things in other articles, those should be removed. DreamGuy (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is from a science publication not a fairy tail magazine. This section has a teachers guide and test to teach the proper way to investigate Bigfoot sightings. If you don't believe it then research as I have it's still available for back order and can be found from the ISSN number. Don't refer to me as a "ridiculous pro-Bigfoot editor" I need to remind you that we all aren't going to believe exactly the same as you. All the information needs to be covered not just one side. Don't post 3RR edit warnings on my talk page when I've only made 2 edits especially when you're the one that started this war by removing a long time portion of this article. I'll "tell you what" Dreamguy if everything in Wiki has to be from a peer reviewed scientific journal I will take it out myself.--ChubsterII (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't demand peer reviewed scientific journals for all citations. However we do have reliable source standards and a magazine aimed at very young children doesn't cut it. If these are relevant findings, I'm sure they have been picked up by an adult publication , if not then they probably aren't serious or relevant. --Daniel 16:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Scientriffic is actually for older students ages 7 to 16 and the article was written and investigated by a scientist. Although it's not a significant discovery it was the best analysis done on those photos in that incident. These findings in the very least should be mentioned in the article.--ChubsterII (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If you ever get a reliable source for it then it can be. Right now your argument seems to be "I want it there, and this is the best source we have, so we must use it." instead of "Do we have an encyclopedia-level source for this?" DreamGuy (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you consider an encyclopedia-level source to be reliable, published material with a reliable publication process and authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. If not there's a lot of work to be done on not only this but many Wiki articles.--ChubsterII (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Just LOL. There's no reliable editing process shown, no peer review, no indication these people even said what the publication claimed or that they are considered authoritative in any way. And there is no doubt improvement needed on some other articles, but your concept of how WP:RS works is skewed. DreamGuy (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep it in until something else is found out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.73.65 (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep it out until something else (better source) confirms it. Racerx11 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If scientists have some notable "findings" about Bigfoot we'll need to cite them from appropriate journals rather than depending on third hand reports of what may or may not have been written in a science magazine for kids. Until then, keep it out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This wasn’t scribbled on a bathroom wall it was approved to be placed back in the article years ago when the ISSN register was found and became available by subscription. “The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (article), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.“ This has both and did when it was approved before, nothing has changed plus many articles have much less.--ChubsterII (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, we don't need to wrangle over what may or may not have been written in a childrens magazine. We have much higher quality reliable sources that describe the mainstream view of the photo in no uncertain terms. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I’m glad you found that because unfortunately everyone that knows the story also knows that Jerry Feaser of the Pennsylvania Game Commission is not a biologist. The Pennsylvania Game Commission never investigated, measured or analyzed the clearest original pictures. That’s why it’s important we cover the available work from a real scientist that has performed the best research on this case. This goes to show you that sometimes even when things you believe are reliable are worth looking into further because sometimes they really aren’t. The funniest part is that it's such poor research that they didn't even check the time stamps or they would know the bears were earlier along with deer and never returned after the creature in question showed up. It also pays to know that at that time according to newspaper reports Jerry Feasers PGC was under pressure and surrounded by a mob of hysterical people demanding answers to what the creature was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChubsterII (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

First infant Bigfooticus photo named " Zuzu "- head - face - body & feet

The first ever close up photo of an HRB infant ( 9 months old ) will be released this week in USA TODAY. " Zuzu " is the first of several young which were documented in 2008 and 2009 by photos and moving videos and other evidence. In order of their discoveries, the six new individual Bigfooticus Beings were given the names: infant Teddy, Buddy, Zoe, infant Zuzu, Clarence Oddbody and seven year old Tommy Boy. Please note Zuzu's robust Australopithecine ( A. boisei ) head and face with her extra small cranium of less than half that of a human newborn but with her enormous skull zygomatic cheek and jaw bones & her huge cheek, jaw, skull and neck muscles as she flexes her head and face toward the photographer. Her feet are proportionally large and wide. Zuzu's proportional body parts corroborate Wikipedia's Jacob's and Patterson photos, prior public evidence & the later fossil hominids - including the late robust Australopithecines and the early robust species of the genus Homo. Sincerely 75.71.85.247 (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC). Ref: USA TODAY

USA Today Huh? Not, say, Nature or Scientific American? This is not a good start. For the record, I'll call hoax now and save a lot of time. Homo robustus bigfooticus will never get as far as the ICZN. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your instant opinion that this is not genuine defies many reasoned thought parameters. You did not even wait to see the first ever infant photos & videos which are just the tip of the ice-burg. You might first become familiar with the many proven hominin species ( Australopithecus sediba announced just last April) that lived side by side in Africa from 2.8 million to 200,000 years ago. Lack of this knowledge is exactly why most scientists will never experience these supreme Beings. Can you name any scientists, paleoanthropologists, or anthropologists at Nature, Scientific America or any science or primate institution who are expert on this subject? Mountain Gorillas were not proven real until after the year 1900. One thousand very rare Bonobos - doubling the known population - were just discovered. Most Sincerely 75.71.85.247 (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Thomas Miller

wait a minute. Why is Homo robustus bigfooticus a trademark for a load of games? This reduces the credibility of your claim a lot. Bigfooticus.com is a sales site for a book. you have failed to supply any evidence that a science journal has published. I call not just hoax, but sales gimmick. Incidentally I neither accept nor deny the possibility of bigfoot existing; I do, however, deny your claim to have found proof. And so do these people. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Very good catch on the commercial issue. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I just googled the word bigfooticus and it was the first hit. This is less convincing than the Georgia bigfoot claims from 2008. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't say this is just a case of Bigfoot propaganda when the witness sounds so sincere.--Timpicerilo (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You may not say, but for it's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't have a long history of falling for hokum that this is just a marketing hoax. DreamGuy (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Falling for hokum is not it at all! Pseudoskeptics like yourself will never "get it" when it comes to Bigfoot. Trying to convince proponents is a waste of time when most already know it's probably nothing more than a legend. Do you think the Bigfoot in the Jack Links commercials became such a popular icon because everyone believes that it's real? Bigfoot is more about fun and the fascination of wanting it to be real than anything else albeit the extremely slim chance that it exists.--Timpicerilo (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Having it in commercials because it is fun is a far cry from accepting that someone out to sell you a load of bull is sincere. It's also amusing when people toss out the term Pseudoskeptic without understanding what the word means. But then the people who use that term often don't know much of anything at all. 20:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

AGAIN - A sincere Thank-You to Timpicerilo's positive and open minded comments! It has been awhile since I have looked at this site. For the record - I would like to clarify a few things. #1- Trademarking is the best way to protect intellectual property rights and new discoveries. #2- Let us assume that the first ever Infant Bigfooticus photos (backed up by moving video) which have been released & allowed by Wikipedia to reproduce - are real, genuine and not manipulated in any way except to blow up her images - THEN; wouldn't it be irresponsible to just ignore the insightful information provided by -- " Mona Zuzu's" head-shape, skeleton and facial features. Only a couple infant Australopithecine skulls have ever been found. They spanned several million years. Mona Zuzu was named for the (smile/frown) grimace she showed to the camera out of fear and the flexing of her huge zygomatic cheek and skull muscles. Combined with her smaller than human cranium - they show the dramatic skull shape differences to their nearest cousins (H.sapiens) #3- It is true that I am sincere, there is no pretense - no hoax or any other motives other than to shed light through these new discoveries on our own simultaneous hominid (hominin) evolutions, prove they are REAL & NOT Myth and to aid in their rare species protection. #4- These (REAL) photos of Mona Zuzu's head, full body showing her robust upper body, hip bone, skinny newborn lower body, bottoms of her human shaped feet and camouflaging hair are genuine and have not been altered in any way except to blow her up - which causes her to become fuzzy. A drawing of her face without her hair and skull shape are also provided. Zuzu is the first of six to be responsibly released. Five others including an approximate seven year old with a head only half the size of his mothers will be released too. Human skulls max out at about 4 1/2 years old. Bigfooticus newborn craniums show about 40% size comparison to human newborns; whereas Bigfooticus show near twice the time frame for skull growth and 75% final adult brain size of H. sapiens. 1000cc vs. 1350cc. Most Sincerely 75.71.85.247 (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Tom Miller.

*Le sigh* 1. scientific facts (if indeed these are facts) are not intellectual property. 2. "wouldn't it be great if it was real" is not a valid argument. 3. You say You're honest, I say You're not. 4. show me a reliable source that says any of this stuff even exists. All we have to go on is your say-so. I am getting tired of you shilling your product. Stop using Wikipedia to sell things. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum to right great wrongs, and therefore not the proper venue to "prove [bigfooticus] are REAL & NOT Myth". The proper way to go about that is to have your research published in reliable secondary sources, which we can then report. Do that first, then come back here. Right now, you're using the page as a soapbox, which is inappropriate. If you continue that, your contributions are likely to be reverted or ignored. all the best, — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

would there happen to be a site where i can find more pics of these little guys?--Zed127 (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold it, I've read there is a huge ruckus over the personal name for the "Bigfooteecuss" infant in the crypto_world - some are arguing for Zira, some for Ursus, some for Cornelius, and not to leave out the Zaius faction! The sad thing about this topic is, that 100 yrs from now, the same zanies will be arguing the creature exists, while the 'hard science of evidence' will continue to consist of bear hides molded into cones, piles of leaves claimed to be "beds," and sample after sample of dung from various sources all claimed to be Bigfoot's poop. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Little? You might try The Doug Pridgen Footage (New York Baby Footage) at BFRO.net.--Timpicerilo (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I don’t know if you've read David Danglings book "Bigfoot Exposed" but his knowledge of the Sasquatch mystery is grade school level at best. It only includes his "opinion" about how the scientific community feels. His arrogant dismissive attitude was not scientific at all. The book is full of factual mistakes and is full of assumptions by the author based on his ignorance of the subject as a whole. That along with the other complete joke of a book called the "Skeptics Dictionary" and you don’t have a single reliable source so we certainly aren’t maintaining a WP:NPOV. All of this nonsence most likely put here by Dangling himself in an effort to promote his book should be removed.--Timpicerilo (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Magnum Consensus does not mean unanimity. See WP:Consensus. To both you and Timpicerilo, I'll repeat myself again: The only way to move forward with this discussion is to provide new sources backing up your assertion that there is significant disagreement among scientists. Until that time, consensus seems to be settled, so there's nothing more to discuss. Please find sources. If what you say is true, it shouldn't be hard. — Jess· Δ ♥ 22:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Timpicerilo: The fact that you personally do not like a book and disagree with it does not mean it is not reliable. Based upon some of your statements you have very fluid ideas of what "errors" and "facts" even are. The Skeptics Dictionary has been approved as a reliable source on Wikipedia time and time again. Your say so isn't going to change that. Again, you do not seem to understand or respect Wikipedia policies. Therefore you should go contribute to a site that is more in line with your thinking and leave this one alone. DreamGuy (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

@DreamGuy Please don't bite. If he can contribute sources to the article, that is a clear benefit to the project. If he's unfamiliar with wikipedia policies, he should become familiar with them... not leave out of frustration. We do need sources, however, Timpicerilo; Without them, this line of discourse won't get us any further. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

@Jess: He has been giving many opportunities to provide sources and to read policy. He chooses not to. He instead wastes everyone else's time suggesting we do things that he already knows goes against our policies. If he refuses to follow policies he should not be here, simple as that. While we would all love for problem editors to learn to be good and fly straight, his history suggests that will never happen. It gets tiring hearing that we should not bite newbies when the editor in question is no newbie at all and should know better by now even being very generous in allowing him to take his sweet time to get up to speed here. Leaving would also be a benefit to him, as he would be somewhere where he could do the kinds of things he says he wants to do here but cannot per policy. I know some people like the lovey-dovey idea that every editor is equally valid and helpful, but in the real world there are a lot of editors who do nothing but hurt the project and waste everyone else's time. DreamGuy (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

