Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 5

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (through December 2005):

Archiving

Please don't archive recent and ongoing discussions. I've un-archived some of today's posts. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My experience has been that if anyone wishes to continue a discussion, it is easily un-archived. I left the one discussion which seemed still active. Apologies if I have caused any distress or unhappiness. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

and how do we even know what archiving is?

You guys just talk on, assuming everyone knows what you mean. You think all persons here are

Wiki pros?

How do you "archive", what do you "archive", where do you "archive", how do you

un-archive?

tell us. Be a teacher.

beckjordBeckjord 08:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

what is archive of a page?

tell us in your words.

And what gives you the right to archive, or un-archive any comments? What right?

Who are you?

beckjordBeckjord 08:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I'm unprotecting. See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy: "Is not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized." There's been no spike in vandalism whatsoever. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

bravo good call.

beckjordBeckjord 07:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

True, but I imagine we're going to see a lot more crap like this real soon now, and when we do, semi-protection will make it a lot harder on the meatpuppets. android79 06:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

meatpuppet? ?????????explain.

beckjordBeckjord 07:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your meatpuppet question, see Wikipedia:Meatpuppets DreamGuy 07:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, tell me here.

You know what a meatpuppet is. Just be a nice guy and tell us. It is really "cold" to send us to a web page, when you already know the answer. Do not be rude. This is my HUGE complaint about Wiki people... they lack common humanity --- would you act this way on the street? Face to face?

How about "Wikipuppets?" Eh?

snort!

beckjordBeckjord 08:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we'll semiprotect it if it becomes frequent. So far, I'm less than impressed with Beckjord's ability to marshal his forces, though. —Bunchofgrapes

now,now,

Just wait. My pals are not vandals however.

What did you expect in 4 hrs.?

beckjordBeckjord 07:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

(talk) 06:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, certainly, let's not protect until it happens, if it does. android79 06:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

R U aware

I read everything you post?

beckjordBeckjord 07:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Read WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR thoroughly and prove to the rest of us that you have done so through your edits. The "call to arms" on your website pretty much guarantees that any edits you make to this article will be reverted on sight. And, for the last time, stop enclosing your comments in equals signs. It's very annoying. android79 07:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

how do I post a new title without = signs?

nobody says how to do it.

you criticise, but never instruct.

rading the rules pages will take 6 monthsm and i feel nobody here follows them anyway.

the skeptics here will delete anything I say NO MATTER WHAT I DO OR FOLLOW.

They have NO interest in the truth.

NPOV ? Impossible =I am profesional Bigfoot investigator. I report what I find.

If some do not like it, too bad. What is, is. Often, I have witnesses.

Also, get this: there are NO neutral scientific journals on this topic. If one does,

write on it, they select an ignorant PhD. Newsletters and websites is all you will get.

Edits andreverts will go on forever, due to the controversial natuire of the topic.

Some people HERE are dedicted to stomping out what they call "nonsense". It will never stop.

Rules violated all over, and nobody enforces them.

Wiki is a zoo.

smile  ;-)

beckjordBeckjord 07:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The point is to stop posting a new header for each thought you wish to add to the talk page. You don't need to be instructed on how to stop doing something.

I am asking you to read three policy pages. That will not take six months. It will hardly take six minutes. If you are unwilling to follow the rules, you are going to get blocked for longer and longer periods until the length of your blocks makes them practically infinite.

Wikipedia does not allow original research. Period. We don't care if you are a "professional Bigfoot investigator". You can't add your own research or findings to this article unless they are published in a respected journal or other credible source (magazine, national newspaper, etc.) We also don't care if there are no neutral journals on the subject.

• • I do not care what you do not like.

Wiki polices are f*cked. You want to be another fuddy-duddy pedia?

You SHOULD care. You are AVOIDING HOT, NEw RESEARCH in favor old, dead authors who never did a d*mn thing. People like Pyle, who might as well be dead.

YOU SHOULD BE fighting for new ways to recognize NEW RESEARCH even if it means quoting newsletters.

WEBSITES.

jOURNALS OF ZOOLOGY AND anthropology DO NOT ACCEPT BIGFOOT ARTICLES, UNLESS 100 % SKEPICAL. They will not accept even neutral articles./ DO YOU GET THIS? BUt you sure will quote any newspaper if it is negative, won't ya? Predisposition.

However, there is some discussion by the Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE) when the editor likes a contributor. I will submit some items, as I WORK DOWN THE PAGE, getting OKs from established ADMINS for edits. Newbies have NO chance.

Snort!

newbie on Wicki

BeckjordBeckjord 08:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If there aren't, Wikipedia has nothing to gather source material from, and no material will be added to the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a research forum. If "newsletters and websites is all" we get, that's too bad. They aren't reliable sources and cannot be used. android79 07:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

We never instruct? You never listen to instructions, is more like it. I've told you twice that to make a normal, as opposed to an extra large, heading, you enclose it in TWO equals signs. Not ONE. Two equals signs on each side. Like this: ==. Not one equals sign like this: = . I see Dreamguy tells you this above, too. If you still have trouble with it, or with any other aspect of formatting, please open edit mode and look to see the way other people have formatted their posts. I don't want to bite the clueless newb here, but what is so hard? Bishonen | talk 14:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference/source

Where is the ref for the reported size of eyes and head, please? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bigfoot Shot at

If bigfoot is a myth, what are people shooting at when it appears, or is spotted ? Several websites, data sites have reported people shooting at this thing, what ever it is. If you see one, and you're armed, will you shoot at it ? This explains that hoaxing this thing(Until I know what it is) is not a good idea. Martial Law 19:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Robbing banks isn't a good idea either -- for much the same reasons. But I believe bank robbers exist, and I belive bigfoot hoaxers exist. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Got two links that state that people should shoot them, Even have the advocate who wants people to shoot them. These are:

• Link one
• Link Two

Link malfunctioning, copy it, go offsite. Martial Law 20:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I shouldn't shoot at Bigfoot for the simple reason that I wouldn't want to be found guilty of murdering a human in a gorilla suit. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 20:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight:

1. There is considerable danger of being shot at when dressed up in an ape suit pretending to be Bigfoot.
2. Potential Bigfoot hoaxers are aware of this and no one would dare dressing up in an ape suit for fear of serious injury or death.
3. Therefore, Bigfoot is real!

I dressed up as bigfoot once to scare people and I'm not brave just very stupid. User:perleatsworld January 4 2006

Is this argument for real? android79 21:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Just stating a dangerous outcome of perpetrating a hoax of this nature, since a Mr. Krantz advocates people should shoot these things. This is in both links. Martial Law 21:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, people do shoot at these things, mainly to satisfy skeptics, to keep it out of their property, to keep it from harming loved ones, themselves, other reasons. SEVERAL Bigfoot links have reported people shooting at these creatures. Martial Law 21:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think it gets even worse:

4. If Bigfoot were a mundane animal, it would have been shot at and killed by now too.

5. Therefore, bigfoot is real, and is a pan-dimensional being who can phase in and out of our plane of existence.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oooooooorrrrrr, it's not real at all WOAH!

