Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Grammar

Bigfoot and Sasquatch are capitalized all throughout the Article. Would you capitalize Elephant or Dog? How about Trees and Rocks? I doubt It. Unless this Article is about one Sasquatch in specific named Sasquatch, It shouldn't be capitalized, because It's not a proper Noun.DallasOConner 16:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think ,in this case, it is appropriate to capitalize Bigfoot and Sasquatch since they are technically names given to a creature, rather than just an elephant, for example. Scwilder 22:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't get your argument. Bigfoot is a name given to this type of creature just the same as elephant. It is not a name given to a a specific animal, which would have made it a proper name. I say we standardize the capitalization on the page and use bigfoot rather than Bigfoot. —Fiziker ^t 19:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Why should bigfoot be treated differently from gorilla? --Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Because gorillas are real creatures. This is a popular name of a legendary being. Nobody uses a small B on Bigfoot, and for good reason. It looks dumb. DreamGuy (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying so, but I read wikipedia for several hours every single day, and I must say that this is the worst article I've ever encountered. It needs to be completely re-written.

Patterson-Gilmin

Despite the fact that the Patterson-Gilmin film has been criticized for years, it should be treated with more realism. There is an inexplicable amount of evidence that supports the fact that the film isn't a hoax guys, lol.

Notable Morphological Features that cannot be denoted to a costume:

Flexation of the foot, which is difficult to attribute to "costumes" On MonsterQuest, they had found that around the frame in which the "figure" turns to the camera, the mouth opens. Clear flexation of the hand. Bodily Hair is not evenly distributed, which is uncommon in suits or costumes. Muscles in the leg are distinguished, are shown flexating Broad shoulders are present, if a costume was used, there would have to be an extension of the shoulderpads.

---

Other: The creature moves in a way that cannot possibly be human, as shown in multiple studies such as Monsterquest, the NASI report, etc.

If the framrate was 16 frames p.s., it would be impossible for a human to move in the way in which "Patty" moved =).

---

Over half the alledged "men in the suit" do not even know how to reach the bluff creak area, such as Bob H.

---

In 1990, a study of the bluff creek area that used tree height to determin the height of creature, showed that the figure was at least 7 feet tall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morpheus96 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This part of the article - In 1967, Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin reported that on October 20 they had captured a purported Sasquatch on film in Bluff Creek, California. This came to be known as the Patterson-Gimlin film, the best evidence that Bigfoot exist. Many years later, Bob Heironimus, an acquaintance of Patterson's, revealed that he had worn an ape costume for the making of the film - would have one believe that it was indeed hoaxed. It is known that most of the scientific community that investigates Sasquatch have indicated that Heironimus is lying. I'm adding a portion to that section to indicate such. --Bentonia School (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I do think that needs to be changed but your claim about the scientific community is false. As far as I know, we only have Heironimus's word for what happened. This should be duly noted—I'll add it in. However, I know of no evidence that would prove that he was lying. It's just a claim nothing special about it. —Fiziker ^t c 04:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Simia Virbestia

Whilst removing some vandalisation, I also deleted the unattributed made-up species name ""Simia Virbestia"". I've never heard it used before in cryptozoological circles, and the sole unique google hit I get is a lone mention in passing on a Bigfoot hunter site, with no attribution or background which would support its use here. DrJon (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bigfoot Cadaver

Apparently scientists are testing DNA of an alledged bigfoot cadaver from georgia. There's also photos of the bigfoot, but neither photos of it alive or its body have been published yet. There is a press conference for friday scheduled. (Georgia in USA, not Georgia the country.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.68.170 (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This matter is confirmed I have seen it on FOX News, CNN, local news, the 'net, other news outlets. A major news conference will be held this Friday. The show Coast To Coast AM got into this matter as well. Loren Coleman has the thing on ice and DNA, other testing is being done. IF THIS THING IS FOR REAL, YOU HAVE TO CHANGE THIS ARTICLE, and the skeptics will have to eat crow. More info can be found on cryptomundo , the news websites, such as FOX News, Coast to Coast AM. IF this is some guy in a suit (70% possibility, 60% probability) there may be a murder investigation, since the woods in where it was found are full of trigger happy people who would shoot at a bigfoot, thinking it was a bear or a threat to life and property. 65.163.117.250 (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just what the hell is going on here?!65.163.117.250 (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because it looks like a bigfoot doesn't mean it is one. Neo-Giants like bigfoot are supposed to live in the Pacific northwest only. Coleman's book seems to say that one in Georgia is likely to be a true giant or pongid. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if it has five toes, then it probably is a Neo-Giant. The cryptomundo website won't display on my computer, perhaps add a few more news sources? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Google "Bigfoot". Done that. You should see the shit that came up. 00:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.163.117.250 (talk)

Hi. No, instead Google something like bigfoot body August 2008, which will narrow your search. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

www.bfro.net has a link stating it is a hoax but the link is down at the moment. Pythro (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Been there, BFRO says it is a HOAX OF A HOAX. Those woods are full of trigger happy people protecting their property, and those growing pot, making meth don't like intruders at all. Some idiot in a fur suit will get his ass shot for sure by someone who think that they're taking down a bigfoot, protecting property, lives, and like I said, people who is making illegal drugs, "moonshine" will shoot that idiot in the ass. Just being truthful. Where I'm at, there are people there who will shoot any intruders. I'm awaiting the news conference. I'll try to get you guys a link. Stand by...........65.163.117.250 (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC) :)

Links found, more on the way later. Found links are: http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/688171/Bigfoot_Found_Not_A_Hoax.html, http://www.NEWS.com.au 65.163.117.250 (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC) :)