@Jess: He says I have a long history of problems? He is the one with a very long history of bite and other wikipedia violations.--Timpicerilo (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So your argument is "I know he is but what am I?" Great. Good luck with that. DreamGuy (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources I’ve found indicate "the majority of scientists that openly talk about Bigfoot believe it’s a possibility." I would be contradicting myself if I were to say “the majority of all scientists” do that’s as wrong as what the article presently says. I can’t say there’s significant disagreement among scientists because the majority don’t comment on the subject at all. I’ve been unable to find any reliable sources that explain why. Is it because they discount the existence? Is it because they have no substantial evidence yet and are unable to experiment or demonstrate the truth? With the little evidence they do have they can’t come to a conclusion that validates the hypothesis. The majority of scientists do maintain an open mind so until there's more we'll have to go with the consensus. With that maybe the more experienced here can tell me what the consensus now is on the statement used twice in the article: "A majority of scientists discount the existence of Bigfoot?"--Timpicerilo (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears the current consensus is that, without new sources indicating otherwise, our present wording is accurate. As indicated above, that the majority of scientists who talk about it are supportive says very little. Most people who talk about alien abductions probably believe in those too; It would be a waste of time otherwise. That the biological and zoological communities as a whole discount the existence of Bigfoot says more about the majority view on the subject. A proper reliable source contending that wording would indicate there's significant disagreement within those communities. Peer reviewed papers by zoologists, for example, would be helpful. — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points Jess. It has somewhat troubled me that we (many times I) have been rather loosely throwing around the word "scientist" in this discussion. The published works of, as you said, zoologists, primatologist and anthropologists, people who study the relevant branch of science for a living, are more indicative of a scientific consensus than simply the opinions of any or all scientists in general. Not to say people like Jane Goodall, haven't spoken support of Bigfoot. She has been metioned here and she is a primatologist. But I don't think Goodall has published anything seriously supporting Bigfoot, and she herself had backed away from her earlier statements regarding the possibility of Bigfoot. In any case, the majority of published works in the relevant fields of science, discount the possiblilty of Bigfoot. That is the consensus, Timpicerilo. And in case you are wondering, just my opinion, but if you were able to poll most every zoologist, most every primatologist, ask them "yes" or "no" on even the slightest possiblilty that Bigfoot is real; I would be shocked...stunned, if more than a fraction of one percent support the possibility of Bigfoot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racerx11 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Racerx11 If that's the consensus then it's what we'll have to go with. I guess without polling the scientists we'll never really know. Regardless they'll all be shocked if somebody brings in a dead one.--Timpicerilo (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Timpicerilo, you might try emailing the Journal of Zoology editors with your questions. If anyone could give an authoritative opinion regarding percentages of scientists who are supportive of the existence of Bigfoot, they would be a good choice. I don't know if they'd respond (and even if they did it'd be original research) but it might help fulfill your personal quest. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As Neil deGrasse Tyson says about UFO's and aliens, bring us some evidence, just the tiniest piece of evidence. Sasquatch is an amusing American myth, but really, there's no evidence, extraordinary, ordinary, or weak. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence if you look into it with both criticism and support. There are eye witnesses from all walks of life, visual, audio recordings, fossils from a giant ape, footprints, handprints, finger prints, and even a body cast. Anyway back to the subject, thanks for the tip LuckyLouie and you're probably correct about the original research.--Timpicerilo (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinary evidence means a body, DNA, and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Real science, in other words. Eyewitnesses don't qualify. Visual recordings don't qualify. Fossils of a giant ape means that there's a giant ape that died out millions of years ago. I can show you dinosaur fossils, but that's not a priori proof that dinosaurs currently exist, which they don't. Moreover, this isn't a debate about Sasquatch, it is a debate on what can be supported and what can't in an encyclopedia. Right now, there is nothing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Real science? It all qualifies "Scientific evidence" has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Wikipedia--Timpicerilo (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ummm.....yes it does. See Scientific method. It has specific steps leading up to publishing in a peer-reviewed journal, with the ability to confirm those results. You seem to be conflating anecdotes with science, a common mistake in pseudosciences.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no conflating if we had all that this wouldn't be in the American folklore categorie. Maybe someday we can turn this into the predator categorie.--Timpicerilo (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I generally don't consider non-sequitors to be useful forms of sarcasm. Because of the lack of evidence, it remains a myth. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There’s no dispute that we’re dealing with a legendary being.--Timpicerilo (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM, editors should not engage in repetitive discussions that are not focused on improving the article. If you have a suggestion for text based on reliable secondary sources, please make it in a new section. Also, see WP:PARITY and WP:REDFLAG: an article does not need a gold-plated source to refute fringe theories. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

John, everyone here is a seasoned editor. And it seems like we came to a reasonable conclusion. However, there are a couple of places where your comments would come in very useful. Astrology and Traditional Chinese Medicine being the couple. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We’ve come to a conclusion but were not all in agreement that the statement “the majority of scientists discount the existence” is a true one. For some yes, some definitely not and others probably don’t talk about it to play it safe.--Timpicerilo (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, we all know you disagree. Whether you agree or disagree means nothing about this encyclopedia article. Reliable sources is what we want. If you want to disagree with the idea that a majority of scientists reject Bigfoot, come back with real sources that support that concept. Until then you are just stating your opinion over and over, which contributes nothing of any value here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Other than Jane Goodall, who studies apes in Africa not myths in North America, name real scientists who have investigated and provided real research published in a peer reviewed journal about this nonexistent delusion? Please, while we wait, the NPOV is that this thing doesn't exist. Thank you DreamGuy for saying it straight! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice! Now we have facts that aren’t facts including a bold lie that 100% of all scientists are in agreement. Congratulations Dreamguy and Orangemarlin you’ve managed to organize a successfull takeover of this article. During this obsession you’ve used childish name calling, disregarded all WP:NPOV rules, removed material that’s been approved by the majority over the years and officially turned the entire history of this legend into The Skeptics Guide to Bigfoot.--ChubsterII (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a helpful post, Chubster. Please stay civil, and keep in mind one of the central tenets for editing Wikipedia talkpages: Comment on content, not on the contributor. What you need to do at this point is show how an age 7+ mag is a Wikipedia:RS and how Vanessa Woods is a "well-known scientist"; not make accusations of bad faith against other editors. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC).

Not only is she a well known scientist, primatologist and writer from Duke University she’s done things other scientists only dream of. She worked in the Congo and is a key player in the Hominoid Psychology Research Group still editors here question if she’s authoritative in relation to the subject. I wasn’t nearly as rude as they’ve been but you didn’t post warnings on their talk page like you have mine or tell them to Comment on content, not on the editor.--ChubsterII (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

They've been even ruder? I admit I haven't read this entire page, and that the general tone on it seems to be, uh, frank. On the other hand, I think you may have missed the bit on your page where I say accusations need to come with examples (diffs or quotes). So where have they (Orangemarlin and Dreamguy?) been so rude? Have they for instance said you are lying and name-calling, or is there something else? Examples, please. Preferably, take it to your talkpage; this page is for discussing improvements to the article. Bishonen | talk 06:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC).

This whole mess should only be on my talkpage. That’s where I’m taking it because this page should only be used for discussing improvements to the article not all this other nonsense.--ChubsterII (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

@Chubster. Just so you know, Vanessa Woods is not a scientists. Her degree is in communications. In other words, she's great at advertising. And she writes children books. This is a perfect example of selection bias, usually seen in pseudoscience, where there is a preference for weak evidence, while ignoring the vast amount of contradictory evidence, in this case, bigfoot does not exist. Again, bring us one hominid/hominim fossil in North America from the past 1 million years. Just one. And given how much of North America has been explored, and that 1 million year old fossils wouldn't be that deep of a geological layer, you'd expect that it would be found by now. But of course, I can easily find dinosaur fossils from 70 million years ago.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would love to find the missing fossil if there is one in fact I’m not afraid to admit Bigfoot may only exist in my imagination but I’m still fascinated by it.

http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/vanessa-woods FYI Vanessa most certainly is a Research Scientist for Duke and she never said Bigfoot was real.--ChubsterII (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Her degree is a masters in science communication (not a PHD in an actual science) and she analyzed bigfoot in a magazine aimed at seven year old children and you think this analysis should go in the article? Seriously? --Daniel 15:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Second arbitrary break

From what I looked up her expertise on apes would more than make her regarded as authoritative for comparisons. In particular I recommend searching for her long term study on Bonobos. Jeffery Meldrum immediately noticed these chimp-like like similarities that are hard to deny. That’s what made that sighting popular regardless of it being a bear or not.--Timpicerilo (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If she is an authority and her analysis is significant, I'm sure it would be published in something a little more authoritative than a children's magazine. --Daniel 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be significant to the 2007 sighting in this article but it’s no major scientific theory to find that picture is an abnormally sized bear, hoax, or someones pet chimpanzee... I can’t picture such findings in any authoritative science article other than something similar to what it’s in now. Children's non-fiction literature is used in some other articles in Wikipedia; one even calls it informational.--Timpicerilo (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That is the issue though, the reference to Scientriffic is being used to argue that it wasn't a bear with mange. There is a adequate reference from Fox News quoting the Pennsylvania Game Commissioner which says that it was a bear. If Scientriffic or sources like it are being used as a sources in other articles they should be removed or replaced. --Daniel 00:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The spokespersons opinion is just that it may or may not be a bear with mange. It’s a belief or sentiment shared by people not a proven theory. Can this spokespersons opinion be considered a scientific theory when it’s an educated guess based upon observation but not first hand from a real scientist? It’s a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what was observed in the photos, but it has not been proven and that makes it a theory. Scientific facts must be true and absolute. On the other hand, the scientists that worked out the size have shown that it doesn’t appear to be a normal sized bear and that’s supported by what another scientist said in the misidentification section.--Timpicerilo (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the news report the story changes as some detail is lost in the transition from the AP to each news agency. To be accurate you have to go to the original statement from the Pa. Game Commission made on Oct. 27, 2007 to the Bradford Era Vol. 131. In it you will find the editor report that Jerry Feaser from the Pa. Game Commission “contacted them about the photos and went so far as to chastise the Era for reporting the story of a questionable photo”. You will also find Jerry Feasers actual statement that “the news media was causing more concern and panic than necessary”. This is why he was ordered to get involved because they had to shut down their phone lines from all the panic. Mr. Feaser stated that he shared the photo posted on the BFRO with another employee of the Pa. Game Commission that told him it was a bear with mange. Mr. Feaser also said “somebody may mistakenly identify something”. So he didn’t know himself what it was if he had to ask another employees thoughts on it plus look at the key words he used like “may" and "questionable."--Edmac1 (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The opinion of the Pennsylvania Game Commissioner as reported by Fox News are relevant to this article. The opinions of a person with a degree in communications, published in a magazine for seven years olds are not. Neither are hard scientific facts, but one is a significant view and the other is not. This is in part an issue of WP:UNDUE. --Daniel 19:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we're losing sight of something here. Please bring evidence that it's anything else but a bear. Maybe it was pigzilla or a grizzly wandering from Yellowstone. Whether the game commission is a reliable source to debunk a myth is not really relevant. What is important is whether the sighting was anything that can be used in this article. BTW, I added another break, because it was getting hard to edit.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Daniel on the significant view. There's no solid evidence of anything but if you figure the odds they go with bear. Even a strange deformed one is more likely than anything else except maybe a hoax. That in itself is unique because not many have talked hoax on this one and that's usually the first thing you hear. Don't get me wrong, if we do find out Bigfoot is real someday there is no question in my mind that this was a young one.--ChubsterII (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There should be more external Links

There are several good websites that are great resources for this topic. Wikipedia should also be a resource for finding other sites that are topical top the subject. I would include popular sites like Cryptomundo.com, BigfootSightings.com, BigfootLunchClub.com, and BigfootForums.com. The only link provided is skeptical and almost 10 years old, while the four websites I have sited are current and updated almost every day.

I wish others who visited this page could have the opportunity to see the pages Bigfoot Enthusiast visit everyday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EpicGilgamesh (talk • contribs) 04:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL - we don't link to blogs, forums, etc. Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey why don't the morons get real pictures of bigfoot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.104.76 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

TONE

I've fixed a few things here so that the tone is more neutral. The article, as previously written, seemed to imply that there are "scientists" and "bigfoot believers." As if this animal or what-have-you is a matter of belief and that all scientists don't "believe." Gingermint (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Scientists "believe" through theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. This theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment and they have never been able to absolutely verify the evidence they can only corroborate a more likely hypothesis.--ChubsterII (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This article sounds too skeptical

This article sounds like it is mostly from a skeptic's point of view and sounds very biased (in skeptic's viewpoint). Doesn't sound neutral at all, just an article trying to disprove Bigfoot or try to show Bigfoot is not real. Iritakamas (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is taken from the WP:NPOV policy on pseudoscience and related fringe theories:

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community.

So the Wikipedia policy on writing about pseudoscientific subjects, is that we should bias the point-of-view in favor of the mainstream scientific view and not add undue weight to the fringe theory.

We might question if the existence of Bigfoot or cryptozoology falls under pseudoscience, but the mainstream view is they do. You may also find related material in WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Racerx11 (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly can the mainstream view on Bigfoot from the scientific community be referenced? If it's not just an excuse to write biased material then it needs to be something that is available to the general public. What scientists were involved? What about the viewpoint of scientists that see Bigfoot as a possibility? Is there an ongoing tally that one number is greater than the other?--Timpicerilo (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

i agree!--Zed127 high school student (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering your complete inability over several months to provide any significant reliable sources showing notable scientists who support the idea of Bigfoot, the tally would be overwhelmingly anti-Bigfoot. DreamGuy (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

@Timpicerilo: There are several references listed in the Notes section at the bottom of the article that support the consensus of the scientific community. Whether or not a subject is pseudoscience can be subjective, but is usually obvious and well referenced. You are more than welcome to add reliable references that some scientists believe the existence of Bigfoot is possible. However, if you think there are a significant number of scientist who support the possiblility that Bigfoot exists compared to those who don't; then the burden of proof is on you to provide the data that shows the view is no longer fringe. No one should have to provide a scientific survey to prove that the view Santa Claus isn't real is mainstream. Racerx11 (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

@Timpicerilo: No, there's no ongoing tally. There's no tally that most people think Elvis is dead, either. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

Great, I have investigated with such a tally recently. Surprisingly if a scientist is someone engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual who uses the scientific method as Wikipedia calls them I have a list of many real scientists that believe Bigfoot is possible. There’s many more than just the commonly known ones we all have heard of like Grover Krantz, Geoffrey Bourne, Jeffrey Melldrum, Jane Goodall. . . Yet the numbers of scientists that disagree with them is far smaller. Strangely from my investigation the mainstream scientific view, scientific consensus or the majority viewpoint of scientists is actually in favor of the Bigfoot theory. This could be a historical first to start an ongoing sign up of actual scientists. We could rewrite the real scientific consensus on Bigfoot. Do we want to continue to write biased material or shall we publish the truth? Lets get started, are we all in?--Timpicerilo (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. You have yet to convince me of what you say. Racerx11 (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

@Timpicerilo Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Wikipedia is not the place to start a rally. If this sort of discussion continues, the section will have to be hatted. Please keep the topic on direct changes to the article. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 04:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a rally I was trying to check the consenses here on applying some readily available information. I don't have to convince anyone Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide the better it is. I'm ready to add this to the article if everyone is in agreement I don't see that yet.--Timpicerilo (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"publish the truth?" - and what "truth" would that be? That after decades of search - by biologists and laymen, not one scrap of viable evidence has shown up to indicate Bigfooticus gullibilus rex exists? That there is a complete absence in the North American/Central American/South American fossil record for any such creature? That a supposedly reputable scientist like Jane Goodall can (evidently) spend too much time in the wild and spout off dreamerspeak on NPR? HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

No, Timpicerilo, a "real scientist" isn't defined as someone "engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge" or something like that. If that was it, the fringe editors wouldn't have gotten such short shrift from the Arbitration Committee in the recent arbitration on the chances that somebody else wrote Shakespeare's plays, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question. It might be interesting for you to study that case. Note that the main fringe timewaster was banned from Wikipedia for a year, and topic-banned in perpetuity from the authorship subject.[1] (This is not a threat, or a suggestion that you deserve banning; I'm sure you don't.) "Real scientists", that can be referred to in the Bigfoot article to support statements made there, are instead people who have published facts on the matter in reliable sources. In this case, reliable sources would mean peer-reviewed scientific journals, or books reviewed in such journals. Feel free to put up your list of scientists supporting the Bigfoot theory here on the talkpage, together with the reliable sources where their research has been published, and we'll all take a look at them, and then I expect we'll all be ready for them to be added to the article. Not before, though. And you say you also have a (far shorter) list of scientists who disagree that Bigfoot exists? Great, please let's have those, too. Bishonen | talk 12:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC).