Seriously, Marshall Law, Wikipedia is not a how-to or advice guide. It's not WIkipedias job to warn people not to dress up as bigfoot and run around in the woods. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Did'nt say that either. Just provided two links that state that people will shoot these things and found by accident, the person who advocates that people should shoot them, no more, no less. Martial Law 21:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Although if someone was actually wounded or killed as a result of doing so that would make it notable and worthy of inclusion. That it hasn't happened means that all of those Bigfoots people have shot at were real transdimensional beings and not nearly hoaxsters. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 21:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Who is going to call the police and admit to perpetrating a hoax of this nature, like," I've been shot, hurt really bad.", then the 911 operator asks", what happened ?", then the hoaxer says,"Me and some buds got the idea to hoax a Bigfoot when some rednecks shot me. I'M DYING here." ? Martial Law 21:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can these links be used ? Martial Law 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to use them to point out the (obvious) fact that people have advocated shooting or otherwise capturing a Bigfoot, sure, they can be used. If you want to stretch that into an argument for or against Bigfoot's existence, or into a plea that people not impersonate Bigfoot, no, you can't do that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you place these, and why, while I find more concerning this matter. Martial Law 22:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Two more links say people should kill it. These are:

• Link 3
• Link 4

These links also have another person advocating people to kill these things. Martial Law 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Just saying that if a Bigfoot Kill expedition is set up, some hoaxer will definately get shot, or that some startled person will shoot at it. Martial Law 22:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, I don't think there are bigfoot hoaxers out in the woods 24/7; so I don't understand why you think a "bigfoot kill expedition" would be certain to find a hoaxer. Or maybe I am misunderstanding you. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

M.L., your arguments are atrocious, and worse than that you miss the fundamental point: Wikipedia is not the place for editors to try to argue in favor or against something, as that's a major violation of NPOV. Your little stream of consciousness flight of logical fallacies cannot go in the article, and it's annoying as all heck for you to still be trying to support it when the relevant policies (NPOV, WP:No original research, WP:Verifiability, Wikipedia is not a soapboax, etc. have repeatedly been pointed out to you. No offense, but it seems like we are dealing with a 12 year old here, since repeated explanations go completely over your head and you are so caught up in how your argument twists and turns that you don;t get that it's completely irrelevant either way. This is an encyclopdia, not a Bigfoot blog. Stop posting so many comments all over. Start reading policies. Calm down and start paying attention to your surroundings. DreamGuy 23:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

One may set up a expedition of this sort to go find one, say, in the NW. US for instance, then some member spots one, and shoots at it, then later on, it turns out that the expedition finds out that they have killed some idiot in a monkey suit. User:Dreamguy, did you see the links provided here ? They state that a Mr Krantz has advocated that if people see this thing, they are to shoot at it. These 4 links are in compliance with WP:V,WP:NOR, and these links go to prove that people do actually shoot at these things, mainly to bring a body to satisfy skeptics. I am not trying to prove, nor disprove the creature's existance, just stating what people do when they see this thing. Martial Law 04:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"just stating what people do when they see this thing." No... those links just show that some people who most people never heard of recommends that people shoot Bigfoot if it does exist and if they happen to see it. Those links in no way support a statement that people actually do see it or would shoot at it if they did, or that that that means people wouldn't hoax things. And most hoaxes aren't people in suits anyway, it's just someone lying when they claim to have seen it. If nobody else can confirm the story, why dress up in a suit and run around on the property of some alleged trigger-happy Bigfoot believer who has read Krantz? that's a lot of work when it;s easier to just tell a silly story.

If you want a sentence pointing out that some people have suggested shooting one if they see one, fine, that's not under dispute . But that's not what your earlier edits to the article werel limited to -- they specifically tried to use that to argue that Bigfoot really exists, as is also evident from your comment above that "If bigfoot is a myth, what are people shooting at when it appears" Just give the whole thing a rest. DreamGuy 05:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Where do I place this without causing a disruption ? Just being careful. Martial Law 07:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not one to disrupt things, thus I really need user:Dreamguy's help. Martial Law 07:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Marshall Law, what did you get for Christmas? What did Fat Santa bring? Or does he not exist?

In all seriously now, do you believe in Santa? because you are very gullible in my opinion. Paddy :-) 05:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Not gullible at all. Right now, I'm facing a war that I can't stop without Wikipedia's help. see the "WAFE" referral below. I've stopped two of these war attempts before, I don't know if I can stop this one without help. Martial Law 10:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Restating Known FACTS

• It is a extremely large creature.
• It really STINKS.
• Is extremely strong.
• Fur color varies, ranging from solid black to snowy white.
• Usually will not confront people.
• Makes horrifying noises.
• Is some kind of omnivore. Will raid property, such as farms, ranches, even compost piles and other trash for food, if there is no food in the wild. As to, how should I place this w/o violating Wiki policies, it's feces, like other feces is eaten by various bugs and bacteria.
• Has extremely BIG feet, thus is why it is called a Bigfoot.
• Is usually a muscular creature that is usually 7' to 12' tall(Taller than most NBA players)

These are the known and accepted facts concerning this thing. Martial Law 07:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Those are not known or accepted facts. Those are beliefs and claims of some pro-Bigfoot supporters, and even there not all of them agree on all those points. Huge difference. Please go read Wikipedia policies on NPOV, verifiability, etc., as you obviously have not bothered to do so when those links were given to you earlier. DreamGuy 02:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy is right. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Just read them, again. Thanks. I did find a site that may agree with User:DreamGuy. it claims that out of 10 alleged encounters, one reports the creature as being smelly. You are Right User:DreamGuy. I've seen this around: WP:WF. What is it ? Martial Law 04:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

WAFE

User:Beckjord is forming some kind of group that may oppose Wikipedia. It is called WAFE a acronym that stands for Wikipedians After Fair Editing

He is asking people to join this organization.

Please notify your Admins. of this. Martial Law 09:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Any Wiki response to this matter? I do NOT want to see a Civil War on this fine website.