Based on previous DNA testing, scientist Samuel T. Malofry has concluded that Bigfoot is 100% real, and there are many other bigfoot out there. "We're not quite sure how many, but there could be as many as 100." 209.175.79.120 (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the part about this in the beginning of the article. Currently, this belongs in Alleged sightings. It looks like the sighting for 2008 is the same as the material that I removed; however, there were some differences in what was written and I couldn't open one of the pages cited. Could someone please confirm that these are the same event and include the information I removed. —Fiziker ^t 03:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone here has diluted the professionalism in this discussion. Again, lets reiterate, the discussion page of wikipedia articles and what to add, this is not to discuss if bigfoot is real OR not. This is not to mock skeptics or believers. This is just for facts. And facts only. And the pure fact is, all this speculation is ridiculous in this discussion, We will wait till friday with the press conference before we add ANY more info on the matter. Further more i propose we wait until independent labs solidify the validity of this claim. People will go to any lengths to get their 15 minutes of fame. So please, stop with the bantering, the speculating, and lets stick to the facts. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.68.170 (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth it to redlink Tom Biscardi? Chadlupkes (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't —Fiziker ^t 16:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Red link about adding red links. I don't see a reason why there would be a page added about Biscardi in the near future so I removed the red link. —Fiziker ^t 17:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Lock article

Might be a good idea to put on a semi-protect. Bigfoot is getting a lot of press right now. fintler (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that protection will be needed within the next 48 horus or so, but at the moment vandalism is still low enough that it's being handled swiftly enough. We generally try not to place protection based on what *might* happen to an article. There are exceptions, but I don't really see them applying here. If you disagree with this, the place to get another admin's opinion would be WP:RFPP. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. It was already semi protected this morning, so we are both out of date in our comments. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well we never talk anymore guys :( its nice just to chat, even if it is out of date, but fine whateverman, we can go our seperate ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.68.170 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

GET THIS ARTICLE LOCKED DOWN! I EXPECT ALL HELL TO BREAK LOOSE FRIDAY DURING THE NEWS CONFERENCE. I'm only stating a concern, no more no less. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job guys.01:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.104.93 (talk)

I've located a page with convincing evidence that the recent photo, from the July 2008 Rick Dyer claim, appears to be a hoax: Objective comparison between a theatrical "Sasquatch" costume, and the photo of the "corpse", reveals facial characteristics which appear substantially identical to each other. http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/ga-gorilla-pic/ The article is locked, but I believe this is useful info which should be added to the July 2008 entry in the Alleged sightings section before the press conference. FireMouseHQ (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Guess I spoke to soon... I was able to post the info on the alleged sighting entry. Thanks. FireMouseHQ (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This New York Times article might be an appropriate link/reference for the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/us/15bigfoot.html?em Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/14/bigfoot.body/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.20.55 (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Conference

Wasn't it supposed to have started by now? searchingforbigfoot.com says FROM 12-1pm and its gone 12 now! Do they mean anytime FROM 12? Or are they just not gonna bother to show? At the moment they are talking about nothing, I would have thought they would have gone straight to this news...I know its almost certainly gonna be a hoax, but you know what IF it isn't? Even if that possibility is so remotely small it still exists! This waiting is driving me nuts! Christopedia (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I got the times wrong. I feel so stupid...LOL I thought it was 12PM in the US when it was only 12AM. I forgot they are so far behind. Oh well it's a HOAX guys. There's nothing else it can be and these people are admitted hoaxers. Christopedia (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Been all over the news channels. When is (or WAS) that conference? I'm sure Coast To Coast AM may have this matter on the show tonight. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You are NOT stupid at all. Unless you have to work during the day (IF you do, do NOT tune in Coast To Coast AM tonight), get a GOOD radio, tune it to the AM band, then go to the website for Coast To Coast AM to get a list of stations that carry the show nearest to you, then tune in that station pertaining to your time zone in the USA. Time Zones in the US range from Guam to Puerto Rico in the US. Loren Coleman will be on Coast To Coast AM TONIGHT, during the FIRST HOUR ONLY. The rest of the show should be what is "Open Lines". IF you want to participate, leave out the obscene language, profanity. This should help, but for those who work nights and are "night owls". 65.173.104.93 (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That means that "you" cannot use foul language, OR George Noory will toss "you" off of the air and take another call. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There are pixes of this "thing" on Coast To Coast AM's website RIGHT NOW. Been hunting around, and the preliminary reports are that this thing found in Georgia is a damn hoax. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

plagarism removed

Hi. I have re-written a paragraph to remove direct copying of more than six words in a row, excluding quotes. Please check for any more incidences of plagarism. Also, please do not copy-paste online articles onto Wikipedia, but rather re-write it completely. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 15:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Last Sighted

The infobox contains a field for when Bigfoot was supposedly last sighted. Recently the field was changed from just the year to a specific date. People claim to have seen Bigfoot all the time, so it is not practical to keep changing the date. How will we even know what was the last date? Is there some database where every new siting is added to? To include the date, would make it seem that we knew more than we did—specifically that we know when each new sighting happens. I propose that we keep the field to the year only. That way it does not need constant updating and we are sure (until the new year) that we have not missed a sighting. —Fiziker ^t 16:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The same arguments somewhat apply to the year. If there are frequent enough sightings that, soon after any new year the field will need to be updated to the new year, then it will almost always show the current year, and I wonder what is the point of having it at all. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The year doesn't make much sense either. The only reason why I left it in was because I thought it would go over better and at least we wouldn't have trouble with updating the last sighted every few days. I'm for either—if I had my choice I'd go with TexasAndroid. The specific date is utterly pointless; the year is pointless but less of a hassle. —Fiziker ^t 17:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A few years back in malaysia in the deep forest at Johor Bahru region they had spotted fresh mud giant foorprints. Ever since that report on the news, nothing was followup. Anyone heard or know about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.93.30 (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Smell

The thing, as indicated in many reports, is extremely smelly. It smells like shit, rotten eggs, sewage, a corpse, rotten meat, carrion, worse. Why is this NOT mentioned at all ? 65.173.104.93 (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Because no one has ever added it. I suppose you can't edit the page now, so if you get me some sources, I'll add it in. —Fiziker ^t 18:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Try Cryptomundo, Bigfoot Encounters for starters, Google "Bigfoot Reports", "Bigfoot is Smelly". 65.173.104.93 (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If I have time, I'll look for something. —Fiziker ^t 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The smell is now included. —Fiziker ^t 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hoax?