I can't produce all that. They all don't have published research on Bigfoot especially “peer-reviewed scientific journals". Most of them have only commented on the possibility of it being real. There's a handful that have written about the subject. All together they are in fact a group of scientists that have reached the position that Bigfoot is a real possibility. Is that not what a consensus is? If there's not a larger group of scientists in disagreement then the scientific consensus should be that Bigfoot is a real possibility. Those that choose to not comment should not be counted. It shouldn't be that "most of the scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot" as it is presently stated in the article. I could be wrong, I may have overlooked some on both sides. That's why a list would be informative because it can be updated. I have something to offer that has real numbers of real people. It's not an estimation of how most scientists probably feel about it. What I'm thinking about having is a percentage tied to a list of names that can change as names are added or taken away. It will be simple, for instance all it has to say is 79% of the polled scientific community believes Bigfoot is a real possibility. Then if you click on the 79% link you will see the list of names with references.--Timpicerilo (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Timpicerilo: The overwhelmingly vast majority of scientist never bother to speak out on Bigfoot, simply because it is a non-issue to them. There is no debate among scientists on the subject that is significant enough to compel them to voice their position. Also, the people who are bothering to discuss the possibilty are comprised of a disproportionately large percentage of people who support Bigfoot's existence. I am suspecting that these two factors have likely skewed whatever tally you have, to such an enormous degree, that it is completely useless. Racerx11 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Racerx11: I suppose you could be right on that but if we posted the results more scientists might voice their position, add their names then we would end up with some real world percentages. That's why the ability of having constant updates would be important. I can't believe I'm not getting any support on this.--Timpicerilo (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If I am understanding you correctly, Timpicerilo, I am not sure that what you are proposing to do would be allowed on Wikipedia. It certainly would be outside of the aims and intentions of WP. Creating such a survey/tally could possibly be considered as using Wikipedia to actively conduct original research, which I assume would be prohibited, since original reseach in general is not allowed. Maybe someone else more familiar with WP policy on the subject can confirm or deny this? I will look into it myself. Racerx11 (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Timpicerilo, such a list wouldn't give you any more information than we already have. People who cared to comment on the issue, would comment on it. People who didn't care, wouldn't. That said, this really doesn't have anything to do with improvement of this article. As I've pointed out already, you should take this discussion to user space, or off site, per WP:NOTFORUM. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We certainly have to be on the up and up. That’s why it’s good to discuss these things before we do them. We also cannot continue to assume the majority of the scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot. This being presently stated in the article just because The Skeptic's Dictionary says so. --Timpicerilo (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. All the evidence in the world supports it. We also have a reliable source saying so. We have no reliable sources saying otherwise. The conclusion is clear. Just because you chose to ignore all that doesn't mean you get to rewrite the article to fit better with your own personal opinion. That's pretty much the definition of POV-pushing, which is forbidden here. You'd be better served by giving up even making arguments like that when everything you are saying violates numerious key Wikipedia policies. If you want an article saying what you as a true believer wants to believe, go create Bigfootpedia or your own blog or stay on the pro-Bigfoot websites. You will never be allowed to turn this article into your own soapbox, and you should know that by now after having multiple editors over several months explain it to you over and over again. DreamGuy (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

All the evidence in the world? On the contrary if the Skeptic's Dictionary is a reliable source show me where they get this information or "count" from the majority of the scientific community. It doesn't exist, I would like the article to honestly cover both sides of the argument not fit my opinions or those of the Skeptic's Dictionary.--Timpicerilo (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We have multiple sources backing this up. To change the wording, you'd have to provide alternate reliable sources which say that there is significant disagreement within the scientific community, and they would have to be notable and reliable enough to pass WP:Weight concerns. In other words, please find multiple high quality sources expressing your opinion. Otherwise, the article cannot be changed to reflect it. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

These multiple sources you have backing this disinformation don't pass WP:Weight concerns now. They only obscure information about the scientific community. There's no reliable data anywhere on this. In the very least it should be removed from the article until such is made available.--Timpicerilo (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on this page appears to disagree. The only way to move forward with this conversation is for you to provide reliable sources backing up your views. Until such a time, there's not much more to say. — Jess· Δ ♥ 14:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree this article is biased (There goes your Consensus Jess). Dispite the current policy, this article should be neutralized. Giving one side in the Pseudoscience debate a lead is not fair or right (I would also say the same thing if the article favored Bigfoot). I had left Wikipedia (Editing etc) but when I saw the comment that there was a skeptical faviored consensus I just had to respond. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't 'neutralise' articles, we write them from a neutral point of view -- WP:NPOV "representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Note the bit about proportionately, which I think is what you are unhappy about when you refer to the 'current policy', which is what the article should follow. The lead represents all significant views. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that this article is completely biased towards disproving it's existence, almost to the point of ridicule. Giving readers the feeling that if they even somewhat believe in the supposed creature, that they would be considered unintelligent and their viewpoint nullified. It doesn't matter how you try to justify it, the fact that you are trying to justify it, shows you have an agenda and by that very fact, your content is biased. The article is about the supposed creature, not the belief in the creature. Do you see people adding belief OPINIONS on pages about Cats and Dogs? These pages should be about the topic or focus itself, not in sub-topic branches of discussion or debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.146.41 (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This article should not be used as a soapbox to express what some believe is the mainstream view of the scientific community. No one should be able to use a source where someone states their opinion on what scientific consensus is. If mentioned it should say it is their opinion about what the scientific consenus is, so word it that way if you feel it needs to be mentioned. I don't believe it will sway opinion. I don't think a believer is going to take a scientists opinion that seriously when they are not a believer ,because no one would expect a scientist to research the subject adequately to begin with. If consensus is going to be included as the way the article is written, without a good source,then it should be allowed on all wikipedia articles,and not just the ones the editors agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.117.118 (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Amazing Sasquatch

In the late 1970s, there was a film that I am absolutely certain (see below) was titled "The Amazing Sasquatch" that played at cinemas in the New York City metropolitan area.

Perhaps an editor with knowledge of Bigfoot and 1970s film productions about Bigfoot could add an appropriate passage about The Amazing Sasquatch motion picture to the article.

(The reason why I am certain about the title is because the TV ads for the movie led many children at my middle school to start saying the silly phrase "The Amazing Asscratch". But, I digress.)

72.82.164.40 (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The closest thing I can find on IMDB.com is "Sasquatch, the Legend of Bigfoot" (1977), which is already listed on the separate Bigfoot in popular culture page. - WillieBlues (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeti

Why is there no link to the Abominable Snowman called Yeti?

Hi, 97.65.82.66. There is. The Yeti is linked in the first line of the "After 1958" subsection. If you type four tildes like this — ~~~~ — at the end of your posts on talkpages, they will be automagically signed on the page with your IP and a timestamp, so people know who's talking. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 23:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC).

Great article

Whoever works on this... well done! --Born2cycle 08:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hanuman

Apart from Yeti from India, I think more study on the character mentioned in the epic Ramayana called "Hanuman" who is shown to be something like a monkey God need to be taken up. All descriptions of that, clearly indicate that there were people of that strength and massive size during those times. He and his people were bigfoots from India I reckon. Those people were intermixing with humans and were associated with them on many occasions. More research on this line needs to be done to get more information. Hanuman means a person having chin longer than usual. Something like that of present day strong man Khalli, world renown wrestler. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is more scientific evidence to prove that it couldn't be a man in a costume.

Cloudbox0 (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be of use?

http://www.gifbin.com/982846 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.183.232.24 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be excellent in the article even if we had to replace frame 352 with it.--ChubsterII (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead problem

The lead (at the least) is really off balance. While it has a good short sentence on the overwhelming scientific view, it is quite overshadowed by the many sentences appearing below it cataloguing by name, followed by detail, the few scientists that can be found to go the other way. Breadth can go a long way. It's like a disclaimer "these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA; this is not intended to prevent cure a disease etc." followed by a ream of text about the amazing health benefits of some snake oil.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Looks like the work of a single editor bulking it out back in May; I've cut those sentences back to their previous wording. --McGeddon (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone agree that the part that says, "Scientists discount the existence of bigfoot in part because of the large numbers thought necessary to maintain a breeding population" should be replaced? Why not tell the main reason? They discount the existence mainly because there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE! I don't know why it has been kept this way for so long because it's nothing but misinformation. The only down side is once a body is found we will have to remove it.--ChubsterII (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because discounting the existence of something based on a lack of evidence for its existence is a logical fallacy? Two years ago there was absolutely no physical evidence for the existence of the Myanmar snub-nosed monkey. Guess what: They didn't just magically manifest themselves into reality when they were finally discovered in 2010. I'd like to think that the average qualified scientist has a better understanding of basic logic. 173.35.98.190 (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Myanmar snub-nosed monkey didn't even get a Wikipedia page until scientists found it. Tdslk (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sésquac/sásq'ets references

The opening paragraphs say "The term "sasquatch" is an anglicized derivative of the word "sésquac" which means "wild man" in a Salish Native American language.". The history section says "Burns coined the term Sasquatch, which is from the Halkomelem sásq’ets (IPA: [ˈsæsqʼəts])".

I suggest replacing the former reference with one conforming with the etymology of the latter, because 1) "a Salish Native American language" isn't very specific, and seems deliberately obfuscating considering that the article later specifies precisely which Salish language it is, 2) I'm guessing that "sésquac" and "sásq'ets" are different ways of spelling the same word, particularly since a small amount of Googling shows that there are several orthographies in use for Halkomelem, and 3) using two different spellings in two places in the article makes it look like the article contradicts itself. Cevlakohn (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This is funny - some people appear to hold the view that 'bigfoot' actually exists ! 82.132.139.12 (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The funny part is that it does.--ChubsterII (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What in fuck does that have to do with anything? Cevlakohn (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael Rugg, of the Bigfoot Discovery Museum

Is this person a paleontologist, anthropologist, or any such TRAINED professional such that his comparison of various teeth would be anything more than just sheer amateur speculation? If not, then remove the comment as Undue Weight. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So much coverage?

I think it is safe to say that giving this much coverage to the subject is hardly within the scope of a serious encyclopedia. I mean like this was big stuff back in the 1970s or whenever as a kid I first heard about it, but then most people wised up. Basically if you want to squelch something as folklore, don't go into so much detail. That the article goes to such lengths to report claimed sightings and scientific refutation is evidence some editors have too much time on their hands. DMSBel (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Not everybody is from the 70's, not everybody knows about its history, or why there is such fuss over a creature that has not been proven to exist.--ChubsterII (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is completely one-sided and doesn't "squelch " anything!! It presents no supporting scientific research and makes no mentiton of other excellent video or analysis. Poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.240.202 (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 DNA Study, Change needed

Currently, there is an extensive DNA study going on revolving around Sasquatch, http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/01/impending-text-photographs-compilation.html, as well as a documentary that claims Bigfoot to be a tribe of humans with genetic mutations, http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=3&ti=1,3&Search_Arg=Ketchum%20Melba&Search_Code=NALL&CNT=25&PID=j-FnThhibUu_cX-1sBk_P4XKQpq8&SEQ=20120124192916&SID=1.

There should be a change in the page to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babo7000 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That stuff is really primary-source-y, and thus really difficult for Wikipedia to incorporate without secondary sources analysing the validity, significance, etc. We're going to have to wait for the media circus. Wily D 17:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Carleton S. Coon dig

Can somebody change the phrase "discredited anthropologist" that preceeds the reference to Carleton S. Coon? It is very rare that scientists of any type will not have their views discredited at some point. He wasn't a fraud or unscientific for his time, as is implied, and the qualification that precedes his name certainly doesn't meet WP:NPV. I doubt you would refer to Isaac Newton as a discredited physicist. 24.18.184.122 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's better to quote exactly if you're going to use quote marks. The phrase is (and was in May) actually "discredited racial anthropologist". I've reinstated the recently removed word "discredited" and also linked "racial anthropologist" to Racial anthropology, a pseudo-science that is discredited in toto. The word "discredited" hardly needs a citation of its own, since the article on "Racial anthropology" is amply referenced. Bishonen | talk 11:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC).