I am NOT joining this organization. Martial Law 09:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Just ignore him. It's not going to get anywhere, as it's not like he has anyone on his side, and if he managed to do anything it'd be easy enough to undo. Giving him attention is what he wants. See Wikipedia:Do not feed the trolls DreamGuy 02:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that we got a grand total of two Bigfoot-is-an-alien editors to come here during Beckjord's "call to arms" on his website, I don't think we have anything to worry about. android79 02:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I do NOT coddle terrorists, I'm here to contribute. I'm a evidence kind of guy. As to Bigfoot, have yet to see one personally. I am also a field investigator, but I do not post anything that will be in violation of Wiki protocol at all, thus why I Google Search everything FIRST, then, place what I find on the discussion page for other Wikis to examine, so that I don't even remotely mess up a article at all. Only upon Wiki approval will what I find will go into this article, given the nature of this article. User:DreamGuy(Forgive the formalities), is this a good idea, so as to prevent article disruption with nonsense, of which I do not coddle either ? Again, I'm here to contribute. User:DreamGuy, I am considering creating a article about mythical weapons and armor, and list examples, such as Minerva's/Athena's shield, which will kill all living things, because it has Medusa's severed head on it. Will you assist me on this, given your expertise on mythical related matters ? Martial Law 04:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Should another war break out, what should I do ? Maintain vigilance and alert other Wikis ? What is the protocol ? Have'nt been able to contribute at all due to these wars. Who handles these matters ? Martial Law 04:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• As I've already said, one editor not getting his way does not constitute a "war". Beckjord refuses to heed WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR and his edits will be reverted until he does. Alert "other wikis"? What are you talking about? There are several admins watching this page already. android79 04:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

He has ten or more "meatpuppets"(I need a means of understanding Wiki jargon. Any resources I can use ?) to strike. You revert, the puppet "conter-reverts", until you are exhausted, he wins the war. Heard you guys caught a meatpuppet. Congrats. I'm like the watchman who had found something that is disturbing. Since you guys have this covered, I'll be "standing down", but will still be watching things. If I find something amiss in this article, who do I turn to to help me correct it ? Martial Law 06:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

A number of admins and myself and other editors now have this article on our watch lists. If Beckjord tries anything, with meatpuppets or otherwise, that violates policies here, there's a long line of people ready to respond. DreamGuy 06:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

How do you know he has 10 or more meatpuppets? So far, two have surfaced, and were quickly caught. There are ways of dealing with this problem that will not "exhaust" us. android79 06:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I monitor his website, and am always expecting trouble from this individual, since he had already initiated battle twice that I've seen already. Told him once already that The Boss might see this mess and throw him out. That is how I stopped the last one, until this "WAFE" mess appeared. Did I act correctly ? Martial Law 06:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

One other thing, he has been trying to get my E-mail and another Wikipedian had reported that he hit him with 6 viruses.

Martial Law

One day he is my friend, next day he is not.

Bi-polar ?

Not sure

beckjordBeckjord 08:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Beckjord, I have to follow Wiki protocol. No more, no less. I have not lied to you, will not lie to you now. I said MY E-MAIL IS OUT, NOT' that I had no E-mail. I had it examined. It looks like it had been, hit, but NOT by you at all. Some spammer, maybe something from a "etightstrings.com" type of site has sent some bug that hit my E-mail. I an currently on the Yahoo system, and it is known to foul up royally. I am indeed your friend. Its these "call to arms" that are making a mess of things for everybody. You, on the other hand, have progressed very well. Call off this war, and initiate no more of these wars, I'll give you a site that does permit original reserch, BUT you have to be extremely civil at all times while you're on it, and while you're on here. As a symbol of "Good Faith", I'll give you a really strange Bigfoot link, and go to UFO Casebook to see a entry concerning a entity that appeared out of nowhere, was glowing like a firefly on steroids. It is in the main(center) listings on the site, and tell you, after you go to my User Talk page about two incidents that has taken place near Shreveport,LA. Martial Law 09:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

this is total cr*p

I do not send viruses. Tell me how? You are one person who loves to lay blame where there is no guilt, BAsed on ASSUMPTIONS. See "post hoc, ergo prosper hoc" in logic.

Now, what the H*ll should I use to introduce a comment? If not = ( )= then what?

WHY NOT JUST TELL ME?

Eh? Or is that too kind?

Beside, ML said he HAD NO EMAIL. Was this a lie? Maybe so.

I email Zoe, and she gets no viruses. Ask her. Just do not open attachments.

God, the lies and lies I find here.

beckjordBeckjord 08:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

beckjordBeckjord 08:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not releasing this Wiki's name. If I may, I'll reveal the attacked Wiki on either User:DreamGuy's Talk page or on a friend of his. Martial Law 07:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you actually did to "stop" anything. If you convinced Beckjord to take down the "call to arms" from his website, bravo.

One thing that may clear these communications up: a Wiki is a website, not an editor. If you want to talk about a Wikipedia user, say Wikipedian, editor, or user.

If Beckjord is sending viruses through email, there's really nothing that can be done about it; I'm sure they're rather ineffective. There's no way he can get editors' email addresses unless he uses the "Email this user" feature and the user replies, or if the user has their email listed somewhere on the Wiki. android79 07:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

May I do this ? Martial Law 07:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't condone terrorisim. Neither should Wikipedia. Martial Law 07:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Terrorism" seems to be blowing things out of proportion. Ditto for "war" you mentioned above. You're running around like chicken little here. The sky isn't falling, we just have a problem editor who is grumpy. Most of us have dealt with the kind of behavior many times before and we know what we are doing. I was going for several rounds with Sollog and others like him sending out death threats and trying to hack my websites before Wikipedia was even around, and the other editors here you've been talking to aren't newbies either. Chill. It's all under control. DreamGuy 07:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Will do. Am now "standing down". User:Dreamguy, you have any suggestions for a article I'm planning which will list mythological and fictional weapons and armor, such as Athena's shield, which has a Gorgon's head in it, the sword Excalibur, Conan's sword, ice cannons featured in some videogames, that sort of thing ? Your expertise is useful here. Martial Law 07:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy, I have created two recent articles called UFOs in Fiction, which is about fictional UFOs, such as those featured in Blockbuster movies and TV shows. Been told that this was one of my better articles by a Admin., and Fictional resistance movements and groups, which are about fictional resistance groups. Most are related to science fiction and "Alternate Histories", but the Alternate History genere is short on literature. Appreciate your critique. Martial Law 08:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Another User, a Admin requested the article, while commenting on something in the UFO article. Martial Law 08:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Seen your latest catch. Good job. What is that, 3 suspected meatpuppets now ? Martial Law 20:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference check

I noticed this link in the external links section and it discusses that hair samples found in a suspected bigfoot footprint were sent to the University Of Alberta for DNA testiing...and that results were expected back later in the week. Well, I found the results [1] and they are apparently hairs from a Bison. I was wondering why this second citation is not in the article but the first one is. If we are to have an article that is going to be worthy of being encyclopedic, then we must do our research more throughly.--MONGO 02:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There are lots and lots of cases like that where DNA tests showed normal animal hair, often bears, goats, etc. Apparently the Bigfoot true believers don't want people to know that. Furthermore, I find the claims of the one study mentioned here that no match could be made highly suspect. It was made before DNA testing was routine, so it's doubtdul they did any test that could stand up to scrutiny by today's standards. The reference in the article covers up it's age, and people today assume hair is tested for DNA when it is tested so would believe that those tests had been done in this case -- as in fact one of our pro-Bigfoot people here claimed on this talk page when I pointed out that all DNA tests that have been done show real, known animals. These sorts of things need to be in there, or else there is a strong bias by ommission. DreamGuy 02:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm one of those that will not rule out the existence of such a creature. There is simply no physical proof that is accepted by the scientific community however. Basically, if they were to exist, there would have to be something close to at least 100 of them scattered across the U.S. Pacific Northwest and western Canada in order to maintain themselves through normal reproductive patterns known in all Great Apes and Humans, of which, apparently, this creature is most likely associated with biologically. Simply put...there has yet to be anything tangible in the form of physical evidence whereby we could honestly say, well, yes, here is proof of a previously unknown primate in North America. The section on skeletal remains is weak for the disbelievers as it is extremely rare for even an outdoorsman such as myself to ever stumble upon the remains of any animal. One of the reasons the great apes are so endangered in Africa is due to their relatively low reproductive capabilities and species thinning due to habitat loss and poaching. Taking all other factors out of the equation aside from species maintainability and the lack of physical evidence...the rest of the information probably should be covered for the sake of being exhaustive, but they do little to help the supportors or the disbelievers because they tend to cancel each other out.--MONGO 03:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Martial Law 04:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

bison hair

No bigfoot researcher made any big deal of this, since the hairs were not yet tested. If you have questions on suhc things, ask Beckjord, who is here. The best hair analysis was done by three scientists, and no further need have been done. http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/bloodandhair.html Current hair analysis, a waste of tiome now, imho, is done by Dr Henner Fahrenbach.