Preliminary reports say the thing found is a hoax. Tonight, on Coast To Coast AM, for the FIRST HOUR ONLY Loren Coleman will be on. Get a GOOD radio guys - only for those on the night shift, night owls. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now, all Bigfoot related sites are getting hammered, will continue to get hammered. For those on the "Day shift", get someone to record the show for you. Well, is it a hoax or not? We'll find out tonight on Coast To Coast AM. 20:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.104.93 (talk)

Tonight it is "Open Lines", so watch the language. Forgot sig. Older than I thought.65.173.104.93 (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Easy there with the promotion of Coast to Coast. Wikipedia is not a soap box. This is of some relevance to what is currently happening, but one post is enough. —Fiziker ^t 20:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article now says the DNA evidence "failed to prove its existence". Well, first of all, nobody ever said DNA analysis would prove anything as there's no Bigfoot DNA to compare it to. An inconclusive finding is the best we could expect to get from a real Bigfoot. So this is somewhat misleading. But the problem is, this Wikipedia conclusion cites a Reuters article. The Reuters article only claims two DNA tests: 1) Human 2) Possum. Other reliable sources are reporting three DNA tests. 1) Human 2) Possum 3) Inconclusive. Obviously the Reuters article (and any who syndicate Reuters) are ommitting the third DNA sample. I think this Reuters article is suspect. See this article for three DNA tests. Bigfoot Evidence--Rrand (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How about now? —Fiziker ^t 00:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job, thanks!--Rrand (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The failure of the third sample to match was a technical failure. See the email passed to journalists at the press conference: Link Switzpaw (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Greater Boston Bigfoot Research Institute link..

...points to something unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.11 (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Remedied —Fiziker ^t 21:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia Bigfoot Body Reports:

CNN

CNN just had a report on the thing, as of this timestamp, but they have no info as to what it is.

Coast To Coast AM

Loren Coleman will have a report on this matter tonight, but during the First Hour Only.

Other News Sources

I know WP is no soapbox, just stating media sources only. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assisstance. I just talked to a man where "I'm at and he said that the Bigfoot found there may have been a idiot in a costume who got shot. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is about a person who has recently died?

I think that notice is mistaken. Chinhnt2k3 (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, this is an oddly humored joke in light of the recently found carcass of bigfoot. Though from the article I can't really tell if the world thinks there is only one or multiple bigfoots, so it might not even be a correct notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.123.162 (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia Bigfoot Body is a HOAX

I have listened to Coast To Coast, and the following is of interest. Also go to www.coasttocoast.am for more, go to RECAP:Friday as well.

• Loren Coleman: HOAX
• Costumer called in: HOAX

There have been too many inconsistencies with the finders' stories as to how they found it. See Coast To Coast AM website. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Now it has been claimed that "you" have to wait until MONDAY for answers. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Some callers have indicated that criminal charges may be filed IF these guys make anything by creating this hoax. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Proof of HOAX

• http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2008/08/15.html#recap
• http://www.bumpinthenightproductions.com - Costumer who sold the Bigfoot suit
• http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2693.html?theme=light

More on the way. Can these be placed, along with the whole Georgia Bigfoot article, in the HOAX catagory? 65.173.104.93 (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It all depends on what the Hoax category is about. It seems like it's just for those where people have admitted hoaxing it. I think the title should be changed to "Admitted Hoaxes" or something along those lines, and the Georgia bigfoot stays where it is. No reason to single it out from its brethren. —Fiziker ^t 18:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.bfro.net/hoax.asp - BFRO: HOAX

As promised, more evidence. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the article is protected I can't place these, so can someone place these? 65.173.104.93 (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that might be worth adding is the link between the pictures and the costume. I saw an article on it before but I didn't think that it was worth it at the time. If you really think it's necessary at this point I'll try to find the article, which was from a more reliable source than the above link. —Fiziker ^t 18:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. The 2nd "Coast" link links to a CNN news report and it says that it is a hoax. The 1st "Coast" link is a recap of the show itself. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I edited the article and moved the Whitton and Dyer incident to Hoax, along with the information posted at Searchingforbigfoot.com. I cited it as well. I also added a link to the Youtube video of Fox 59's footage of the rubber costume in the freezer. I think I have it in pretty good shape. Please feel free to edit further if you see anything that could be improved. Artificial Silence (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Weasel wording in the lead section

I've got rid of the "some believe" and "sometimes described" and the "debate on whether it exists or not" from the lead section. And the creature's supposedly "uncertain" scientific status, too. Its status is not uncertain, it's at best dubious. The phrases I changed were classic violations of WP:UNDUE—"we should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view". Note that WP:UNDUE is official Wikipedia policy, and the wording of the intro needs to be sensitive to it. Please don't revert me unless you have a policy-compliant argument for it. These changes I've made are pretty conservative, actually. The fringe status of belief in Bigfoot should probably really be expressed a good deal more sharply. But it's a start. bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC).