Infobox Paranormalcreatures

The current infobox used in the article promotes a scientific-sounding taxonomy, with the encyclopedia stating that Bigfoot is classified as a cryptid within the subgrouping of hominid, it is located in the USA, and its habitat is the forest. Shouldn't this dubious info be attributed? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think even using a cryptozoology or paranormal infobox on topics about legends, folklore, hoaxes is inherently giving undue weight to cryptozoology in general, just like using the term "cryptid" in an article as if it were a scientific term. DreamGuy (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Meldrum

How can a self respecting person who knows about science, cite this moron that call himself a scientific? he claims his "scientific evidence" proves that the book of mormon it's a historical record, and that the DNA evidence is "wrong", please remove that insulting garbage...--201.247.28.2 (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh, could you please cite something substantive instead of ranting?? Jeff Meldrum is a scientist because he seeks information about a subject and studies the available data and evidence regarding that subject. If he states opinions then they should be considered in context and evaluated be the scientific method....apparently something you're not familiar with. 8/29/2012

Ditto, I fail to see why any evidence, regardless of source, can't be investigated dispassionately. The history of science is probably full of quixotic cases where someone believed something was true, but couldn't find proof. The skeptic says "show me the evidence", while also believing that looking for the required evidence would be a waste of time--yet how is one to find that evidence without going out to look for it?? As a generalization, it's probably true that skeptics never find anything--if bigfoot is ever found, it won't be a skeptic that finds it. I keep hearing about samples of hair said to be from an 'unknown primate' collected in various places in the US and Canada, but I have no idea how accurate that claim is. 108.68.136.226 (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

While Jeff Meldrum may well be a Mormon Creationist, it is probably better to refer to him as an Idaho State primate anatomy expert in the first reference. His academic credentials and scholarly approach to Bigfoot research are more relevant to the discussion than his religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.5.114 (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Generalization Written as Fact in Article

The following line, "Scientists discount the existence of Bigfoot and consider it to be a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoax" is pure opinion and generalization written as if it was fact. It's not only a violation of Wikipedia standards, it's poor writing. The reality is that there are a number of scientist who do think that bigfoot is likely a real species as well as many scientists who don't believe this. The sentence, as it stands right now, doesn't tell the whole truth. 184.183.173.20 (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What would you have us write instead? That almost every legitimate scientist discounts the existence of Bigfoot and consider it to be a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoax except for a few cranks on the lunatic fringe most of whom got their degree from a Cracker Jacks box? Too strong? Okay maybe so. How about "The vast majority of scientists..." --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Fuhghettaboutit. Mainstream science does not support the existence of Bigfoot. The wording is not opinion, it is a fact. We should not give any weight to the non-scientific fringe element. I'd suggest leaving the wording as is, or we run the risk of it being seen as a significant (albeit smaller) proportion of scientists support the existence of bigfoot.--Dmol (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the sentence would be better phrased as, "The scientific consensus is that...". This puts the emphasis on the evidence-based scientific process, not some hypothetical poll of people with advanced degrees. Tdslk (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"Scientists discount" and "the scientific consensus discounts" read identically to me; I don't see a difference in meaning at all. We should use whichever one flows better with the paragraph. We should absolutely not say "the vast majority of scientists", since the view that Bigfoot is real is a fringe view, which deserves absolutely zero weight in the discussion of science in this topic. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Before some anonymous IP address tries to tell us something is a violation of Wikipedia standards, he or she should please take the time to read them. As Jess mentions above, WP:FRINGE covers this. The claim "The reality is that there are a number of scientist who do think that bigfoot is likely a real species as well as many scientists who don't believe this."is a gross mischaracterization of reality. The number of scientists who think Bigfoot is likely to be real is extremely small; if we were talking a percentage of professional biologists and zoologists it would be a tiny fraction of 1%. If there were anything more than that there would be a bunch of reliable scientific sources and studies. There isn't. DreamGuy (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dreamguy, your figures are more conjecture rather than empirical and do not help the discussion. It is fairer to say that most scientists in those disciplines, who have an opinion on the subject, doubt the creature's existence. As to those in the above category who have studied the subject, we also have no reliable figures regarding their acceptance or dismissal. Acorn897 (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Very good edits there, Dreamguy. Bishonen | talk 13:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC).

Problematic phrasing

"cryptozoologists believe inhabits forests" sounds like zoologists of the "crypto" kind believe it's real. Zoologists are scientists. Cryptozoologists are not. The phrasing makes it sound like Bigfoot exists according to a scientific consensus. 85.250.100.246 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be changed to "some cryptozoologists". 208.115.153.106 (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't help at all. Bishonen | talk 10:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC).

Paranormal theories may be silly, but are they too silly?

Hammerfilmfan has removed the paragraph on Beckjord's paranormal theories of Bigfoot, arguing that the theories are unreferenced and too silly. I'm not sure about either claim. Technically it was unreferenced, yes, but it's linked to Wikipedia article Jon-Erik Beckjord, which offers a path to David Daegling's book Bigfoot exposed: an anthropologist examines America's enduring legend, 2004 (a reliable source, as well as enjoyable reading, which is used to reference several other statements in Bigfoot), with a helpful link to Google Books which points directly to the relevant (Beckjord) passage. As for removing pro-Bigfoot theories becauce they're silly, you're kidding. You'd have to blank the page. I realize the "interdimensional being" theory is an embarrassment to some or most other Bigfoot enthusiasts, but I don't see that as a good reason to remove it. This is an article about popular culture, after all. I've reinserted the passage, adding a sentence about the Bigfoot advocates that distance themselves from the paranormal position (this is straight from the same passage in Daegling), and also adding the appropriate Daegling footnote. Bishonen | talk 10:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC).

Well, the article already says "some believers in Bigfoot attribute the phenomenon to UFOs or other paranormal causes" at the start of the "proposed explanations" sections - it seems WP:UNDUE to have a whole subsection for "one man thinks Bigfoot is extradimensional", when the other three subsections describe viewpoints with wider acceptance. If Beckjord is the most prominent among the paranormal camp then it seems better to briefly namecheck him in the existing list; if he's just a guy that's been mentioned in a book, I think we should at most just bolt "extradimensional" into the paranormal sentence. --McGeddon (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, he's mentioned in a number of books, see Google books. Perhaps in most modern Bigfoot books (that's just my impression, though). Also Beckjord used to be highly active on the internets, and lingers there, although he himself left this earthly existence in 2008. Bigfoot + Beckjord returns 12,600 hits on Google. Not least was he active on Wikipedia; nobody who was here for his, mmm... enthusiastic editing of the Bigfoot article is likely to have forgotten it. I realize these things speak to noticeability rather that notability... but in my opinion it's interesting to have a colorful Bigfoot profile like Beckjord mentioned in this article. And while it may be a "whole" subsection, it's also a very short one. I don't feel strongly about keeping the passage, though. Bishonen | talk 11:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

From a purely rules-based standpoint, any content sourced in the linked target article is generally considered to be sourced on WP; of course one can replicate the sourcing if one feels the inclination. On the subject of inclusion, I echo Bishonen - he's notable, included in books and those quasi-documentaries, and his opinion although novel did at one time receive a good bit of attention; and if you're American and as old as I am, you remember that he used to be the "go-to" man for commentary on the news whenever there were Bigfoot sightings. I would prefer to see the content included here, although I wouldn't argue if someone wanted to trim it considerably. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggested additions

While this subject and any "documentation" is by nature going to be controversial, I would think for the sake of completeness that it should include a photo of what is at least claimed to be an actual Bigfoot head. The present owner, Cuz's Antiques in Lebanon, TN, does not use that name, preferring to call it the "Sugar Flat Rd. creature head," but it can be be viewed in person in the window of the shop, or on the internet at <http://www.cuzsantiques.com/forms/sugarflatlegend.htm>. I'm an Interested Reader (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you know of any reliable sources where a third party has claimed this is a bigfoot? This Google search indicates to me such sources probably don't exist. This is before even considering that the photograph is copyrighted and would not pass the fair use criteria in my estimation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the head has not been at Cuz's for many years. I think it's at a different shop in Chattanooga now. Of course, as a modern artistic work of taxidermy, taking your own photo of it would still violate copyright. DreamGuy (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

There are also several other notable items which I believe should be added to this article. The Melba Ketchum DNA study should be of interest to readers, as well as accounts of "the Sierra Kills" incident involving Justin Smeja, and the incidents involving Todd Standing.

About the Ketchum study... Somehow I feel that the study and the peer review will turn out to be as substantial as a stuffed gorilla suit in a freezer. What have we got here at this point exactly? A DNA technician from a private lab who claims to have Bigfoot DNA samples (and assuming them to be from Bigfoot to begin with), who claims to have written a study about it with rather far reaching conclusions, and who claims that the whole thing is under peer review....Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Check my note on Ketchum under the heading "The Melba Ketchum paper has been published". As for Todd Standing and some others Wikipedia in not a WP:SOAP --Edgaralanme (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Melba Ketchum paper has been published

The Melba Ketchum paper has finally been published. However, she self-published it--thus circumventing the peer-review process--on an online journal, Denovo Scientific Journal, that did not exist before 10 days ago. She claims she did this because of the "scientific bias" she ran into while trying to get her paper published. People who have read the paper say it is a total mess. For instance, the ancient human DNA said to be from 15,000 years ago comes from the European and African Haplotypes. Ketchum suggests that these people came to North America via the Bering land bridge. However, the earliest people in North America were of Asian descent. This out of place DNA points to obvious ill sequenced samples that have been contaminated, probably by the very people who collected them in the field. You can read all about it on this website. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Rather well written review of the paper: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/bigfoot-genome-paper-conclusively-proves-that-sasquatch-is-real/ — raeky t 07:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The "journal" http://www.denovojournal.com — raeky t 07:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the self-publishing story has gotten some coverage: [2], [3] - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's just another hoax scam and couldn't even be considered publishing here as a fringe theory read, This Google search and This Google search and This Google search Perhaps in the future if attestation is presented we can add it under the Hoaxes heading. --Edgaralanme (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Ketchum DNA is being analyzed by top scientists according to Melba and the findings, if similar to hers, will be uploaded to GenBank. GenBank is the NIH genetic sequence database, an annotated collection of all publicly available DNA sequences. [4], [5]TheRealStrider (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed section: notoriety contested

I removed the following section. It seems not notorious, and the source is doubtful: i's only quoted the most indirectly, in a book giving sample of other theories.

This isn't really pertinent, and not a knowledge element on the topic. --Dereckson (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Interdimensional being

One fringe theory, supported by paranormal investigator Jon-Erik Beckjord, theorizes that the lack of hard evidence supporting Bigfoot's existence may be due to the creature being an interdimensional being that slips in and out of dimensions. Many Bigfoot advocates distance themselves from the paranormal position and regard it as an embarrassment.^[1]

^ David Daegling (2004), Bigfoot Exposed: An Anthropologist Examines America's Enduring Legend, pp. 197—198.

I agree with its removal. Even the Bigfoot believers seem embarrassed by it. Unless it becomes a major discussion point among mainstream Bigfoot believers, it doesn't belong. --Dmol (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

By notorious, you mean notable, right, Dereckson? You may be right. But please compare the section "Paranormal theories may be silly, but are they too silly?" higher up on this page. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC).

Shapeshifting is popular in Native American history. --Timpicerilo (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can we put that if, IF Bigfoot is proven real that it would be CR with full cr tags? That it would be if it is proven?

66.190.233.71 (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What? Bigfoot isn't real, first off. And second off, no. See WP:OR. — raeky t 03:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested additions

The interest in the legend of Bigfoot is very high all over the world, but yet there isn't a website that you can visit where there is a comprehensive collection of Bigfoot sightings or encounters. I think that wikipedia would a great site for people all over the United States and even across the world could add sightings and encounters. We could archive all these sightings to further the scientific study of Bigfoot. Of course all those who post their sightings would need to also post a link to an outside source to verify the sighting. There just doesn't seem to be enough information on Bigfoot sightings outside of the major sightings, such as the Patterson one here on wikipedia. What I am proposing is that we as a community of Bigfoot enthusiasts add to the already created Bigfoot page, creating a comprehensive sightings list. We could organize it state by state and country by country with the date of when the encounter occurred. Also we could add a brief description of each sighting and a link attached where visitors could click on the link and visit an outside source for more info on each encounter.

Here are some links to the pages that I am familiar with.

<http://www.bigfootencounters.com/> <http://www.bfro.net/GDB/CNTS/UT/WB/ut_wb003.htm> <http://bfro.net/> TheRealStrider (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Neanderthal

Bigfoot traits are very similar to neanderthal traits, including a flat head domed in the back, prominent brow ridge's, lack of chin, and ridiculously wide muscular chest. show a close relation, the height could by interbreeding with Homo sapiens sapiens are species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.54.171 (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Subject is taken too seriously: NPOV is being used as a license for nonsense.

NPOV is a wonderful pursuit here. There are so many pages completely lacking it. To that extent I'm hesitant to make this comment.

But I'm sorry, the spirit of NPOV just does not extrapolate upward to how careful this article is to not label this as generally regarded absurdity. Bigfoot isn't just in doubt folks. Further, look at the citations: they point to single sided folks already in the inner-circle of this belief system. Good grief.

What next? We apply NPOV to the Easter Bunny?Tgm1024 (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit war re cost of academic papers.