In light of the statements of Dr Michio Kaku, CCNY Physics, and CUNY, saying UFOs may come here via wormholes, an idea I sent him a year ago, (said it on tv - ABC.) it would seem that hairy humanoids __could be__ temporary visitors and dna only proves they were humanoid "at that time". DNA was obtained by LA state researchers several years back, they claim. ( James Lansdale.)

Just because a newspaper makes a big deal of possible hairs of BF that later are buffalo, does not mean we need to make a big deal. Being "verified" as source, does not mean truth. Some sources lie.

beckjordBeckjord 07:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord, do not squeeze your own comments in between earlier comments to try to throw off the conversation. I moved yours to the end... but, frankly, your comments make you like liks a paranoic conspiracy theorist. We aren;t supposed to trust reliable sources because they all lie, but we're supposed to take the word of fringe publications and self-declared experts nobody ever heard of just because they support your side? Claiming current hair analkysis now is a waste of time completely m isses the fact that now they can do DNA tests and figure out for sure where the hair samples came from, instead of old, old "studies" which were just some guy eyeballing a clump of hair and trying to guess what it came from. The old studies are completely unscientific by current standards. New studies are indisputable. And all of the new DNA studies have ALWAYS come back with, goat, bison, bear, cat, whatever. Your arguments are nonsense and we need to update this article to reflect modern DNA studies instead of the wishful thinking of the pro-Bigfoot crowd. DreamGuy 23:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Time to semi-protect?

Looks like it to me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree. I just got done with removing vandalism from this article, but it looks like there's more. --Winter 19:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protected. I'm a little worried something in the article got scrambled around during all that; don't have time to look in detail right now, so someone might want to pick carefully through the history. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what happened there, but I've reverted it back a little ways... some sections had seemed to have gone missing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice to new visitors who want to make changes

Hi - there is a system here that allows old-time members to instantly WIPE OUT any changes you add in. Took me two weeks to figure this out. Thus, to work in the system, add your comments to the DISCUSSION page, which thousands of readers now are looking at, thanks to GOOGLE. Your points will be read and some may last a while.Some may be verified (found in a book,ANYBOOK, and then added to the main page, with a footnote reference. It is best if you take teh tiome and dig out a page saying what you want, in a known book, such as The Bigfoot Files, and not in old fart books like Pyle. These Wicki people are very,very uptight and jealous and resent newcomers. So try my idea. Quote things. Newspapers, tv shows, websites, journals, books, and newsletters. SOME info may make it. That is the game, so we must play it.

Ask for Zoe by name, or Bishonen, by name, or Bunchofgrapes, by name, or DanielCD by name, to assist. They will see it, and may help.

Ve must be cool, and no vandalism (wiping out sections) pleeze.

beckjordBeckjord 07:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen

You may have have instructed me on some level in some page, but what if I miss it in all this ,mess?

Just email me. THEN I see it.

Zoe does.

And best you send it to my talk page.

Thanks.

beckordBeckjord 08:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

all you people really,really think newbies are going to spend hrs reading polices they 100% hate?

Many do NOT LIKE these rules and laws. They want CHANGE. The organizers were WRONG. Many newbies do not see these policies as anything to respect. We might read them, someday, but do not respect them.

You use these policies to suppress new info.

Now, what about TV PROGRAMS AS A SOURCE?

Dr Michio Kaku is quoted on ABC that he feels UFOs use wormholes,

YOU GONNA IGNORE THAT?

I will send in the quote here.

Is ABC "reputable" enough for you? Or does it have to be a an author who has 50 libel items in her book? Is she "reputable" ?

RETHINK WIKI.

beckjordBeckjord 08:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "all you people really,really think newbies are going to spend hrs reading polices they

100% hate?" -- Well, if they hate our policies, they are free to leave. Ignoring and doing whatever the heck they want just because they want to will not be tolerated.

Also, you have proven yourself incapable of determining what "libel" really is. You can;t simply remove a book from the biography because you disagree with it and then throw out ridiculous legal accusations against the author to try to support yourself. If you think the author made libelous comments, take it up with the publisher, not with us... DreamGuy 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy

name any author who says Bigfoot has small eyes.

Tell us, I can hardly wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

beckjordBeckjord 09:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Myself. I made a book about a completely different subject and in the back i wrote BIGFOOT HAS SMALL EYES!!!!! Signed, Perleatsworld

NOTICE TO DreamGuy and others of like mind

I, and others, of like mind, are not trying to "take over" the Bigfoot page.

We do not need to try to flood them page with PRO info, because if honestly reported,

much of the research shows something is there, and we do not have to stretch it, fake it or fudge it. But much of what is there now , ignores other objective info, and used bad, weak authors who never did field work. These are selected for their critical views. Pyle, for instance, never left his house to write his book. How ya gonna call that "Reputable" ? It isn't.

We, members of Wikians After Fair Editing, (which seems to threaten many insecure people here) just want all sides shown and we are confident that if all the info is laid out, it will present a positive showing, because the truth is never 50-50. It is usually 98-2

Support WAFE ! You get 79 Virgins in Heaven! - And you get to argue with Rene Dahinden -- or is that Hell?

-)

beckjordBeckjord 09:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

skeptics have complained...

They always will. They have no basis for any complaints, since they do no field work, and were NOT THERE. In one case, "Looking for Mr Goodape" Bob Sheaffer was told he might not see nor hear anything on the trip, since BF stays away from skeptics. When he left, a kid camped with family and did see a Bigfoot. Later, I did get pix, of beings not seen.

Dr Molly Hanson, organizational psychologist, skeptic, did go on two day hike and found BF trax on her own, and became a believer. Arizona trip, 1979.

"A skeptic is a person who, when he sees the handwriting on the wall, says it is a forgery"

        -famous person whom I forgot.

beckjord205.208.227.49 22:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy, screamGuy

I see he just cannot stay away... his skeptical hackles are up. He nitpicks and instead of helping with minor edits, he deletes. WHAT A GUY!!!!!