The removal of weasel wording has been necessary. Good job, although the "known as" vs. "called" thing is a big much. Same thing for all intents and purposes. —Fiziker ^t 23:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the unverifiable reference to the views of the scientific community, as it violated both WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I know that some skeptics would like to think they might speak for the scientific community, but as the elected leader of the scientific community, I object to their usurping of my post. I hate to sound flippant about this, but the scientific community is comprised of many sub-communities which specialize in their own areas of expertise. As an example, one would not use the opinions of a chemist or biologist (who may have never studied string theory) to conclude that string theory is bogus. One would use the opinions of physicists who have studied and published on string theory to make that determination. Even stranger, is that if WP:UNDUE were to be properly applied in this case, the statement would have been necessitated to read, "the scientific community supports the existence of Bigfoot". The UNDUE policy clearly states that the article is to take into account the published, reliable views, and in proportion to their prevalence, not the popular opinion of the uninvolved or uninformed. At this time, there is considerably more literature supporting the existence of Bigfoot than there are articles in the Skeptical Inquirer discounting it. Of course, at this time, an actual determination on what the majority view of those who have researched Bigfoot is would constitute WP:OR. Therefore, the article can make no statement as to the consensus view, until such time as someone publishes a review of the literature.

It is acceptable to explain that the current state of Bigfoot is dubious, as the topic is full of a LOT of bad information and out-right hoaxes. To me, it is actually reminiscent of the problems surrounding global warming, which is itself a subject replete with both honest scientists doing honest research, corrupted scientists trying to prove their point at all costs, honest policy makers trying to make a well-informed decision, and corrupt politicians who spread lies and misinformation. There are clearly scientists who are researching Bigfoot, despite its dubious nature, and the current wording of the introduction makes that quite clear. Let's leave the debates and arguments of unsubstantiated consensus views to the global warming editors, OK?Magic pumpkin (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely valid to talk about the scientific community reaching consensus. Yes, it is split into sub-communities, but when one talks about scientific consensus one means that the branch of science where this topic is relevant has come to consensus. Biologists don't deal with Special Relativity so in general they and most other scientists don't count when it comes to forming a consensus, but if a biologist where to learn the necessary mathematics and physics he or she would be fully able to weigh in. The is most certainly not a spokesperson to say what the scientific communities opinion on a matter is. This has allowed many global-warming deniers to claim that the scientific community is at odds about it, but that does not mean that there is a consensus about global warming amount scientists who are trained in the relevant fields. There is also no spokesperson to say that it is the scientific community's consensus that Newton's theory of gravity is a valid approximation in the right conditions. I dare you to claim that because there is no spokesperson for physics, we can not claim that it is the scientific consensus that it is indeed a valid scientific consensus. If you wish to contest whether Bigfoot is almost uniformly dismissed by scientists, please provide evidence for that claim before trying to change it. —Fiziker ^t c 17:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Article still needs major work

Despite recent improvements, this article still reads like it was written by Bigfoot proponents. People who believe Bigfoot is real are a tiny minority of anyone who could be experts on the animal type in question. Our WP:UNDUE weight section makes it clear that minority views should not be presented as if they were the major views, and here still much of this article is written like it presumes that Bigfoots are real. The Skeptics section shouldn't be a separate section, it should be worked into the whole article. Beyond just that, the vast majority of the Skeptics section isn't about Skeptics at all, it's believers in Bigfoot.

I've tried to do some fixes, but we still need a major overhaul. DreamGuy (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I plan on trying to improve the article a lot in the near future. I've started with some small changes but I agree that it needs an overhaul. I do recommend caution with WP:UNDUE. We should be clear that bigfoot is dismissed by the scientific community. However, what is there really to write about bigfoot itself? You could summarize the creatures in a paragraph. The information that needs to be on this page will largely be about what the proponents claim to be bigfoot. I think those opinions and speculations should be stated as what they are (opinions and speculations), but the result could be interpreted as giving undue importance. We need to be careful to include the relevant information that people might seek while keeping WP:UNDUE in mind. —Fiziker ^t 01:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Will the article's intent ridicule people who have seen it, even shot at it? 65.173.104.93 (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not the intent of Wikipedia to ridicule people, just to be a reliable source of information. —Fiziker ^t 17:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got people who are really pissed off at the recent hoax that two law enforcement officers in Georgia (US) have pulled. They have seen it, even shot at one. Why is it that people who have shot at them not be stated here? Read the article, talk pages, other articles about this thing on the Internet about people shooting at it. Makes me want to not go into the woods without some gun-nut shooting me in the ass. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Because while they say they've shot at it, they haven't ever killed it and brought back a carcass. This page can't just contain every report ever made. There needs to be some organization and direction, not just a list. I think that Alleged sightings is worth having but it should only include the most prominent ones. —Fiziker ^t 18:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How's this:

• http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_article.asp?id=449
• http://www.ourbigfoot.com

Found this while I Googled People shooting AT Bigfoot. There are dozens of entries, such as the moral implications of doing that (killing someone in a monkey suit! - and the shooter is DRUNK!!), reports of this going on. Can those above be included here? 65.173.104.93 (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If it got into the mainstream media then I would include it. Including things that are mentioned on bigfoot websites is no different than including everything. It just isn't notable enough. —Fiziker ^t 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Got one about people shooting one in Canada and a guy claims he shot one. See below. There is a poll taken by a gun magazine as well below. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, someone thinks that people shooting at Bigfoot is silliness in spite of evidence. Heading to appropriatearea to report that vandalism has occurred. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Conventions

I would like to standardize some things on this page. These are all somewhat linked to each other. —Fiziker ^t 17:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Bigfoot or bigfoot. See Grammar above.