User Petwil has continually added the following (or similar) - "This is roughly in line with what other publishers charge readers to download an article; e.g. Elsevier, AIAA, and other publishers routinely charge circa $25 to $35 to read peer-reviewed publications in their journals". - with regard to the referenced item saying how much the paper cost. I have twice removed it, as has one other user, only to have it added again. The user has been given a 3RR warning. This info is not in the reference listed, and thus is original research, and it is not relevant to the article. This has been put in the edit summaries when it was changed but to no avail. The user claims no reason has been given. --Dmol (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion of journal prices is unsourced WP:OR. The same for opinions regarding claims being made by sasquatchgenomeproject.org. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

So your grounds for removing my edits are that the discussion of journal prices is unsourced and therefore constitutes "original research?" I just want to clarify. I think the 3RR warning is mutual, BTW, Dmol. LuckyLouie, please explain how referencing sasquatchgenomeproject.org constitutes "unsourced" whereas, presumably, citing the Huffington Post is not "unsourced." Are some sources more equal than others? Petwil (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

sasquatchgenomeproject.org is very clearly and unambiguously not a neutral, reliable, THIRD-PARTY source. See WP:NPOV and WP:RS. An article or its talk section is not the proper place for a policy debate or wikilawyering, take those discussions to the appropriate venue. The article itself is for VERIFIABLE, neutral and factual material, and the talk section is for coming to consensus about what should or should not be in the article with a foundation in the policies WP requires. besieged^talk 00:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Petwil, in addition to WP:RS, our policies do actually distinguish how primary and secondary sources may be used, WP:PSTS should help clarify. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you LuckLouie. It is not at all clear to me that our policies, then, admit The Huffington Post as an admissable source. Conversely, please note that I inserted sasquatchgenomeproject.org (with which I have no affiliation) not as a source on sasquatch - which would clearly be wrong - but rather as a source on when they registered the domain name to publish their results. In fact, it would seem according to WP's own policies that, in that regard, sasquatchgenomeproject.org is in fact a primary source. // Now, regarding the other edits: $30 is perfectly in line with what other publishers charge to download and read their articles. You can't state that the website for deNovo charges $30 to download its article without also divulging that that's actually pretty normal. To do otherwise, frankly, is intellectual dishonesty. Either the fact that deNovo charges $30 for its article should be removed, or the wikipedia article should state that this is perfectly normal. One or the other. Since somebody insisted on a reference, I put in the web page where Nature asks $32 for its articles.// Finally, I edited the "Scientific views" part to state that "The bulk of the scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot..." This is more accurate than it is to state categorically that "The scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot." This latter statement is clearly, logically demonstrably false. Look in the same article, in which are mentioned several scientists who believe or admit the possiblity of Bigfoot. Clearly then, logically, it is incorrect to say that "the scientific community discounts" its existence. It is more accurate to state that "The bulk of the community discounts it." In fact, if anybody is going to insist that ALL of the scientific community discounts it, then I would insist on a reference. Where is the study that shows that all of the scientific community discounts it? Please give a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petwil (talk • contribs) 01:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, the web page is actually up: http://www.advancedsciencefoundation.org/. It does not point to an empty Wix account page. I edited the "Bigfoot DNA claim" to make this correction. I have no affiliation with any of these people, but again, by reverting my edits the wikipedia page is now demostrably less accurate. Why would you want the page to be inaccurate? That's not what wikipedia is about. (sorry - keep forgetting to sign) Petwil (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petwil (talk • contribs) 01:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think Huff Post is not an ideal source, but since we have the Dallas Observer and Discovery.com to back it up, it's not a problem. As for the "bulk" of the scientific community discounting Bigfoot, I'd be amenable to having the article say "a majority of" or "most of" since it still accurately reflects our cited sources. Finally, WP:SYNTH prevents us from using primary sources in order to create our own analysis regarding deNovo vs. Other Journals download/reading costs. Any such commentary would need to come from a reliable source that's independent and objective, such as a news organization, academic publication, etc. Hope this answers your questions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

We absolutely should not change the wording to "most of the scientific community discounts..." Within the scientific community, support for bigfoot is so fringe that it can't be given any weight at all, much less treated as if it were a minority. We can (and should) discuss individual supporters in the article, but the stance of the scientific community is, for our purposes, entirely unanimous. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

So in your words, the opinion is "for our purposes, entirely unanimous?" That is an interesting claim. What is your source of information for that, Mann_jess? I am not aware of any peer-reviewed scientific literature regarding, say, anonymous surveys of scientists in the relevant fields on their opinions on bigfoot. But it's not really my field, so perhaps such scientific surveys exist. I don't know. What I do know however, is that original research is prohibited, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread. See: WP:OR. So please provide a reference. Note that this is in re the section on "Scientific views", which begins with the sentence: "The scientific community discounts the existence of bigfoot," in which I had modestly (in my view) prepended the phrase "The bulk of..." out of a desire for a certain degree of logical internal consistency in the article (which, again, mentions several scientists who do not discount the possibility that bigfoot might exist). Of course, if instead of supplying some kind of reference, you would wish to compromise, then I would be open to that. Some kind of qualifier would probably suffice.Petwil (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)petwil

In other news, I am going to edit the part about the webpage being down and pointing to an empty Wix account page. As I pointed out previously, this is not true. I edited the page to reflect this, but each time, my edits were reverted. So let me be clear: the webpage does not point to an empty Wix account page. Just my luck that will change in the next minute, but I have checked numerous times in the past few days and not once have I seen the site down: http://www.advancedsciencefoundation.org/. So, it is false to claim that the website is down, and of course it is also damaging to the representation of the scientists attempting to post their findings on the website. I am not a lawyer, but I do believe that to knowingly perpetuate a damaging falsehood constitutes LIBEL. Something to consider before anybody reverts this particular edit for the umpteenth time. I have no idea if the page was down in the past. Most sites are from time to time. IIRC, google and even wikipedia have been down occasionally. In any case, I would humbly suggest that if you are going to make that claim, you should have some evidence to back it up. Thanks.Petwil (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't make comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats against them or against Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, I would never make comments that others would reasonably understand as legal threats, and I did not such thing. *I* am not threatening legal action against *anyone*. I am, however, pointing out that leaving the page as it was would, in fact, constitute libel, and I stand by that assertion. Petwil (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Garbage. I don't know what you understand the term libel to mean, but you can not libel a webpage. Please refrain from these threats.--Dmol (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I was just going to let that slide when it was only LuckyLoie, but as I now also have Dmol accusing me personally of making legal threats, I have no choice but to defend myself. So, apologies, but here goes.: I have never, ever ever made any kind of legal threat, either explicit, implicit, veiled, or any other kind, in any of my life, either here on wikipedia or elsewhere. Ever. I take that kind of charge VERY seriously, Dmol and LuckyLouie. I would strongly suggest that the two of you cool it. Let me explain to you how patently absurd that is: What you are basically saying is that I am legally threatening MYSELF. If you look above, you will see that I made clear that I have NO affiliation with ANY of these groups. At all. ZERO. Therefore, how would I bring a suit? Please read: Standing (law). On the other hand, I DO have an affiliation with wikipedia. I donate my time and my money to it. So you are saying, then, that I am threatening myself. Got it? Let me give you a related example: Suppose I have a backyard pool, and a fence with a gate to keep kids out of it. I notice the gate is open. I close the gate, and tell my wife, "honey, we need to keep that gate closed." She then opens it. I close it, and tell her again, "honey, we need to keep that gate closed." Again, she opens it. Finally, I close it, and I tell her, "honey, we REALLY need to keep that gate closed. If we don't, some kid could come in our backyard and drown in the pool. Not only would that be horrible, but we would also be exposing ourself to a charge of negligence." Now, am I legally threatening my wife with negligence? No. Of course not. Final example: Mike is a copyeditor for his company brochure. Jim is the company attorney. Mike prepares a brochure that tells outright lies about the company's competitor. Jim says, "we can't print that," and he takes out the lies. Mike puts them back. Again, Jim takes out the lies and tells Mike, "we can't print that." Again, Mike puts the lies back. Finally, Jim says to Mike, "Look, Mike. We can't print that. If we do, we would expose ourselves to some kind of legal action." Now is Jim threatening Mike with legal action? No, of course not. Jim is just doing his job. Hope that helps. On a personal level, I sincerely apologize if it seemed like I was issuing some kind of threat, and I will redouble my efforts in the future to make sure that there is not the remotest possibility that anybody might construe my comments that way, but again, no threat was intended of any kind, at all, remotely. I am terribly sorry if anybody misconstrued my words to mean that. So again, please cool it, and I will as well. In the spirit of diffusing any sort of tensions I am going to take the next 48 hrs off. And then I will be back, if allowed, because I am actually trying to make a good-faith effort to make this page better. You might not see it that way, but the way I see it, I am actually on your side. I am trying to uphold wikipedia's standards of quality. Best regards.Petwil (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Apologies, LuckyLouie. I see now that you did not claim that I was issuing any kind of threat, you were merely issuing a warning that I should be careful about saying something that might be construed that way. Point taken. Very much so. Now Dmol, on the other hand, actually explicily accused me of issuing a threat, in a pejorative manner at that. That's a different matter.Petwil (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Case closed, no more mention of legal stuff is best for all. By the way, use of the phrase "the scientific community" has been discussed again and again here, so you may want to look into the archives. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit war re cost of academic papers, take 2.

(Too many indents there - taking the liberty of de-denting with a new section here...)

Agreed LuckyLouie. I am sure it is absolutely tireless work to push back people promoting fringe theories and flat earth notions and keep them from dominating wikipedia. I don't have the even temper a job like that requires - obviously. However, fundamental rules of fairness still apply, as I am sure we all agree.

My fundamental objection is that this section appeared to me to be written in a biased style. There is no need for that. The Huff Post makes for an entertaining read, but it's hardly the zenith of excellence in journalistic style. No need to emulate them.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but when I come across the sentence "It cost $30 to read," I think, why is this here? Call me naive, but to me it's just a sidelong way of casting aspersions on the work. That's uncalled for. If the work is good, it's good, and if it's junk, it is junk. The price is irrelevant.

So thanks for everybody for digging up more references for the price, but again, I just don't see the relevance. So I am going to remove the passage entirely. Anybody wants to put it back, please respond to the objection. Again, objection: relevance. Thanks. Petwil (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

An author/editor has editorialized his own opinion with this statement in the article " and discredited racial anthropologist Carleton S. Coon." The citation doesn't describe any such discreditation. The page on Coon references supporters and detractors, references posthumous analysis of his work and notes that his work is "still regarded as a valuable source of data."

The fact that some academics disagreed with his work does not make Coon discredited. Many scientists have detractors and yet we don't see the adjective of "discredited" place before their names.

Secondly, please apply a uniform standard in that section - either list scientist name + discipline for each or simply scientist name alone.

Thirdly, I'm not familiar with the discipline of "racial anthropology" and what the author/editor likely means is "physical anthropologist" which is the discipline Coon worked under.

The combination of the usage of "discredited" along with "racial" is pushing the article well into editorial territory.

96.50.20.90 (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC) 96.50.20.90 (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Done That certainly has no place in this article. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2013

Bigfoot is a mythicalcreature that eats you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.178.178 (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Scientists expressing a "measure of belief" in Bigfoot

I'd like to propose a slight edit with the claim that some scientists have expressed a "measure of belief" in the existence of Bigfoot. I don't mean to sound like I'm splitting hairs, but refusing to rule out the possibility that Bigfoot exists is not the same as having some "measure of belief" in the existence of Bigfoot. For example, Jane Goodall, in the linked Huff Post article, merely says that she has a "fascination" in Bigfoot. I'd propose a change in the language in the introduction of the article to reflect this fact. Thanks. 128.230.69.159 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What wording would you propose? — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What about just removing "and some measure of belief"? Or replacing it with "have not explicitly denied the existence of"? 24.30.253.68 (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Take Jane Goodall out of the lead. Her joking around about Bigfoot in the press shouldn't be portrayed as scientific or professional interest. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Add list of Bigfoot research organizations and people who are enthusiasts and those who perform research.

Can we add bigfoot organizations and also the people who have gotten involved in this topic on a deeper level? With the success of Finding Bigfoot more and more people are getting engaged and with no formal organization existing, we need a good source for credible information about groups and people. This will establish authorities on the topic based on who has earned it within the community rather than who has been sensationalized through the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertkgaudet (talk • contribs) 01:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hybrid as proposed explanation

In light of Dr. Melba Ketchum et al.'s research, why hasn't "Human-Primate Hybrid" been added to the proposed explanations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.203.136 (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Because something like a "Human-Primate Hybrid" is impossible. Our closest living relative the Chimpanzee shares over 98% DNA with us and some studies indicate that the similarities might be even greater, and yet Humans and Chimps cannot naturally interbreed, so other primates are out of the question. And since we don't even know how DNA makes an animal, genetic engineering is even more out of the question. if Ketchum meant "Basal Hominin" then that explanation is already present.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Ketchum's credibility is in doubt: http://doubtfulnews.com/tag/melba-ketchum/

(Oh and humans ARE primates!)

Kortoso (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

V — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.140.110 (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello. I am a student at PCC and have been assigned to edit Wikipedia pertaining to the subject I am doing my research paper on which is Bigfoot. I will only get credit if I make the changes myself and can show before and after screenshots. I would like to add another Bigfoot Organization and also additional, verifiable examples of laws that have been established in a couple of counties on behalf of Bigfoot. I am required to make two useful additions (aka "new knowledge") to this page by 1/28/14 and bring to class. This will not be possible with the four day restriction. If you can wave this requirement, please let me know through this site or email at [redacted]. Thank you. HayzelEyez (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC) HayzelEyez (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: You should either get assigned a new article or have your instructor change the assignment—or wait to be autoconfirmed. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Integration of formal/scientific studies

In an effort to help with the problems that the formal studies of Bigfoot page has had, I am integrating the well-sourced and relevant information from that page back into the scientific views section here which is not very long. I have done it relatively quickly so I would welcome any help in getting the section well-organized, but I think it is currently acceptable. I will then be proposing to delete the secondary article entirely. I'm not always the smoothest when it comes to the inner wiki workings, so I'm open to plenty of input. Tegrenath (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

American Hunter Rick Dyer

Mr. Dyer claims to have killed bigfoot, and claims to have the dead corpse. ^[1] Marc S 206.192.35.125 (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering when and if this was going to be added to the article. It's still an ongoing event--and most likely another hoax--but I think it should still be in the article somewhere. Any suggestions for where? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about Dyer's claim yesterday in the "Bigfoot claims" section. My personal prediction is that the text will be moved to the "Hoaxes" section within the next few months. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Enormous claims require enormous PROOF. Until this Dyer person produces the evidence he doesn't even merit mention in this article. 96.58.142.184 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Addition of the Kiyik Adam

I would like to request that the Kiyik Adam be added to this article as it is an Asian and Eastern European version of Bigfoot; It shares many similarities to Bigfoot of being very hairy, tall (about 9 feet tall), 15 inch long footprints, and has had many spottings, with the Kiyik Adam being seen all across the Asian mainland and Eastern Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.98.72 (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

NEW Formal Study

Results of studying 30 hair samples from around the world:

Please add this to the article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2014

This edit request to Bigfoot has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The described range of Bigfoot, as a creature "...that some people believe inhabits forests, mainly in the Pacific Northwest region of North America." makes a substantial omission of where Bigfoot IS generally reported as present, namely, throughout North American forested and mountainous regions.