He should improve his own bad page, Mythology, which needs BIG TIME HELP.

hAPPY nEW yEAR, DG.

beckjord205.208.227.49 22:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are you editing as an Anon? It doesn't appear that you are (currently) blocked. Please refrain from attacking classes of people ("skeptics") and specific users (DreamGuy) and focus on the article's contents. Your personal anecdotes are useless to the encyclopedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy: I call him a vandal. He makes irrational edits, and deletes all sorts of valuable items. And he is influenced by skeptics, who have no clue on this research.

Also please stop ordering me around. beckjordBeckjord 06:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

anon?' Prove this. Sounds likemore Wiki paranoia.

BTW, sometimes people forget to log in. Ever think of that? :beckjordBeckjord 06:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering about why you were editing as an anon, and asked politely... "I forgot to log in" is a perfectly good reason. Now who's paranoid?

I will continue to "order you around" exactly as long as you continue to ignore Wikipedia policies. FOr example, calling DreamGuy a vandal is a personal attack, and saying someone influenced by skeptics shouldn't be editing the article is a violation of NPOV, which says multiple points of views should be neutrally presented. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

DG comments in edit box

(revert Beckjord on an anon IP (check edit history) blind reverting all changes I made because he irrationally hates skeptics, NPOV the WP:NOR policy and me (again, see his contribution history)

reply: this is garbage. I do not knowingly edit using anon. DG is the one violating NPOV. He has an agenda. DG reverts the entire article, just to dump a few edits he does not like. My researcxh is quoted in many sources. If you IGNORE current research, you make the article stale and passe'. Truth is important. What a non-researcher skeptic says in his office has no merit, even if in a bad book.

beckjordBeckjord 06:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

irrationally hate skeptics

No. I know Bob Sheaffer personally and have partied with him in local Mensa. (Goodape art.) One other skeptic went on a trip, found bigfoot tracks on her own and became my girlfriend.

I do not hate other skeptics as much as I have no respect for them.

beckjordBeckjord 06:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

sherpas

quote: In 2003, Japanese mountaineer, Makoto Nebuka, published the results of his 12-year linguistic study and postulated that the word "yeti" is actually a regional dialect term for "bear". The ethnic Tibetans fear and worship the bear (as do many primitive peoples) as a supernatural being. This does not match with what sherpas say,however.

The reference is in The Snow Leopard by Peter Matthiessen. The whole comment by Nebuka is insulting and implies that the local people are taken in by a linguistic trick.. or that we foreigners just do not understand the local language. This negative item is just a skeptic's POV item, and it smells. I'm not sure it is even true that local people worship bears since they do kill them. Further, the whole thing is absurd, since westerners have found Yeti tracks at altitudes where BEARS DO NOT GO, and with bipedal aspect, not quadupedal. Bears do not walk for miles on two feet. Basic common knowledge.

I think the Nebuka item needs to be erased. It is a red herring.

My opponent keeps putting in false or illogical items, as if this will Un-prove or debunk the Yeti and the rest. Yeti is neither proven nor disproven. He is into mythology and pedantry.

I hope you do not go that route.

Fighting illogical pedants is tiring. Evil energy abounds.

beckjordBeckjord 08:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Blah blah blah. What does your source say about sherpa, etc.? android79 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

bunchofgrapes

Using "editors" who have no name, and no identity is extremely dishonest.

Re websites, that is all you have for recent publications. Normal zoological journals do not publish articles on Bigfoot. If you want cutting edge here, you must, as an online pedia, accept online info.

BTW, who are you?

I'm real, you are not.

beckjordBeckjord 21:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally am not opposed to websites being used as a source - though I like to see some discrimination regarding the likely reliability of the web site. That's irrelevant to the revert of mine you are talking about, though. [2] You cited information from your own website, www.beckjord.com. Now, even the most simpleminded among us can immediately see that this poses a problem: you are perfectly free to put whatever truth, half-truth, fiction, or fantasy you care to on your own website, at any time. Therefore, for you to try to use information from that site as a source in producing a neutral, balanced encyclopedia article is quite out of the question.

Who am I? See my user page; I choose to reveal more biographical info about myself than many here, and I promise it's all true. If that isn't enough for you — if you have some need to know the true identity of those you interact with — then Wikipedia may not be an environment you will ever be happy in. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

PS Who said we wanted "cutting edge" here? "Cuttting edge" is usually a code-phrase for Original Research, in my experience. We don't want that at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord, if you continue with this "I'm real, you're not" taunting bullshit, you're going to get blocked. Wikipedia editors who want to remain anonymous are allowed to do so. Focus on arguments, and for the last goddamn time, read WP:NOR. android79 03:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to second that, but add double bullshit.--MONGO 03:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Can...

Can I get some recomendations for this site before placement ? It is Mysteries Megasite Homepage Click on Bigfoot, related cryptids. This site has links to literally dozens of other sites of this nature ? Was going to place it in the "External Sources" section. Trying to avoid violations of the WP:NOR, related protocol, thus am seeking recomendations. Thought I may discuss this matter first. Martial Law 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:External links. A source, especially a Web-based one, needs to be reputable for use as a source, and preferably, sites listed in External links should contain material that is referenced by the main article, Based solely on the appearance of the site you link, I would say that it is not appropriate to place in the External links section. Flashing lightning bolts and other such garbage don't exactly scream "serious" or "scholarly". android79 00:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Admit the site is a tad too bit flashy. I clicked in the title "Bigfoot", and nearly 20-30+ Bigfoot links appeared. Can I add your two recomendations to my directory ? Martial Law 00:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Read and absorb and add to your list of stuff as desired. :-) android79 01:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What about this site: Malevolent Alien Abduction Research Homepage ? This claims that some of the bigfoot creatures are aliens, but are seen with UFOs, other aliens. Was planning to place this in the "Alternative" section, because people has reported spotting them in, near UFOs, either going into them, or exiting them. You click on Sasquatch or Bigfoot on this site. Martial Law 23:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You click on "Alien Species" to get to Bigfoot/Sasquatch. Martial Law 23:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits by User:Dr Joe

User:Dr Joe recently showed up out of nowhere with no previous history to start putting beckjord's edits back in and to add similar NPOV-breaking comments. I'd say meatpuppet, based upon his trying to get people here, but it actually looks more like sock to me, especially with the strange habit of ending lines in middle of sentences (is he copying and pasting from some email or other application that forces lines to split after a certain width??) and the peculiar way things were phrased both in the edits and the edit comments. DreamGuy 07:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is "Dr. Joe" ? Can't find anything on this User. Martial Law 09:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet of...guess who....[3]--MONGO 09:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Patterson-Gimlin film FAKED?

It was recently reported that one of the principles involved in making this film has confirmed that it was a complete fake. Why is this info not reported or even discussed here?

Seems to me this article is an embarrassment to wikipedia - it doesn't even come close to approaching the guidelines regarding NPOV.

If you've got specific issues with the POV of this article, by all means, bring them up here. There are many problems with this article, that's for certain.