The capitalization of bigfoot and sasquatch does not make any sense if we assume those terms refer to a species. If bigfoot was the name of an individual then it would be a proper noun, but it is not. We should not treat it as it is. —Fiziker ^t 17:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of a complicated issue. The accepted practice is to capitalize Bigfoot, as if it was a proper noun. The New York Times, generally considered to be the pickiest paper in the 'States when it comes to grammar and related topics, capitalizes Bigfoot. "Bigfoot" was a name bestowed in reference to the footprints that started appearing in the '50s, and so essentially is a proper noun. Compare it to other modern-day myths, such as the Loch Ness Monster, which is also almost always capitalized. Maybe we should remember that "Bigfoot" is not the name of a species, but the name of a pop culture icon. ClovisPt (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's capital B Bigfoot. It's not a species, it's a proper noun for a folkloric character. DreamGuy (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Pluralization

The page often will switch between singular and plural. Sometimes it will say "bigfoot is" and then "they are". We should assume that we are talking about a species rather than a single creature. Therefore we should use the plural. Also, what the hell is the plural of bigfoot: bigfoots, bigfeet, or bigfoot (sic)? —Fiziker ^t 17:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How about Bigfeets? Bigfooti? I really have no idea. ClovisPt (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I somehow don't think that bigfoot is a second declension noun. If anything I'd say it was third declension: plural would be bigfootes. Seriously though, I think we should use bigfoot as the plural of bigfoot. That seems to be often used and it sounds right. —Fiziker ^t 19:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Bigfoot vs. Sasquatch

Sasquatch has been sometimes used in this article other in the actual text. We should stick with one and use it. I don't care which, bigfoot is used more often so it would make sense to use it, but sasquatch gets rid of the pluralization problems. —Fiziker ^t 17:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be incorrect, but I think that for topics which have two widely accepted names, Wikipedia articles tend to use both interchangeably, but with some preference for the more common one. ClovisPt (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

coke machine glow

Reference No. 47 named "coke machine glow" does not work, it is a dead link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneintraining (talk • contribs) 01:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any info on what it would have linked to so I just removed it. —Fiziker ^t 01:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent incident

A recent incident was just removed from the timeline with the rationale that it was a proven hoax... It sure looked hoaxy, but as yet I don't know of any proof. If it is a proven hoax, then, based upon world-wide publicity, I would suggest that instead of deleting it it should be moved to the hoax section earlier in the article (perhaps trimmed down a little). Removing the information entirely seems to serve no real purpose. DreamGuy (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Place it with the links found proving it is a hoax. See above. 65.173.104.41 (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It currently is with Demonstrable hoaxes. I think Bigfoot#Alleged sightings should be trimmed down to just the most important cases as well as some recent ones people might be looking for. Then both sections should be merged into one. It does not make sense to have a separate section for hoaxes when there is almost always a contingent that disagrees on the veracity of a sighting (not just between proponents and skeptics but between pro-Bigfoot organizations). It is unreasonable to single out particular sightings. —Fiziker ^t c 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

When merged, people may get the idea that witnesses, even people who have shot at Bigfoot are full of shit. That is why people have taken to shooting at Bigfoot. See links found about people shooting at bigfoot. That is why I don't even go outdoors either, since someone may shoot at my ass by mistake, especially after having a few brews or shots of Kentucky Red Eye. 65.173.104.41 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While I was in Shreveport yesterday, I talked to a elderly guy who hails from the Fouke area, he said that the people there are fed up with "skeptics" who routinely insult them, and he may shoot at "one or two of the jackasses" who he believes had insulted him. People, go figure.65.173.104.41 (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope that guy was kidding. 65.173.104.41 (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Spacing

Can someone properly space the Hoax incidents in the Bigfoot article? I'd do it, but the article is protected from idiots. 65.173.104.41 (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Seen it. LOVE IT. Not all IPs are idiots.65.173.104.41 (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What's going on? I'm not sure what spacing you're refering to. —Fiziker ^t c 17:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It looked like one hoax incident report ran into another one. Maybe my ISP fucked up again 65.173.104.41 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom Biscardi

Should there be a article about this hoaxer/huckster? 65.173.104.41 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything worth saying other than this guy has made a few announcements about finding real evidence of Bigfoot but has consistently failed to follow through? I don't think it's worth it. —Fiziker ^t c 18:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about this too, and I took the liberty of coming up with a brief arcticle. Here is why I think there should be an article about Tom Biscardi. He has duped the international media on multiple occasions and has made headlines in nearly every major media outlet all over the world for multiple hoaxes. At the very least, he is (im)famous prankster who has succeed in getting the entire world's attention on several occasions. I think the world deserves to have a page on him to access for the next (fourth) time he tries to pull this off. The Tom Biscardi page is now live. Please help to improve it, as I made it briefly at work. I have tried to be as neutral as possible, and I have tried to be thorough with my sources. Whether he deserves it or not, I am not trying to roast him, but I wanted to create a page that at least starts to document this controversial figure in the world of crypotozoology. Jacob Hodgen (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Linked Article. 205.240.146.148 (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bigfoot = Fiction

Oh, come on. With all those alleged sightings of Bigfoot, all of them are hearsay, the pictures are quite fuzzy, and Bigfoot "corpses" have been ruled as hoaxes. Maybe it's time to write Bigfoot off as a fictional creature, like kappas and ogres and fairies and trolls. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and kappas, ogres, fairies, and trolls all have pages describing the legends. What about it? —Fiziker ^t c 18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we should classify the JFK Assassination as a Government Conspiracy because a majority of the public believes it to be so and that there is arguably evidence, despite not being official word? --JohnVMaster (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Name

Why this cryptid is called "Bigfoot"? What is the etymology of the name? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

See Bigfoot#Spread and development. The name comes from the large casts from 1958. —Fiziker ^t c 18:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

15 ft tall?

So I was reading the article and it says bigfoot is anywhere from 6-15 ft tall.

Most credible sites state that bigfoot could be anywhere between 6-10 feet tall, most likely in the 8 ft range. 15 feet is almost double that. What source is that from because it honestly doesn't line up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.10.247 (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the references. If I remember correctly, it's from Britannica. The goal is simply to describe what people think they saw. If some people claim it was 15 ft. then it should be listed as well. —Fiziker ^t c 14:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should be looking for a consistent range of numbers. If there have been a lot of people claiming to have seen a 15 tall creature in the woods, then very well. But almost ALL reports list the creature being under 12 feet at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.10.247 (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Britannica reports 6–15 feet (1.8–4.6 m). We should be using the broadest range of figures reported by reputable sources. Britannica is certainly reputable. Many people may not think they saw something 15 ft tall but I suspect many people don't think they saw something that's 6 ft tall. If they said something like 40 ft, I'd have a problem but 15 ft is certainly a reasonable as anything else in the description. —Fiziker ^t c 03:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Very well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.10.247 (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

New sighting!