A succinct and sufficiently accurate statement of their range would state "... that inhabits forested and mountainous areas of North America, with the densest population in the Pacific Northwest region of North America." Jsuich (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done – Most mountainous areas are forested, so term does not add anything. (Are there any sightings in non-forested mountain areas?) Nor does saying "forested areas". The simpler and broader word "forests" covers the fact that there are sighting reports in Florida, which is not especially mountainous. – S. Rich (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

there are mountainous areas that are not forested, whether high up or farther north, but in general people armed with cameras just aren't that numerous in those places, where there are no roads and trails are few; the Douglas Ranges are low and do not really have alpine, though do have subalpine (more open forest); but yes, being mountainous and being forested are not the same and one is not a condition of the other; as a glance at maps of the Boreal Forest and the Canadian Shield readily shows. Could be that there's not just no sightings up high, but also no food....nothing grows. Staying out of sight is a trait, it's not like you can do that when there's no treesSkookum1 (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2014

This edit request to Bigfoot has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2slick4u (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2014

This edit request to Bigfoot has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change: "Frame 352 from 1967 Patterson–Gimlin film, alleged by Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin to show a Bigfoot, was a man in a gorilla suit".

Regardless of the citation the caption makes a fact assertion: That the photo and thus the Patterson-Gimlin footage depicts a "man in a gorilla suit". The citation is NOT A PROVEN FACT and the citation does not prove that claim. Go ahead and cite - but remove the assertion that the phot is that of "...a man in a gorilla suit". I am a Board Certified Physician and, in my professional opinion that photo could not possibly be that of "a man in a gorilla suit" and is of an as of yet unidentified North American Great Ape which walks upright.

Please remove the caption ASAP. Cowboycorvette (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)cowboycorvette

First: Yes, there are plenty of people out there willing to fake bigfoot sightings and such. But there are also Tens Of Thousands of reports by respectable people, police, park rangers, politicians (Teddy Roosevelt encountered one) who are NOT kooks.

This is an OPINION. And a hotly contested one. No proof has ever been submitted that falsifies this film. The only detractors have OPINIONS that it is an ape suite. In Fact, numerous accredited scientists, Human Physiologists specializing in human anatomy, arm length to leg and general body ratios, and foot anatomy and physiology have conducted detailed studies on this film and fond that the physiology of the individual in the film is well outside human norms. The stride length and leg ratios are also well outside of the human norm.

Close examinations of the film show individual muscle contractions and eyebrow movements. Special effects artists have stated that to create a comparable suit today would cost at least They have also agreed that the technology to create this sort of special effects "Ape Suit" would be impossible in 1967 as the materials and fabrics did not yet exist and even if they had, would have been impossible for Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin to afford as they had to borrow money just to rent the camera and buy film. Also, castings of footprints taken in the area at the time of the sighting show a mid-tarsal break in the feet. Mid-tarsal breaks have been found in casts taken in north eastern Eurasia of what is sometimes called the abominable snowman, more than 70 years ago. These casts match up with the foot anatomy of recovered fossils of homo meganthropus heidelbergensis. Homo Heidelbergensis is the ancestor of anatomically modern humans, Neandertals and Denisovans. Recovered fossils of the sub species Meganthropus, show that males of that sub species would have been in the 8-9 foot range and weighed as much as 500 pounds. Many other castings of feet show exactly what you would expect of a hominid that spends its entire life walking barefoot on sharp rocks and various surfaces, namely broken and dislocated toes and foot bones that healed badly. Also Many castings show clear friction ridges (fingerprints on the feet) that do not match up with either humans or apes but are somewhere in between. And again are on very old castings, made by people who would have no idea what friction ridges were or how to fake them (which is nearly impossible without modern 3d printers).

They were probably covered in hair and in all ways would be a perfect match for the descriptions of bigfoot/yeti/sasquatch/abominable snowman/etc... This Wikipedia page holds all the referencing evidence necessary to refute the statement that it was a man in an ape suite.

It is unlike Wikipedia to allow OPINIONS to be presented as a blanket statement of fact.

Davidearlagoura (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done There is a cited source for "Bob Heironimus, an acquaintance of Patterson's, said that he had worn an ape costume for the making of the film". - which goes on to say "some skeptics as well as die-hard monster enthusiasts refused to believe him." - Arjayay (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people came forward and said they were the man in the ape suit Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Alaskan theory bassed on local books and local friends

There is a book by Alaskans from before statehood, in it is a story of a man, who near Juneau, fell into a crevice in a glacier. He was able to walk out of it following runoff trails. On his way out he saw a Bigfoot walking the other way through the ice.

A family member also spotted one near where I grew up, that also at a glacier. Notice they seem to always be near the glact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.101.108 (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually they're always near mountainous areas, including glaciers Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps more interestingly, they always seem to appear in places where it is impossible to leave compelling forensic evidence of their existence behind. 211.31.63.48 (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Goodall in the lead

Goodall's chuckling response to a question on an NPR call-in show, "Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist" and "maybe they don't exist, but I want them to" is not academic interest or scientific endorsement and doesn't belong in the lead. Maybe pop culture? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sightings at the county fair

There have been many sightings of Bigfeets at the county fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.12.178 (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Misidentification

It's not balanced to have four paragraphs devoted to Meldrum countering the debunkers. Kortoso (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kortoso; I didn't get back to you sooner because I was unaware of the existence of this Talk page. (I couldn't figure out where the "Misidentification" notice was coming from.)

I quibble thusly: The first paragraph is not "Meldrum countering the debunkers." It was not a paragraph I wrote. begins, "A study published in for the Journal of Biogeography in 2009 by J.D. Lozier et al." and continues with that study's making the case that Bigfoot tracks are misidentifications. Meldrum is mentioned only in a footnote by Lozier et al. themselves.

So it's balanced to give Meldrum a paragraph in rebuttal. So now we're only talking about the last two paragraphs. (Excuse me while I go look for them. (I should have copied and pasted them all here temporarily--I'll do so next time.)RogerKni (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Back now. A quibble: In the second paragraph it's not Meldrum who's doing the talking, but his quotee, Lynn Rogers, a noted (list-bracketable) bear expert. Meldrum is mentioned only in the lead-in to that quote.

This is the third paragraph: "Continuing, Meldrum writes, "in fact, it should be considered that the very opposite may more likely be the case. The initial reaction of many eyewitnesses to a possible sasquatch sighting is to rationalize the experience by assuming they have simply seen a bear."[230] Similarly, Bindernagel writes, "sasquatches typically move about in a crouch or stooped position when foraging. For this reason they are frequently mistaken for bears until they stand ...."[231]"

It's not necessarily unbalanced to employ two paragraphs to rebut one paragraph, if that's what it takes. The point Meldrum and Bindernagel are making in that 3rd para is that misidentifications can go both ways. That is definitely a point that needed to be made, in addition to the prior, Lynn Rogers', paragraph rebutting the likelihood of a misidentification in the direction proposed by Lozier. I'm not going to omit it because it makes it look as though one side has the better case. Sometimes one side does have the better case. If someone has a rebuttal by Lozier et al., or anyone, to Meldrum's rebuttal, let him post it.

So everything's OK (balanced) up to the 4th para., which reads:

"Meldrum writes, "Bruce Marcot, a wildlife ecologist in Portland, Oregon, has maintained a web page illustrating [the] line of reasoning" that "'some, maybe many tracks of Bigfoot ... are probably tracks of large wildlife—most likely bears that are simply enlarging their own tracks by sliding, by overstepping, or by having their tracks enlarged by weather effects.'" Meldrum responds that "the 'fit' ... quickly falls apart when the aforementioned details[232] such as absolute size, toe proportions, heel shape, claw marks, pads, and so on, are carefully examined."[233] John Green argues similarly.[234]"

That's balanced too, because the first two-thirds of it is quotee, skeptic Bruce Marcot, making his case, and only the last third is a rebuttal. Again, I'm not going to omit it because it makes it look as though one side has the better case. That just may be the way it is.RogerKni (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: The final paragraph is about bear tracks, which is a different topic from the preceding three, which were about bear sightings. So I wasn't piling on about the first topic.RogerKni (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've now revised the heading to include "bear tracks," moved the track paragraph to the end (after the material about the mangy bear photo), and added a lead-in to it emphasizing the change in topic to tracks (italicized). So your critique has improved the section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerKni (talk • contribs) 06:14, 20 August 2015‎

Bigfoot not just in USA

Bigfoot is a broad term including all unknown hominid species including Orang Pendek (Indonesia), Yowie (Australia), Wildman (Vietnam), Yeti (Nepal/China/India/Bhutan), Almas (Azerbaijan/Georgia/Armenia/Russia) Sasquatch (U.S./Canada)... Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think most others would also. Bigfoot is specifically the Pacific Northwest creature. The yowie, yeti, and others, all have their own articles. --Dmol (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I also disagree, but Dunkleosteus77 has a point: is there a single (scientific?) term that encompasses all of these similar creatures? — Loadmaster (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The closest is probably "wildman", used by Joshua Blu Buhs and George M. Eberhart, among others. However, our current article on wild man focuses on the European legend, following available sources. It might be worth looking into but yes, "Bigfoot" definitely refers to the American and Canadian critter. It's probably influenced the way other "wildmen" may be depicted around the world, just as the yeti influenced Bigfoot, but the name is primarily attached to this region.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The term "Sasquatch" describes the unidentified ape-men of the continental U.S., Canada, and parts of Mexico, generally the Pacific-North-West though. Bigfoot is a broad term (often confused with Sasquatch) that describes the unidentified ape-men of the globe, and encompasses:Sasquatch (U.S. Pacific Northwest), Skunk-Ape (U.S. South), Yowies (Australia), Yetis (Nepal/India/China/Pakistan), Orang-Pendeks (Indonesia), Yarens (China), Almasti (Russia/Azerbaijan/Armenia/Georgia), Wildman (Vietnam/Thailand/Malaysia/Laos), etc. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Now that I've got definitions out of the way, is anyone going to do something about this, or are we going to leave this alone? Dunkleosteus77 ^{talk to me!} 04:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"Bigfoot" and "Sasquatch" are basically interchangeable at this point, and they both are almost always used for the American and Canadian creature. There may be some sources using "Bigfoot" for creatures in other cultures, but that's the exception rather than the rule.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"Bigfoot is a broad term (often confused with Sasquatch) that describes the unidentified ape-men of the globe, ...."

No, Bigfoot was invented by outdoor workers in the Bluff Creek locale of California in the late 1950s to refer specifically to their local big boy. No one there used it then to subsume the abominable snowman, etc. And that specificity has continued to this day. For example, the Bigfoot Encounters site has separate sections for non-North American apeman, which are not designated as Bigfoots. For another example, Chris Murphy's popular and acclaimed (by Bigfooters) book, Meet the Sasquatch, and its sequel and update to it, Know the Sasquatch/Bigfoot, treat the ape-men of other continents in separate chapters, and as separate creatures. All the many books in my collection do the same, explicitly or implicitly. I challenge you to name more than one book that seriously uses Bigfoot as a global term. For a test of your claim that Bigfoot is used as a global term, go to The Bigfoot Forums (BFF) and post a poll there, or start a thread asking for persons who agree with you to raise their hands. You'll get a 2% vote, if that. RogerKni (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Loadmaster asked, "...is there a single (scientific?) term that encompasses all of these similar creatures?" Hominoid or hominid, probably with the preface Cryptid. RogerKni (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: Brian Regal, in Searching for Sasquatch, writes, "They can be collectively known as manlike monsters, mystery apes, or anomalous primates." (These of course are informal handles, not scientific ones—but I think they're somewhat relevant to mention here.) RogerKni (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of my paragraph on smaller Bigfoot societies

I posted this paragraph: "Smaller and more recently founded societies can be found on the Internet by using the search key (bigfoot OR sasquatch) (society OR association OR club). In 2015, such a search turns up societies in these states or regions: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, the Adirondacks, the Rockies, and "Tristate.""

It was deleted because (by memory) "Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, or a listing of non-notable entities."

I quibble thusly: 1) I didn't actually "list" any non-notable entities--only their states. So my listing didn't occupy a lot of space--only one line. Since I imagine that WP's rule was largely intended to prevent bloating, I infer that my line is largely Not Guilty on that ground.

2) I wanted to let readers in those locations know there is a nearby society they can connect with. Maybe that's too How-To-ish (too specific). How would it be if I replaced the concluding text with: "such a search turns up societies in over ten US states and regions." ?

3) The following I suppose is also too how-too-ish: "... by using the search key (bigfoot OR sasquatch) (society OR association OR club). How about if I included it in a ref and shortened it? Here's my suggested new paragraph:

"Smaller and more recently founded local-area Bigfoot societies and associations can be found on the Internet.^[2] In 2015, there are over ten of them around the US."

Whaddya say? (I suppose the ref could go too, although it's so short it's hardly a how-to manual.)

BTW, thanks for the notice atop your talk page that recommended using the article's talk page for protests. I hadn't realized one existed, although its tab has been staring at me relentlessly. RogerKni (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a revision that shortens my suggestion by getting rid of the ref, but gets the point across:

"Smaller and/or more recently founded local-area Bigfoot societies OR associations can be found by searching the Internet. In 2015, there are over ten of them around the US." RogerKni (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to post that modified para now and hope for the best. :-) RogerKni (talk)

References

^ http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=bigfoot+hunter+photo&d=27021854235887278&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=1Te9eMAl8LIO6sNPgIknHLl8ZEteVCdS
^ Search for bigfoot (society OR association).

@Dmol:. Pinging the user who removed it, just in case they aren't watching this page. I agree with its removal because it's telling the reader to use a search engine. I can't really explain it, but it's the tone of the writing. Your restored version is pretty much the same. It should probably be left out. Melonkelon (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should only use reliable, published sources for its content; if the only source for the existence of some local bigfoot societies is that you can find them using a search engine, then this information doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.