Equally important to NPOV is verifiability. If you've got a reliable source that indicates the Patterson film was faked, by all means, add this information to the article. android79 20:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Source: Skeptical Inquirer, July-August, 2004 by Kal K. Korff, Michaela Kocis. Text available here. Also see The Patterson 'Bigfoot' film uncovered on KATU News. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll add this information to the article (actually, an in-depth discussion belongs in the article on the film itself, with a summary here). android79 22:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

NOTHING in that rag is valid, nor true nor verifiable. It is 100 BS and bias. NOBODY in it has a copy of the film as film, and they go by ANY lie the see in the papers.

ALL BIGFOOT FANS NEW TO WIKI SHOULD GO THERE AND EDIT,EDIT,EDIT. It is YOUR Wiki also. Patterson-Gimlin Film. ( I did not log in yet, so do not get upset.)

DrJoe205.208.227.49 10:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather extreme amount of bias there. They are a valid source, and we can (and on this topic, pretty much have to in order to keep NPOV policy in mind) list what they claim in the article.

By the way, it would be nice if yo limited yourself to editing under one username instead of using a sockpuppet account and signed out as an IP address... It makes it look like you are trying to be three different people, Beckjord, and thus trying to trick people into thinking more people support your side than really do. DreamGuy 01:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's rich. Your personal website is a perfectly valid resource, but a well-respected magazine is not? android79 01:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I am so surprised by this turn of events. Somehow I was sure Mr. Beckjord would be a big fan of the Skeptical Enquirer. Next, he'll crush me by revealing a disdain of the Amazing Randi or Michael Shermer. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This Article

This article sucks and its just ABSOLUTELY CRAP!!

sorry had to do it. Paddy :-) 00:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• If you think this article's got problems, check out the POV mess that is Patterson-Gimlin film. android79 01:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Several months back I tried to improve things but gave up in disgust after a group of Bigfoot true believers came and not only undid everything I tried to fix but made everything else worse. At least we can thank Beckjord's campaign of POV-pushing and self-promotional original research for bringing these articles to our attention once again. DreamGuy 01:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

All new Wiki members have a right to edit

Bless the founder.  :-)

DrJoe205.208.227.49 10:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Investigator

Just clarifying this: Would it be OK to publish material that a investigator has found ? Again, just asking for clarification. Martial Law 04:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• You'll have to be more specific. android79 04:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I come in and post things, such as what I had found in places, like Fouke, AR., that sort of like what I've already seen here. Do NOT want to violate WP:NOR. Of course I would'nt do that. Just asking for clarification. Martial Law 05:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the help. Martial Law 05:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be fine if it was from a published and circulated source so that it could have been peer reviewed. But if it is just his/her word, it does not comply with no original research--MONGO 06:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Will have future sources,etc. placed here, persuant to examination, before placement, or not, pending outcome of the examination. This should reduce, if not eliminate nonsense. Martial Law 06:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 06:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Unusual link

Can I get a ruling on this link ? It is the Unusual Bigfoot Link. Doing this in accordance w/ stated idea. Martial Law 04:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this quote from that page will answer your question for you: We have all of these strange cases, close to 100, many of them well-documented, but if you try to call that scientific evidence of anything, you'd be laughed at. About all this link is useful for as a source in Wikipedia is Awful Web design. (Why is it that every paranormal page out there looks like it was created in 1996 by a fourteen-year-old?)

answer to android79

Actual field workers have a choice between staying home and becoming expert webmasters, or in getting out, finding new info, and then using amateur skills at being webmasters. You pick. YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH. Of course Android can VOLUNTEER to edit websites. The best edited Bigfoot websites, have the worst field work. You-cannot-have-both. Understand? I mean, WHO PAYS US to have pro websites? Where is MY paycheck? Send me cash. I will hire a pro webmaster. (All this ought to be obvious.)

DrJoeDrJoe 10:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I gave you a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources some time ago. It seems you haven't read it. If you have, you must not have read it very closely. The Internet is a wonderful resource, but it's at least 90% garbage, and for paranormal-related topics it's probably a lot worse than that. There is very little on the Web that will be a useful reference for this article. Anyone with a computer can set up a website in no time at all with very little effort. It takes a lot more credibility to get something published in a respected scientific journal, magazine, or by a reputable book publisher. Please keep this in mind the next time you find one of these random Bigfoot websites. android79 04:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

books as sources, wiki people choosing what is "reputable"

Wikians have no credentials and no names. They are not qualified to decide what books,articles or websites are "reputable". Actual been-there-done-that researchers in this field are better qualified to judge. Wikians are not. HOWEVER, people like Android79 can assist by cleaning up grammar,footnotes style, references style, etc. WE CAN MAKE A "PARTNERSHIP IN CRIME". (tHIS DOES NOT MEAN REAL CRIME....TAKE NOTE FOR WIKI POLICE..) Strange bedfellows.

We produce the info, You do the cleanup. DEAL??????

The goal is to produce the most cutting edge, not-boring, not Britannica, not OLD,OLD Pyle stuff. This means you do use newsletters and the net. Yes, you do. My kid read some DreamGuy reverts, and he said it put him to sleep. On the newer reverts, he said, "far out!".

Give it your Kid Test. Print out two pages. Show them. One is beddy-bye, the other is stay up. DrJoeDrJoe 11:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Martial Law 04:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...you got that right...even your kid said it was "far out"...that's because it IS FAR OUT...there is zero evidence that Bigfoot comes and goes on a spaceship! Next thing you'll tell us is that Nessie is Bigfoot's pet and every Thursday, they all play cards together with Elvis, James Dean and Marilyn Monroe.--MONGO 11:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, we get the "no names" bullshit, now from someone who feels the need to edit from three different usernames as well as multiple anonymous IP addresses. This is getting tiresome.

I'm qualified to judge the veracity of sources based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You are, too, though you choose to completely ignore policy. I'm going to continue to do more than just clean up grammar. I'm going to remove POV material and original research as long as it keeps showing up in this article.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Wikipedia is not the place for "cutting-edge" ideas, in any subject, especially if those ideas include wormhole-surfing Bigfoots and Loch Ness Monsters from another dimension. No, we do not use random websites for sources.

If you need to justify your edits as being more "exciting" to a child, regardless of the truth or veracity of the claims made, it's clear that you do not understand the stated goals of Wikipedia. Until you do, and until you choose to abide by policy, your edits will be reverted. android79 13:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. android79 is very much in the right here. Friday (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

competence

Sorry, we, the members of the Berkeley Bigfoot Coop (Dr Joe) do not accept that someone is comptent to decide what sources are reputable or not, merely because they say they are. Anyone, my ten year old brother, can say that. It has no meaning nor validity. Just like validating Bigfoot, you have to provide proof of yourself, to us.

The DrJoe group.

DrJoeDrJoe 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, but we're not trying to edit your website, see. If the day comes that we do start editing your website, you'll be entirely justified in demanding proof of our expertise. Friday (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

weak argument

And you admit this IS a website. (It is not a pedia, it is an info-site. An online source should have online links.)