There's been another alleged sighting in Canada, by two groups of independent witnesses. Will add brief details to page later if no one else does. Christopedia (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Notability first. Jefffire (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Famous reported sightings

I've been trying to get rid of all but the most prominent reports or Bigfoot in Bigfoot#Famous reported sightings. I removed ones that aren't (as far as I know) at the core of the Bigfoot canon. I did leave in the 2007 one for the time being because unlike the others there was a reference to someone other than Bigfoot researchers caring, but it probably shouldn't be in there. —Fiziker ^t c 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You removed the Fouke, Arkansas sighting. This sighting is so famous that it was the inspiration of The Legend of Boggy Creek and sequels to that movie. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope that was a mistake when it got removed. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at Fouke Monster before removing it from Bigfoot#Prominent reported sightings. It definitely seems to be in the same class of creatures as Bigfoot and Yeti but it wasn't clear that it is considered an Bigfoot specifically. If it is generally considered a Bigfoot and not just a Bigfoot-like creature, then I'd be happy to put it back. —Fiziker ^t c 02:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Bigfoot has more names than Satan, since it is called a lot of things all over the planet. In the Blevins and McCaskill area in Arkansas, it is called "The Bottoms Monster", when the people are not using foul language to discribe it. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you restore it? 205.240.146.248 (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some references where people consider it a Bigfoot? I haven't seen a list of the most prominent sightings that contains the Fouke Monster. —Fiziker ^t c 03:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is http://www.monacome.com/2008/08/bigfoot-sasquatch-found-georgia.html and http://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=Bigfoot what you need? 205.240.146.248 (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Try also http://www.newanimal.org/bigfoot-pals.htm 205.240.146.248 (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Google "The Fouke Monster is Bigfoot". Done that. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the sites 205.240.146.248 gave and a number refer to it as "Bigfoot-like". I also searched Skeptical Inquirer for the Fouke Monster, which put in the class of Bigfoot-like creatures—not Bigfoot. I didn't search media articles but from what I've seen, I consider it a Bigfoot-like monster, not a "true" Bigfoot. —Fiziker ^t c 18:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Reason I asked is that I had met gentlemen from Fouke. Those people don't like skeptics at all because they believe that they had been insulted, still are being insulted by skeptics. I believe that someone else is insulting them, after I looked up the word "Skeptic" up in the dictionary, and on here. I had also went to Fouke, to see what has been going on as well. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Skeptics are just people who don't believe every wild tale they're told without evidence. I don't know how tht means anyone thinks they are insulted, and I have no idea how this relates to this article. This isn't a message board, it's a discussion bout how to improve the article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could start a new article "List of Bigfoot sightings" or whatever to include the more mundane/minor sightings that have been reported in the press. Christopedia (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a list of Bigfoot sightings as being a useful article. The problem is where do you draw the line on what to include and what not to include. Potentially someone could update it every few days with a new report. There are sites that do that and Wikipedia is not meant to be a database. The only clear line that I can think of is for the most prominent sightings. There are certain sightings that get mentioned over and over again—that is a clear line. If there's a page with minor sightings it will become incredibly cluttered and useless for all intents and purposes. —Fiziker ^t c 16:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of just including reports that say have been reported in a local newspaper rather than a national news source, but if you don't think such a page is worthwhile then fair enough, was just a suggestion. Christopedia (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's still a huge list with very little substance. I don't see a purpose for it. Better to have a link to some database, which is already the case. —Fiziker ^t c 13:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Map of Reported Sightings

A map is important for this article. The main reason for DreamGuy's removal [1] is not correct. Showing where Bigfoot is reported to have been sighted does not give anything undue weight. Bigfoot originates in the Pacific Northwest, where many are still reported. But as the legend has spread throughout North America (sadly I couldn't find a map of both the US and Canada with states/provinces) sightings appear where ever there are forests and people that believe in Bigfoot. It is eccential to talking about Bigfoot to show how it has spread. More than any other image, a map of reported sightings demonstrates how it has spread.

I do however agree with DreamGuy's concern about an unreliable source. However, I know of nothing that would be a more reliable database for the locations of claimed sightings. I might not be willing to accept claims by Bigfoot advocates that some evidence for Bigfoot is real but I think the plausability of them distorting the numbers of reports of Bigfoot is low. They might have reason to increase the total number but except for regional groups, which I don't think BFRO is, I see no reason the relative numbers will be off.

I think that the caption or even the key on the map might use a change to make its meaning clearer, but the map itself should be kept—or replaced by an equivelent map that's better. —Fiziker ^t c 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

One possibility that I just thought of to reduce DreamGuy's concern about lending legitimacy to sightings is to include it under the Prominent reported sightings heading rather than Description and behavior. I put it under Description to illustrate how the phenomenon is not limited to the Pacific Northwest but on second thought Reported sightings is more appropriate. —Fiziker ^t c 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Links