Some concern here that User:RogerKni has added 71k of content to this article since July without being entirely familiar with sourcing policy. It's scrupulous work, but if it's possibly been built on a false understanding of what material can be used for reference in Wikipedia, it should be checked. --McGeddon (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that the "Citation Needed" notice that has been appended to my sentence about the existence of ten local Bigfoot societies be removed. It implies that only a printed documentation of that fact will suffice, not an online search. But that seems to me to be an overly stringent application of Wiki's rules. I have consulted reliable, published sources. It states: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online." Wiki's Verifiability page similarly states: "... published, the definition of which for our purposes is 'made available to the public in some form.'" A Google search accomplishes that. And Google is implicitly considered by Wiki to be reliable at locating existing websites or blogs or Facebook pages, based on the existence of the large Wiki page, WP:GOOG. (As confirmation, BTW, I clicked on all ten local Bigfoot societies it listed, and they all do have a web presence.)RogerKni (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source is needed to confirm both the fact that the statement is verifiable, and that it is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. (The given Google-search source does nothing to distinguish genuine societies from jokes. And there are plenty of Google results joking that the creature is running for president, but that wouldn't merit a paragraph on the strength of that source alone.)

Wikipedia wouldn't have a paragraph namechecking individual societies sourced to the society websites themselves, because those websites are self-published sources. That you can get a list of those websites in a Google search if you use the right keywords is no stronger a source. --McGeddon (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The next heading under self-published sources is Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. (Emphasis its own.) It begins: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; [etc.]"

This disposes—I hope—of your claim that "Wikipedia wouldn't have a paragraph namechecking individual societies sourced to the society websites themselves, because those websites are self-published sources."

(And the "material" in this case is merely that they exist, which "is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.")

"(The given Google-search source does nothing to distinguish genuine societies from jokes. And there are plenty of Google results joking that the creature is running for president, but that wouldn't merit a paragraph on the strength of that source alone.)" A search for Bigfoot (societies or associations) is unlikely to turn up a joke Bigfoot society, because such are unlikely to exist, unlike joke presidential campaigns, etc. (In the checking I did none of the ten I found were such, as one would expect.) What would be the point? To momentarily mock visitors for being interested in the topic? That's conceivable, but I haven't heard of many mock-the-visitors sites existing (although there are probably a few). If such a joke society did exist, it likely would be the only one in its category, so it would pollute the search results by only 10%. (Anyway, where's the harm? We can all do with a little mockery about our obsessions.) Furthermore, making concern about potential joke-sites a bar to the use of web searches for Bigfoot societies is too far-reaching, because implicitly it would bar the use of such searches for societies of any sort.

And what are the alternatives? A printed source would become dated after a year or two, as existing societies become defunct and new ones pop up. It would be just as inaccurate (10%) as an online search polluted by a mock-joke site. And it would cost money and be inconvenient to obtain. The other alternative, an online source, would presumably be a non-neutral fringe-topic site like The Bigfoot Forums (BFF), which presumably would be objected-to on those grounds as unworthy of citation. Therefore, the "citation needed" notice's request is merely rhetorical—so it should be deleted. RogerKni (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The use of any such source would be self-serving for promoting that group over others. A secondary source's considered overview of lesser Bigfoot societies, even if this was years or decades out of date, would be more useful to the reader than "a Wikipedia editor found at least ten in Google, in 2015" or "here is a list of some websites sourced to themselves, curated by a Wikipedia editor". --McGeddon (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bigfoot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/classics/ruby.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Reported descriptions POV

Most of the aspects of the creature's description are rightly framed as quotations of sightings and speculation, but these sections lapse into several bald statements of fact ("the chest is deep", "the big toe (hallux) ordinarily projects forward", "they occasionally sway slightly from side to side when standing"), and include many unattributed quotations in the form of simple statements of fact surrounded by quotemarks ("The toes are long and prehensile.").

Even with attributions, some of the text reads as if a straight description of a living creature has been written, and then sprinkled with quotemarks and "Bindernagel writes". What is a sentence like "Krantz writes, "The toes are more nearly equal to each other in size than are human toes."" actually trying to tell the reader? Is Krantz summarising footprint data from sightings, analysing a single print, or what? --McGeddon (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. Despite the initially neutral section title "Reported descriptions", the bulk of the subsequent prose can barely contain its enthusiastically in-universe POV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply to McGeddon, point by point:

First paragraph: The statement "the chest is deep" was attributed to Rupert Matthews two lines down, where I said in the ref that all (3) preceding quotes were from him. But the connection got detached from it when I split the torso para from the breast para, where the ref was. (So it wasn't unattributed.) I've relocated it now. I've also inserted within the ref: "see also, for the depth of the chest and the width of the shoulders, Green, 447."

I added a ref to Bindernagel, 81, about Bigfoots swaying. (I don't always put in refs when I put in a statement, figuring I'll do it later. (For example, I inserted a ref about Bigfoots swaying before it was pointed out here that one was missing.) I've been regularly inserting refs after the fact, as my record shows.)

"The toes are long and prehensile." was attributed to "^[1]", but I'd forgotten to add Matthews' book to the bibliography, which I've now done. I've deleted his statement and ref and replaced it with: "Meldrum writes, "sasquatch toes are relatively longer and more mobile than human toes," and '"The toes of this sasquatch foot would conceivably have as much prehensile or grasping ability as a human hand (excluding the opposition of the human thumb)."^[2]"

2nd paragraph: In reply to the 1st sentence, which reads: "Even with attributions, some of the text reads as if a straight description of a living creature has been written.": This is a very valid concern. I partially addressed it a week or so ago, when I inserted "Reported" before "Description" in the heading, but I realized this was inadequate, and I've been intending to do more, which you've now nudged me into doing. I've inserted the following beneath the "Reported Descriptions" heading. I plan to insert it, or a briefer reminder, beneath all the subheadings, after people here have a chance to modify its wording. It reads: "BE AWARE: The "descriptions" that follow unavoidably convey the impression they are describing something that actually exists, which is far from being established, or even, most would say, likely. That's because it would be a burden on the reader to insert a qualifying word like "allegedly" or "purportedly" before every claim--and because it would have an unfairly sarcastic connotation. So you must mentally insert those those words yourself in what you read below (and elsewhere)."

In reply to the second sentence, Krantz prefaced the statement I quoted with the following italicized lead-in (which I've now added to the article): "Krantz writes, "On the basis of hundreds of recorded footprints it can be stated that the toes are more nearly equal to each other in size than are human toes." I omitted the lead-in to save space and because it can ordinarily be assumed that a scientist has a factual basis for a claim like that. RogerKni (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC) RogerKni (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"...So you must mentally insert those those words yourself in what you read below (and elsewhere).""??? No, I'm sorry, editorial asides in articles are not permitted by our manual of style. If attribution in the text isn't working because there is so much POV text, then the problem is one of WP:UNDUE weight. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Responding to LuckyLouie's first statement: "Despite the initially neutral section title "Reported descriptions", the bulk of the subsequent prose can barely contain its enthusiastically in-universe POV." That's not so up to the "Sign" section. The text that precedes it is, as the heading "Reported Descriptions" implies, a neutral digest of how Bigfoot has been described in reports, with the exception of two paragraphs about the foot and toes respectively, which incorporate some statements involving scientific inferences about the length and flexibility of the feet and toes. (But the latter has no implication that the creature is real, regardless of whether the toes are long or short, or stiff or flexible, so there's nothing "enthusiastic" or POV-ish there.)

Things get more interpretive when it comes to describing physical evidence that might or might not be caused by Bigfoots, such as "Sign." Merely describing possible physical evidence conveys a subtle implication that it carries weight. But omitting Sign, and other unproven evidence, would be wrong too, because much of the debate about Bigfoot's reality is about how much weight should be assigned to such evidence, and whether it is as good as purported--so it has to be described in the first place. I will therefore include another, stronger warning message ahead of the more interpretive sections, and I'll include skeptical counterpoints about each of them--and/or I'll ask skeptics to do so too. I realize now that I should have done so as soon as I started posting the interpretive material. My excuse is that it was easier to first post what proponents had to say, and then post skeptics' takes on the situation, because that way I have only half as many books spread across my desk at once. RogerKni (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

References

^ Cite error: The named reference Matthews, Kindle location 1526 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Meldrum, 241 and 242

No, the "in-universe" tone is there throughout. It reads as if someone has written a detailed description of a well-studied living species, and then sprinkled "reportedly" and "according to witnesses" in every paragraph. The article is using quotes like "The bottom of the foot is flat" at face value, when it should be talking about footprints, and quoting experts as saying that "the male had much longer hair" as if the creature were confirmed as existing, rather than talking about sightings.

I don't see a problem in using books by Bigfoot experts as sources for data about sightings, and their personal extrapolations, but we shouldn't be quoting them directly and uncritically to this extent. --McGeddon (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is evidence of my attempt to be balanced, in another section of this "Bigfoot" entry. (I will respond to the comment just above later.)

I have given the emphasis to the other (skeptical) side of the story by adding six events to the five pre-existing events in the Hoax category, by fleshing out 3 of the latter, and by adding two paragraphs to the "General" section of the Hoax category.

And I have been fair in giving the other side of the story in the "Prominent reported sightings" that I modified or added, by appending these skeptical remarks (I've omitted quotation marks.) :

1850s--However, contrary to nearly all reports of Bigfoot teeth (see the "Appearance and Anatomy" section), he said "there were four great fang marks in the throat" of the victim.

1895--However, this tale has not held up well under the scrutiny of Brandon T. Bisceglia in a January 11, 2010 article in The Examiner titled, "The truth about the Winsted Wildman."

1924 (1)--On the other hand, Green said there two things that were "very much wrong with" his story: The area's actual geography versus what Ostman described, and the too-human-ness of the Sasquatches' behavior and family living pattern.[140] John Napier, after pointing out that the combined weight of Ostaman's Bigfoot family was around 3000 pounds, and that Ostman described little food gathering activity, and, quoting Frank Beebe, that the vegetation in the area was of "the very poorest quality of low-energy food," concluded: "Albert Ostman's story fails to convince me primarily on the grounds of the limited food resources available."[141]

1924 (2)--Cryptozoologist Mark A. Hall pointed out that Beck, in a 1966 interview with Roger Patterson, significantly increased the ape-men's height, weight, and foot size from what he had told the press in earlier interviews.[151]

1941--However, in separate interviews, she provided differing details in her account. In one version, she fled down the railway tracks until she met her husband;[164] in another, she ran to her father's house in the village.[165]

1955--His daughter made a drawing of it under his direction. However, the drawing gives the creature long hair on the back of the head and a distinct neck, unlike what Roe had described.

1958--However, cryptozoologist Mark A. Hall was a persistent critic of the authenticity of Crew's 1958 tracks, and of certain other Bluff Creek tracks.[187][188][189] Another cryptozoologist, Loren Coleman, has been similarly critical.[190]

1967 (2)--I noted without comment (which wasn't necessary to detect my raised eyebrows) that Glen Thomas subsequently had 2 more sightings and a major trackway find--such multiple encounters are suspicious.

1969 (2)--John Green wrote that although there was some evidence of Bigfoots in northwest Texas, and some seemingly sincere testimony about the Lake Worth monster, "If there ever was a story that should be nonsense, this is it" and "If there ever was a case where mass hysteria took over after the first report this would appear to be the one."[221]

1975-- I quoted the implicitly skeptical comment, "When reading these reports, we wish the police and public would carry cameras rather than guns."[225]

1994--I made the backhand compliment, "Nothing obviously phony has been detected in it so far.[230]"

1996--Bigfooter Bobbie Short was skeptical of the video, based on her gait-analysis and the negative analyses of other Bigfooters.[234]

2000 (1)-- Bigfooter Bobbie Short commented sarcastically on her website[235] that the subject's gait was unconvincing, and posted an image analysis by M.K. Davis showing demarcation lines indicative of clothing.

2000 (2)--McLeod was distinctly unexcited about it.[238].

RogerKni (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@McGeddon writes, before my comment just above, "The article is using quotes like "The bottom of the foot is flat" at face value, when it should be talking about footprints, ..."

Not necessarily. "Patty's" foot appears flat on the PGF, and several witness (a better word would be "reporting persons," from cop lingo) say they heard Bigfoots' feet "slapping" on the ground as they ran. One RP said it sounded like he was wearing flippers. These remarks imply a hinged foot with a mid-tarsal break, which implies a flat foot. I'll add a qualifying lead-in phrase, like "Primarily by inference from footprints, ...".

McGeddon continues, "... and quoting experts as saying that "the male had much longer hair" as if the creature were confirmed as existing, rather than talking about sightings." As I wrote above, "This is a very valid concern." Here are the options:

1. Insert "reportedly" and "allegedly" everywhere; but that is a burden on readers and seems like a sneer, after a dozen or so instances.

2. Paraphrase all or most of the of the quotations, and include "claims," etc., everywhere, or very often. That adds verbiage and gives the reader a less exact idea of what the quotees had actually said.

3. Insert a warning heading, or multiple headings, like the one I inserted and that Dmoi deleted on the 21st, whose first sentence read: "BE AWARE: The "descriptions" that follow unavoidably convey the impression they are describing something that actually exists, which is far from being established, or even, most would say, likely." (I'd now add: "Keep your skepticals on.") I thought, and think, that is a great counterweight to the this-is-real connotation of flat statements by report-analyzing BF researchers.

4. Print certain proponent-favoring material in a subdued, gray-ish typeface, and/or in a smaller size, to indicate Wiki's disfavor and distancing.

5. Do what LuckyLouie implicitly suggests above and severely cut down on the size of the Description section, to avoid giving "undue weight" to the proponent side of the question. But I think the "undue weight" concern has most validity when it comes to evaluating claims, and to listing Sources, not to fleshing out sighting claims with detail. (FWIW, I've listed every skeptical book I now of. I encourage skeptics to list all the printed articles they can find down in the Sources or Further reading sections. The more the merrier--It provides readers with the fullest and most convenient overview of what's been said. I'd even would like to see links allowed to well-argued posts on skeptical sites like ISF.) Fleshing out claims with detail doesn't logically strengthen the proponent case, because they're still "weak coffee" (i.e., mostly anecdotal (or indirect circumstantial) evidence) added to "weak coffee", as skeptic Benjamin Radford said. (Words to this effect could be added to the warning heading I suggested above.)