-)

The Dr Joe Editing Consortium

DrJoeDrJoe 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I admit it, you win. Wikipedia is a website. Gosh, I hope nobody finds out. People might start trying to access it with a browser, or something. Friday (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

new hits on Wikipedia

This Bigfoot page is now on GOOGLE and more people are coming to see the fireworks!

This is GOOD for Wikipedia, good,good, good. It is GOOD!

Stand back and Laissez les bons temps roulez! Eh bien, mes amis?

DrJoeDrJoe 06:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

!

Lets keep this civil before things get out of hand. Martial Law 22:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading about a "Goodape". What is a "Goodape" ? Martial Law 22:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Goodape

This is Robert Sheaffer's cute play on the film title "Looking for Mr Goodbar".

Back in late 90s. Of course, Bigfoot is not an ape. Small detail.

Remember 10,000 or more people a DAY come here to learn the REAL TRUTH about Bigfoot.

They are readIng WHAT YOU SAY.

bESIDES, "gETTING OUT OF HAND" LEADS TO THE TRUTH. You want dull, as with Britannica?

They have maybe 50 words on Bigfoot. No b*lls. Wiki got b*lls. Bravo Wiki!

FIGHT WIKI BOREDOM!

DrJoeDrJoe 06:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There are enough bad jokes out there for Wikipedians to get their kicks. What Wikipedia requires of you (as has already been stated) is for you to abide and respect the policies of Wikiedia and to provide verifiable facts from reputable sources. Take care, Doc. SoLando (Talk) 06:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

We are sorry Wikipedia does not meet your needs at this time. There's a whole internet out there. Enjoy! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

people making moronic jokes

Have no right to edit.

205.208.227.49 09:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And your edit summary "rv- mongo, go play with the stars of that Mel Brooks Film" is supposed to be serious? Your attempts to continue to make this a fantasy article will ultimately lead to some long term problems I think.--MONGO 09:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

People who vandalize and make personal attacks get a time-out. Come back when you can be civilized. android79 18:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Documentary Channels

Today, on the History Channel, I have seen some material on Bigfoot and other cryptids. Channel link is History Channel. Type into the SEARCH area to get info about bigfoot. Martial Law 03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

For my area, this aired on 1-8-06 early morning on the History Channel. 1/2 of the show favored the skeptics, 1/2 favored the believers and those that have seen it. The skeptics do insist on a DEAD body for examination. Martial Law 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The show was called History's Mysteries, and has a old style key in the show logo. Martial Law 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to protect this page

A rare move for me, but until we can hash out what needs to be in this article, it is the only way to deal with the flow of vandal and sockpuppet acocunts. I will lift protection a couple of days unless someone beats me to it.--MONGO 09:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt discussion will help matters, as the problem appears to be one editor stubbornly refusing to follow Wikipedia policies and making the same edits across a variety of sockpuppets. There already is very clear consensus that his edits are inappropriate. We can all discuss it and come to the same conclusions, but he won;t change his mind. The only thing that would put a stop to it without a permanent lock down is for beckjord to start following policy, leave, or get under some ArbCom decision. I've seen it happen all the time here. DreamGuy 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly won't disagree with that. But, posted as much as a kinda ridiculous attempt to assume good faith...if we're going to be dealing with the editing as he wants it, always able to fall back on the fantasy to support the illogical and unproven, then it might have to go to arbcom...but he is using AOL, so that may make a permaban difficult.--MONGO 10:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

prejudice, here, by Mongo

quote: always able to fall back on the fantasy to support the illogical and unproven,

Commenting on what Mongo says about someone else's alleged edits...

Mongo has to show this is fantasy, and ol Mong just is unable to use real logic to criticise what HE says is illogical. I feel this discussion is above the mental level of most Wiki admins and of bureaucrats, and some outwide logician needs to be brought in to make a detrmination on the logic of these CLAIMED ideas, things __not__ presented as facts , but just presented as speculation, based on actual events. Mongo, Android79m, and worst - DreamGuy are unable to differentiate between a CLAIM (speculation) and an alleged FACT, proven hypothesis. Due to lack of scientific training, no doubt. Better qualified editors need to look in. So, show the "fantasy" and the "illogic", or go away and edit the mundane.

205.188.117.7 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

205.188.117.7....I have a masters in forensic anthropology and can tell you that if anyone here lacks scientific training, it's not me. My advisor during my masters thesis was Ellis R. Kerley--MONGO 21:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

True... I'm just saying the ol' "protected, discuss this on the talk page" line when it has been discussed repeatedly and consensus

consensus among fools is meaningless.

205.188.117.7 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

has already been established is one of my pet peeves. Wikipedia has some major problems that make it tedious for people trying to do a real encyclopedia to do accomplish anything. Instead we let a single well-known netkook hold articles hostage. Marvelous. If this trend progresses every major article on this site will be permanently stimmied because it only takes one POV-pusher to beat out 5 or 10 or 20 or however many good editors weighed in on the controversy here. It's a recipe for making everything get worse and worse.

• • or better and better. Many BF fans are entering this page. Pushing for INFO,

not just slanted POV. 205.188.117.7 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

We should just protect all the damn pages and not let anyone edit

• who has not read at least FIVE books on the topic and is not a brainless

pedant.

205.188.117.7 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

until there are reasonable guidelines for encyclopedia writing in place. DreamGuy 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A better solution: semi-protection. Any objections? android79 11:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine, just he'll have to use one of his logged in accounts to edit, not that this will break my heart.--MONGO 12:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected this page; this will stop AOLers and other anonymous users from editing, as well as new sockpuppets (as well as some old ones, hopefully).

Note that this won't be permanant, and I've had to use a rather liberal definition of "vandalism" to justify semi-protection. I consider the ongoing, willful defiance of Wikipedia's core policies on verifiability, original research, and neutral point of view that this article has been experiencing to be vandalism. Usage of sockpuppets has only made this problem worse. Established editors who want to add new material to this article are welcome to do so as long as their edits are sourced and do not run afoul of the aforementioned policies. Newer editors who want to do the same can discuss changes here on the talk page first. android79 13:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Item needs attention of an editor very badly

+ - interdimensional traveller, due to disappareaing tracks evidence, and vanishings before witnesses. If this proves to be true, + - it will make this comic-book and tabloid joke being become a Nobel Prize material item. Of course, +

 This shows blind prejudice. The incidents are not only true, but some of them

have been documented on videotape. It has no relationship to tabloids unless a tabloid has lifted information from a website or newsletter. Obviously, as the most junior of editors knows, there is no way to get an alleged bigfoot creature to cooperate with an experiment that shows that it can disappear, before cameras, and measuring machines. If anything of that type shows up, it may be form a surviellance camera, and one such incident, involving __alleged__ shape-shifting is in the possession of Jack Lapseritis, MA, in Northern WA. (Proceedings of the 2005 Bellingham Bigfoot Convention.)

Reports of vanishings, and also disappearing tracks in mud and snow,

are found in the book "The Locals" by Thom Powell, listed in refs. below. Also other reports are found in the archives of the discussion site, http://www.bigfootforums.net , as well as on some controversial minority-view websites.