Recently every single last external link was removed from the article with the claim that none of them meets WP:EL rules. As someone who frequently (check my edit history) removes sites as not meeting WP:EL rules, and who errs on the side of having fewer rather than more, I can't for the life of me figure out how any interepretation of the rules would justify removing all the links. The Skeptical Inquirer and Skepdic links, for example, are very highly respected sources with valuable encyclopedic information. We should also have at least a few links to pro-Bigfoot groups for those people interested in them (only the most well known and not geographically-dependent, however). The news article also clearly meets external links rules. I have added all links back. If you think some of them do not belong, please discuss them here first. DreamGuy (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Alliance of Independent Bigfoot Researchers (AIBR), Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, Willow Creek - China Flat Museum, LorenColeman.com - website of Bigfoot researcher Loren Coleman, Bigfoot-lives.com, Bigfoot Discovery Project removed per WP:ELNO 1 or 2. I think there is a case to be made for including a few Bigfoot advocate sites. Preferably this would be on a Wikipedia page that describes the Bigfoot hunting culture but as there is no such page and such information would necissarily be placed on this page for the time being, so a claim of wanting those sites on this page is valid. I however, would like to see the information on this page about Bigfoot hunters developed before adding such links (if we are adding them for info about evidence then this vialates WP:ELNO 2 as I've said). I don't really have a problem with DreamGuy reincluding then, except that there are too many. Stuff like BFRO makes more sense to me than the Willow Creek - China Flat Museum—keep things to only the most essential. —Fiziker ^t c 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Article by Benjamin Radford, in Skeptical Inquirer, March/April 2002, Article by Kal K. Korff and Michaela Kocis, in Skeptical Inquirer, July 2004, Bigfoot, Skeptic World - Bigfoot: some but not all fall under WP:ELNO 1 also I didn't want to get into a big argument about how those sights are more reliable than the above ones. It is better to include the information directly into the page than just link to it (the reason for WP:ELNO 1). I have tried to include information from those pages, some of which are linked in the references. If there is something more from them you'd like to add please do so. —Fiziker ^t c 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Indianapolis Fox 59 - Whitton & Dyer incident revealed as hoax: This link certainly does not deserve to be in the external links. This is only relevant to one (in the long term) obscure instance of Bigfoot. It could be put as a reference about the recent Georgia Bigfoot but more than any other link this is undeserving. —Fiziker ^t c 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Some things I think should be linked: a site that has an extensive collection of Bigfoot casts or anything that is reliable and whose content can not be included here. —Fiziker ^t c 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Views of the Scientific Community

Even worse, is the following line in the article:

"The scientific community considers Bigfoot to be a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoaxes.[1] Despite its dubious status, Bigfoot is one of the more famous examples of cryptozoology and has become a popular symbol."

The scientific community never has one voice. The above sentence says so which is factually incorrect and is in direct contradiction to the citation of various scientific views lower down in the same article.

Not only that but such a sentence is a poor use of English since the Scientific Community is not one person and therefore can not have a single opinion.

Another inconsistency lies farther down in the article...

Sean7phil (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact the scientific community can form a consensus. It has done so with Newton's gravitation, the germ theory of disease, and countless other theories. Just because there may be a few people who don't agree doesn't invalidate the consensus. Even theories as successful as the Big Bang have had detractors until quite recently (cf. Fred Hoyle), that the Big Bang happened is the consensus of the scientific community. The inconstancy that you find further down the article is due to an attempt to give the views of scientists on Bigfoot. There isn't much to say for the vast majority of biologists so the mainstream view is covered quickly. Sadly, that makes it appear that the idea of Bigfoot holds sway over a substantial portion on the scientific community. —Fiziker ^t c 04:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The scientific community cannot 'overwhelmingly' refute the existence of Bigfoot, while also 'mostly' ignoring the subject. The reality is one of disinterest, not adamant opposition to the existence of Bigfoot.

Sean7phil (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can. Most biologists do not look at Bigfoot, but those that do have found the evidence overwhelming against the existence of the creature. Furthermore, every biologist and every scientist should be able to look at the research that they have done and tell whether it is sound or not. Fairies aren't studied by biologist but that doesn't mean that they're valid. —Fiziker ^t c 04:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Another example: "Despite its dubious status" (referring to Bigfoot in the article opening) has no citation. It's also the use of a subjective opinion as a fact. This violates Wikipedia standards. It also reveals that the writer is trying to promote his own views rather than to studiously arrange cited facts.

Sean7phil (talk)

I believe there are sufficient citations elsewhere in the article (including the previous sentence) to vouch for that statement. Would you prefer it to say something along the lines of "Despite its dubious status among the scientific community" instead? —Fiziker ^t c 04:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sean, on the other hand, please provide one single reliable source that shows this is anything more than a fringe theory. This article needs to state what bigfoot is, it's history, and so that we do not give undue weight to these fringe theories. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Jane Goodall, one of the world's most prominent primatologists, has publically stated that Bigfoot exists. There is also DNA evidence of hair samples, analysed at major American universities, that indicates 'an unknown primate', according to respected scientific labobaratories.

And yet we must leave the word 'dubious' in the opening paragraph and pretend in that same paragraph that the scientific community has only one voice on this issue.

Sean7phil (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Science isn't about single individuals. Even in Goodall said that there was definitive evidence, which she did not say, that is in conflict with conclusions that the vast majority of scientists have reached. If you want to claim that there is DNA evidence please provide a suitable source. As far as I know, no one tests DNA samples alleged to have come from Bigfoot in such as way that one could claim that it came from an unknown primate. All the tests I've heard of see if the DNA matches a list of animals. —Fiziker ^t c 19:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, this looks like another war between two groups with opposing views trying to make their point seem more truthful in the article. This could simply be viewed by changing the sentence in question to say