As for the circumstantial evidence like the "Beds, nests, bowers, and dens" section, where inference is involved about iffy evidence, that material probably should be boiled down further, now that I think of it, to avoid undue weight. OK, I'll go do it within 24 hours; and I'll bear it in mind for future paragraphs in the Description section. (One hour or so later: OK, I've boiled down all 3 sections in the "Sign" section.) (A bit later: I've boiled down the Breasts, Feet, and Toes paras in the Appearance and Anatomy section.)

I suspect there's a lot of discussion, and probably guidelines, on Wiki about how much proponent detail should be allowed in articles on fringe topics, so my reasoning above may be moot. FWIW, I think that proponents ought to be allowed lots of room (maybe to hang themselves). I think many readers want to learn what the claims consist of, in fairly full detail, as well as what the skeptical majority consensus is. Balance should be something that the article as a whole should exhibit; parts of it should be allowed to lean this way or that.

RogerKni (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

RogerKni (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

RogerKni (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2015

This edit request to Bigfoot has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the section "Bear and Bear Tracks," there is a photo with an inaccurate caption. The caption mentions the Bigfoot [Field] Researcher['s] Organization. The word 'field' and the possessive 's' are both missing. As it is now: "A 2007 photo of an unidentified animal the Bigfoot Research Organization claims is a "juvenile Sasquatch"[314]" Improvement requested: A 2007 photo of an unidentified animal the Bigfoot Field Researcher's Organization claims is a "juvenile Sasquatch"[314]

Thanks! 2601:644:1:853A:225:4BFF:FE87:EF1E (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Done With "Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization" per http://www.bfro.net/REF/aboutbfr.asp Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Spelling of Malaysia

I assume "Malysia" is not what you want to use. I was ctrl-F searching and did not find it, but then saw the entry of Orang Mawas with the wrong spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.235.26.121 (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Bigfoot Article: Pseudoscientific/Cryptozoology Playground

This article currently reads like a cryptozoology playground. However, it seems that nobody has taken the time out to note that, like ufology, cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, itself an extension of folklore. In academia, folklore is handled primarily by folklorists—those active in the field of folkloristics.

Cryptozoology has a place to play in this article: a section discussing its place in cryptozoology. Right now it's all over this article. Imagine if flat earth proponents had a hand in our geology articles, would that be okay? I think there'd be quite an uproar.

For now, we need to gut this article of the pseudoscience and rework it into an article that doesn't consist of material unreliable sources. There's plenty of material from folklorists that could turn this article into something reliable and informative. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Who is Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia and to what extent did they edit this article?

Did Guerrilla Skepticism have 25% 50% or even 100% input to re-writing this article. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking, but the article has not yet been rewritten. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

That's correct. The article has been reverted to a version prior to its expansion by a single editor, primarily due to concerns with poor sourcing and undue weight. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite

The article has been brought back to its pre-expansion state but I think it can still be much better. Some of the current history section actually deals well with the folklorist aspects of the Bigfoot phenomenon but not quite with the sociological aspects of why people want to believe in such things. Which should not, in my opinion dominate the article at all but should probably have some mention. I'd like to see if we can come up with a structure more elegant then a science vs believer setup that dominates these types of articles. The science is for the most part lacking because scientists don't bother to disprove non-existence.

I personally find the sociological phenomenon more interesting than anything. Writers like Regal have examined the compulsion of Krantz throwing away his career and then you have you have the cottage industry that developed around Bigfoot. Today we have History Channel shows pushing the phenomenon. What I find most interesting about the phenomenon is not likely to make the best article though. Rather than fill up the TP with refs anyone is welcome to collect refs in my sandbox

I like the idea of looking at the sociological side, though science probably should stay, if for no other reason than to keep out the psudoscience; nature abhors a vacuum. Maybe we could do a structure that looks at the myths that predated the modern fad, (as we did at Jackalope, which is now a GA) then a look at the 20th century stuff from a sociological angle that touches on why this got to be so popular, then do the scientific analysis (we need to add more on how all the "samples" turned out to be from various animals, for the most part) That said, the History Channel really has nothing to do with History any more, does it? They lost me when they started to air nonsense on the 2012 end of the world thing... ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 02:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that we stick to sources in folkloristics on this topic, as any topic that falls into the area of folklore. Wikipedia has a long history of handling folklore topics awkwardly —let's make this a shining example of how to do this right. I'll help when and where I can. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can find some good sources from a folklore perspective please share them because I'm not having great luck myself. Good sources in general are hard to come by as almost everything is filtered through bigfoot enthusiasts websites. I'm reading a couple decent books right now and think I'll try to reorder the history section. Probably not till the weekend at this rate though. Capeo (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes local newspapers can be useful: [6] LOL! Montanabw ^(talk) 01:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yikes—let us not slip into the emic! :bloodofox: (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Okay, let's go ahead and start accruing sources. As I said before, I believe it's best for us to stick to folklorists due to the risk of slipping into the emic here. I'll go ahead and start with a few examples:

Bynum, Joyce. 1992. "BIGFOOT—A Contemporary Belief Legend". ETC: A Review of General Semantics 49 (3), pp. 352-357. Institute of General Semantics: 352–57. (This on JSTOR)
Milligan, Linda. 1990. "The "truth" About the Bigfoot Legend". Western Folklore 49 (1), pp. 83-98. Western States Folklore Society. (This is on JSTOR)
Walls, E. Robert. 2006 [1996]. "Bigfoot" in Brunvand, Jan Herald (Editor). American Folklore: An Encyclopedia, pp. 158-159. Garland Publishing, Inc. [7]

Actually, just do a search for "bigfoot folklore" on JSTOR and you'll find plenty of useful items. More to come. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2015

This edit request to Bigfoot has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove completely the 1996 Memorial Day footage since when the video is viewed with the sound, the observers name the person in the suit, show no great surprise, talk about the money that their video is supposed to be worth and the subject runs slower than a comparison college age cross country runner.

Remove completely the Marble Mountain footage since the subject shows no unusual traits, gaits or characteristics that would distinguish it as being anything other than human.

Remove completely the Three Silver Star Mountain photos since the dark figure was photo-shopped on a mountain scene at locations that did not match the photographers concocted story. He claimed that in Photo #2, all the figure did was start to stand up from Photo #1 position, except the exposed rocks on the shadowed hill reveal that the figure inexplicably jumped 10 feet to the left from the Photo #1 position. For Photo #3, the photographed claimed that the subject had already started off down the hill in walking left to right. Except the exposed rocks on the shadowed hill reveal that the figure had not moved from Photo #1 position. The photographer furthermore, failed to zoom in for any of the photos, even though he was only 130 yards from the subject. The most likely reason for not zooming in, is because there was no dark figure in the scene at the time that the photos were taken. 2601:1C0:4A03:125C:EC5B:BC94:3EFA:94EB (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - This is a large request for this kind of information removal. Please gather consensus about this change, then open the request again. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 21:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is lacking, some important information is missing

Hello,

I submit that at least two important paragraphs are missing from the article:

A. Evidence - One problem that everyone who seeks information on any topic should address before deciding on their opinion should always be "do I have the facts" or "have I considered the evidence"? Most people have not seen the footprint evidence, and if they did they have not looked at it very closely. The article makes no mention of evidence as a relevant category on the Sasquatch discussion. Setting aside for now the famous Patterson-Gimlin film from the late 1960's I would like to discuss the footprint evidence. There are interesting characteristics of the footprints that have been carefully studied including but not limited to: 1. Consistency of foot morphology 2. The footprints exhibit a flexible foot with a mid-tarsal bend, that would correspond to an elegant evolutionary adaptation to hilly terrain 3. Dynamics of the footprints showing movement of the toe position from footprint to footprint 4. Unique tracking of successive footprints suggesting a gait unique to that particular animal yet different from a human 5. Depth of the impressions into the supporting soil suggesting enormous weight 6. dermal ridges in some of the footprints (made under ideal conditions of fine soil and optimal amount of soil moisture) that have been studied by a professional primate fingerprint / footprint examiner from the FBI and concluded they do not belong to any known ape or human finger/foot print dermal ridge patterns 7. Remoteness of some of the discovered footprints; the great difficulty in achieving all of these characteristics suggests the extreme unlikelihood of hoaxing of all footprints ever observed and recorded and suggests a high likelihood that the originator of the footprint is a large, heavy biped unknown to science and at the very least unclassified in the animal kingdom.

I would suggest the article include a paragraph on evidence, even though footprints are trace evidence but trace evidence does qualify as evidence.

Suggested source of information on footprints would be Dr. Jeff Meldrum from Idaho State University as well as the studies of the late Dr. Grover Krantz. FBI crime scene investigator Jim Chilcutt studied the dermal ridge evidence on some of Dr. Meldrum's footprint casts.

Perhaps a more thorough discussion of the available evidence may compel others to first put the topic back on the table of rational discussion and then hopefully further research

B. People (scientists) who suggest that available Sasquatch evidence requires further evaluation - some notable people who allow for the existence of Sasquatch who have not dismissed it out of hand: Apart from Dr. Jane Goodall there is biologist and field researcher Ian Redmond, a protege of the late mountain gorilla researcher Dian Fossey; biologist Dr. Robert M. Pyle from The Cascades Institute in Washington State; biologist Dr. John Bindernagel from Vancouver Island; Dr. Jeff Meldrum of Idaho State University, an expert in bipedal locomotion and curator of the largest collection of Sasquatch footprint castings in the world; Dr. Anna Nekaris of Oxford University, discoverer of several new primate species

By adding a list of scientists it lends credibility to the topic by way of endorsement by rational, logical people

Thank you

184.65.236.141 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2016

This edit request to Bigfoot has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This article is written on an incredibly biased set of facts. Please change words like "mythological" to words like "unproven." Cryptozoology is not a pseudoscience in regards to what has been found on Bigfoot. "Mythological" suggests that Sasquatch has been proven fake- it has not. Please rewrite this article unbiased and keep in mind that nothing here has been proven. Reading this article sounds like reading about dragons- Bigfoot could still be real (the evidence piles up regularly), dragons are much more likely not (there is no evidence). Please also change anything about lack of physical evidence to lack of physical remains; believers have physical evidence (scats, footprints, and hairs) that match each other and relate closely to simian or primate DNA sequences, but have not been connected to any as of yet. Cryptozoologists do not have physical remains, so listing a lack of such would be acceptable. Thank you! BrokenUniverse (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The article reflects the language and tone of reliable sources. Per WP:NPOV and WP:RS, we reflect that tone in the article itself. Our own interpretations or opinions on the matter should not be reflected in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A wording change would make first paragraph more accurate

"The sentence beginning "Scientists.." is not quite accurate, as there are a few scientists who accept the creature or are undecided. I suggest "Most scientists" or even "Nearly all scientists" would more accurate. This is discussed below in the text, but "Scientists" implies an all-inclusive set, and it's not quite that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColoradoNaturalist (talk • contribs) 21:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

[1] David Daegling (2004), Bigfoot Exposed: An Anthropologist Examines America's Enduring Legend, pp. 197—198.

[2] ttp://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=bigfoot+hunter+photo&d=27021854235887278&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=1Te9eMAl8LIO6sNPgIknHLl8ZEteVCdS

[3] Search for bigfoot (society OR association).

[Matthews,_Kindle_location_1526-4] Cite error: The named reference Matthews, Kindle location 1526 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[5] Meldrum, 241 and 242

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

The Patterson film is fake! But don't get me wrong...

"Homo robustus bigfooticus" is their scientific name

The Patterson film is real!

Guy in a costume

Poor and Failed Sources

Swedish Publication

USA Today

View among the scientific community - overly weighted?

Bias and Aggressive Reverts: Admins Please Review This

Last paragraph

Bigfoot article content forks

See also

Punctuation

The Wilderness Hunter

Archiving discussions

rodger patterson

pictures?

pictures

good external links

"Prominent reported sightings"

Duke U 'scientists'?

First infant Bigfooticus photo named " Zuzu "- head - face - body & feet

Arbitrary break

Second arbitrary break

There should be more external Links

TONE

Further reading, FWIW

This article sounds too skeptical

The Amazing Sasquatch

Yeti

Great article

Hanuman

Edit request on 10 December 2011

Perhaps this could be of use?

Lead problem

Sésquac/sásq'ets references

Michael Rugg, of the Bigfoot Discovery Museum

So much coverage?

2012 DNA Study, Change needed

Carleton S. Coon dig

Infobox Paranormalcreatures

Jeffrey Meldrum

Generalization Written as Fact in Article

Problematic phrasing

Paranormal theories may be silly, but are they too silly?

Suggested additions

The Melba Ketchum paper has been published

Removed section: notoriety contested

Interdimensional being

Edit request on 5 March 2013

Suggested additions

Neanderthal

Subject is taken too seriously: NPOV is being used as a license for nonsense.

Edit war re cost of academic papers.

Edit war re cost of academic papers, take 2.

Edit request on 5 November 2013

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2013

Scientists expressing a "measure of belief" in Bigfoot

Add list of Bigfoot research organizations and people who are enthusiasts and those who perform research.

Hybrid as proposed explanation

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2014

Integration of formal/scientific studies

American Hunter Rick Dyer

Addition of the Kiyik Adam

NEW Formal Study

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2014

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2014

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2014

Alaskan theory bassed on local books and local friends

Goodall in the lead

Sightings at the county fair

Misidentification

Bigfoot not just in USA

Deletion of my paragraph on smaller Bigfoot societies

External links modified

Reported descriptions POV

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2015

Spelling of Malaysia

Wikipedia's Bigfoot Article: Pseudoscientific/Cryptozoology Playground

Who is Guerrilla Skep​ticism on Wikipedia and to what extent did they edit this article?

Who is Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia and to what extent did they edit this article?