It is the __conclusion__ to be drawn from such events that greatly disturbs

some Bigfoot fans, in fact, most, as well as some of the highly prejudiced editors here in Wiki, who have skeptical POV, and not NPOV.

That conclusion is that space-time wormholes may access this Earth, from other parallel universes, (as discussed re UFOs by Dr Michio Kaku on ABC TV in Feb 05, with Peter Jennings,) and that alleged (unproven - see- NPOV)Bigfoot creatures, and also missing persons, missing aircraft, etc, may use or access these to go to other parallel worlds or universes. Yet this idea of tranversable wormholes is greatly discussed in Physics, and hundreds of website references can be found on the topic in Google. Scientific American discusses them, (Dec 05) and so does "Taking the Quantum Leap" by Dr Fred Allen Wolf, Harper and Row, 1981, isbn 0-06-055137-2 . This makes it hardly "comic book material".

Perhaps Android79 might use his epxertise in editing to enter this material and information into the Bigfoot site.

If not, it is guaranteed that new members will do so, over and over until it sticks.

205.188.117.7 20:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• You know, Beckjord, for one who regularly chastises the rest of us for not using our "real names", you sure do like to pretend to be other people. android79 22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord, you'll have to provide links to the video tapes and and the images, as well as all documented evidence, and it must be from mainstream sources, not from your own website...as that violates WP:NOR.--MONGO 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord, STOP changing other people's comments

Listen, you can't go in and put in your own header and change and modify what previous editors said so you can insult them and derail the conversation. That is simply despicable. No anyone trying to read that conversation can;t follow it because you've messed it up completely. And your comments have absolutely nothing to do with making an encyclopedia, they are just personal attacks and contempt for our policies.

And, yes, we all know it's you on the IP addresses and using fake names, especially with all the exact same things you do like inserting your comments into the middle of other people's comments and using the same insults and peculiar ways of typing. Give it up. You have no way to win here, all you can do is prove to the world that you are just as bad as your critics say, willing to vandalize websites, make threats, etc. DreamGuy 23:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

do not

do not tell anyone, anyone, what to do. You do not own Wikipedia, nobody hired you, you re not paid, you do crappy edits on your own artricles, you are not a cop, you have NO authority.

Go stand in the outhouse, and flush yourself.

(unsigned but by beckjord) 07:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I most certainly can tell you what not to do when those things break Wikipedia policy. For example, don't make personal attacks. Changing what other people wrote is obviously not allowed either. Now... are you going to A) read the policies and follow them, B) leave on your accord, or C) get kicked off? Choice is yours. Note that "refuse to follow the policies and do whatever you want" is not an option. DreamGuy 08:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

bigfoot researchers world-wide are viewing this article

and will be editing every day or week, over and over and over.Correcting false info, erronenous info, inadequate claims, correcting such simple things as Wiki listing 8-9 "sightings" as if these were the ONLY sightings, when some 15,000 people have turned in reports to John Green, the author and even to the BFRO group and the BIRO group. Some will be adding, over and over, the fact that one researcher has videotaped tracks in snow that end suddenly, and start suddenly, (Brian Smith, reported in the Bigfoot Coop Journal, June 2003) that just are not in the "mainstream" journals because such journals refuse to report __anything__ about the alleged Bigfoot. You skeptics with skeptic POV will have to permanently freeze this article, with all its flaws and bad editing,bad references, FOREVER. The editors currently involved are not working in good faith, are not honest, and have zero qualifications to edit this topic. Britannica, at least,does identifiy authors. Assume good faith? No. Assume quality? No. Assume ability? No. Assume they have read __even a single book__? No. As for accusations of identity, in America there is due process under law, and people are innocent until proven guilty. Stop the stupid and paranoid accusations. Anyone can write like anyone. Take it to court. You guys are amazing, fighting to be backward and retarded. People like DreamGuy are Thought Police, and would be comfortable in Saddams former empire, and in Orwell's.(1984). Petty rankings like "admin" give them power without any merit nor name. The founder has set up a police state, on-line. Good subject for a PhD thesis. You earn my utmost contempt.

207.200.116.138 07:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. When you come up with one piece of information that doesn't violate no original research then we'll take alook at it. So far, all we see is opinion, not one fact, and that is unencyclopedic. Also be careful with the use of wording like "Take it to court", as that could be perceived to be a violation of no legal threats--MONGO 08:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Gee, beckjord, you keep talking about how we should be expecting a massive inundation of Bigfoot supporters to take over the article from us lowly encyclopedic types following the policies here, but it never happens. You had a call to arms on your website to have people come here and revert back to your version, yet all we got was one guy on an anonymous IP address and then you yorself again on a couple sockpuppets account. Fact of the matter is that the majority of those who believe in Bigfoot don't respect you either. Your threats are meaningless, and, worse than that, they are repetitive and boring. DreamGuy 09:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

IF that is the case, let's keep it civil. Martial Law 20:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I thought he was pretty subdued when answering someone who said "you earn my utmost contempt". When will you tell your pal Beckjord to keep it civil? Moriori 21:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

you should read what the dreamguy has been meandering on about all this time as well as beckjord, before you jump in with unfounded opinions on how things are proceeding.Gimmiet 01:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

?!!!!

?!!!! Martial Law 08:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I get this link examined ?

The link is Bigfoot Sightings Homepage. This may be a bombshell. Martial Law 08:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did read all pertainable matter. I do NOT know what to make of this site. Martial Law 08:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be a blog...get us something from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, any published work from a university, anything from the National Science Foundation or the journal Scientific American, or better yet from the American Anthropological Association. To be creditible, it must come from credible sources.--MONGO 08:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Here's something for you to read. [4]--MONGO 08:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• This may be even more interesting. [5]--MONGO 08:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I also get a ruling on this as well ? Sasquatch Data ? Martial Law 08:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally mind having that link put in the additional or external links section, but I scanned a few of the internal links and they mostly answer questions with questions, so they don't really provide anything more than sparce evidence, little of it scientific.--MONGO 09:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This link appears to support all sides. Martial Law 08:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Also found this as well Project Bigfoot Martial Law 08:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That one is just a website, not a scientific jouranl or anything of the like...as far as your question below, Beckjord can read it here as I'm sure he does.--MONGO 09:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you send a copy to User:Beckjord as well: Re.: what you have discussed w/ me ? Martial Law 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, he'll benefit from this. Martial Law 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Just maybe he'll benefit from our discussion. Martial Law 09:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) I know I have. Martial Law 09:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper Link

Skunk Ape/Florida's Bigfoot

Is this a credible source ? It is from a local Florida newspaper. Martial Law 19:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What of these:

• Bigfoot Museum
• Texas Bigfoot Site
• Bigfoot Site

Martial Law 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• The newspaper appears to be a local newspaper. I'm not even able to verify that it's an actual, printed newspaper and not some web-only thing. The smaller and more local a newspaper gets, the less useful it is as a source. android79 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)