"A large majority, though not all, of the scientific community considers Bigfoot to be a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoaxes.[1] Despite its debated status, Bigfoot has become one of the more famous examples of cryptozoology and a popular symbol." (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Again, please provide one single reliable source where studies of Bigfoot have been published in a real journal. The reason why it cannot be provided, because it does not exist. Whether Jane Goodall said this or not is not relevant, since it's her opinion, and does not qualify as a reliable source. Therefore, "large majority" is not accurate. It should just state that "science does not accept the existence of Bigfoot." And, you are making a misstatement that this is a war of "opposing views." No, what it actually represents is one side, NPOV, utilizing various policies such as RS, VERIFY, FRINGE, etc. and the other side not. NPOV does not require a slice down the middle. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think OrangeMarlin's phrase "science does not accept the existence of Bigfoot" may bypass the confusion that people have about scientific consensus. I'd prefer to be a little more explicit like it is now but it's better than dealing with this over and over again. Another option could be to link to the article on scientific consensus but it isn't great currently. —Fiziker ^t c 23:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The usage of "the scientific community does not" was far better than "science does not". Science doesn't think anything, it doesn't have a mind, it's a discipline. Claiming "science" thinks something is not grammatically correct. It's like saying "cookery does not accept mixing cabbages and hair". "The scientific community" should be used, or better yet, what about the usage of "the mainstream scientific community", because that, I believe, is very accurate, with only fringe scientists ever supporting the Bigfoot hypothesis? It allows it to be accepted that the vast majority of mainstream and respectable scientists do not agree with it, but some scientists do. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

I think talking about the scientific consensus is the right thing but it the concept is lost on many people. Any suggestions on how to put that in a concise way where we don't have people complaining that because some advocate claims to be a scientist the statement is wrong. As for the "mainstream scientific community" thing, I don't think "mainstream" should be included as what we're talking about is consensus, which is by definition mainstream, and I do think it is a little misleading, giving advocates undue weight in the scientific community. —Fiziker ^t c 21:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Where to put this?!

• http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/Three_more_Bigfoot_sightings_reported.html

Thought I throw it here first. It appears to be either a British or Canadian news source. Powerzilla (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I only skimmed the news article but it doesn't look like something that should be included in the article. There are plenty of alleged sightings of Bigfoot all the times. We should only add the ones that are most prominent (I think that even the recent Georgia Bigfoot stuff isn't prominent enough to both with). —Fiziker ^t c 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Any sighting could get really prominent at any time. What would be interesting is that a political figure or celebrity could spot one. IF so, could that be used? Powerzilla (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Any sighting could become prominent eventually but this is not about predicting which sightings will become prominent, it's about providing information on this topic. Someone learning about Bigfoot would be remiss if he or she did not know about the 1958 Bluff Creek sighting; I would not fault that same person for not knowing about a sighting reported in a local paper in 2003. My view of what should be included in our list of prominent Bigfoot sightings are the sightings that are almost universally listed in discussions of this topic. This includes the sightings currently listed for 1924, 1958, and 1968 although I think some others could be added. A celebrity seeing Bigfoot would not qualify in mind unless it became one of those nearly-universial stories. —Fiziker ^t c 19:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientific opinion re Bigfoot

I too wish to point out that the scientific community does not speak with one voice. The beginning of the second paragraph should be changed to read, "Many in the scientific community . . ." The fact is that several scientists trained in relevant fields are Bigfoot believers, e.g., Meldrum, Krantz, Napier, Sanderson and others.

The Patterson film has never been satisfactorily debunked. It is harder to believe that two amateur Bigfoot hunters staged what would have been a very expensive hoax in the wilderness, than it is to believe that an unknown, bipedal primate wanders that wilderness. The objective analysis of the film by trained scientists has always pointed towards authenticity (this is NOT to state that the film has been shown definitively to be legitimate).

The minor question of whether Bigfoot and Sasquatch should be capitalized has, I think, been decided in favor of capitalization. The overwhelming majority of the literature has always favored capitalization.

Jonvt (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The scientific community does not always speak with one voice but there is such thing as a consensus in the scientific community. Bigfoot is one of the things which the scientific community has reached a consensus on. That consensus might change based on evidence but until then there is a consensus and it should be rightly noted. The section right now needs some work as it unduly emphasizes the opinions of the scientists who believe in Bigfoot. —Fiziker ^t c 03:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing Possible Explanation

Why is there not a section suggesting that some Bigfoot sightings are misidentifications of actual people in low light conditions? Occam's razor please? Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to make one that's properly researched but what you originally added looks like vandalism to me. Misidentification in low light conditions sounds plausible but adding a single sentence about hairy people isn't useful. —Fiziker ^t c 03:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This person is clearly contradicting himself. I can't be offering a reasoned opinion and simultaneously committing vandalism at the same time. In this context its one or the other. Someone needs to admit he made an error. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no mistake, if you wrote in the article what you have above, I would not have considered it vandalism. Above you suggest "some Bigfoot sightings are misidentifications of actual people in low light conditions" while in the article you "Unusually tall persons with abundant facial and body hair could be mistaken for the bigfoot creature." The former could be added, although I don't think a whole section is needed, while the latter reads as if someone was trying to vandalize the page. I have no problem with adding appropriate content but please don't create a section containing one sentence that sounds as if it's meant to be humorous. —Fiziker ^t c 03:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

When I first made the addition to the text I was not certain how to approach the topic or write it (I stated this much on my talk page in my rebuttal). It is clear to anyone who reads what I wrote that my premise is that a mythical creature that looks like a man could result in a man (especially a large and hirsute man) being improperly identified as said mythical creature. I repeat, it was not vandalism. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I find the suggestion that research is required to suggest that a bigfoot resembles a human to be laughable. That would be like finding research to suggest that Elmer's glue resembles milk or that the moon resembles a giant tennis ball. There are some matters that are simply a matter of common sense. The fact that a mythical creature that resembles a large man could cause people to mistake a large man in the dark for said mythical creature would not seem to be something very "researchable". It sounds a lot to me like this person is implying that in order to suggest that a magical fairy could be a misidentified large bird, you would first have to catch a magical fairy in order to use a scientific analysis to compare the two. If I'm wrong, please someone offer some guidance. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How about trying to find instances where this may be the case. This is probably a good explanation for some sightings and should probably be included. But it does not contain enough material to be a separate section and more importantly it should be done more seriously. —Fiziker ^t c 03:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"How about trying to find instances where this may be the case." As opposed to all the incidents in which the sighting was proven to be an actual bigfoot. Right. 65.33.34.95 (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13