Just what the world needs - Another Bigfoot thread

[Ashles]

I must admit to complete bafflement over the ongoing and staggeringly interminable threads about Bigfoot.

My main confusion is why Bigfoot should appear to be more worthy of interest and discussion to certain people than, say, Leprechauns, Fairies, Vampires, Atlantis, the Loch Ness Monster or the giant cats of Bodmin Moor.

Why? What's the appeal? Why are these threads going on and on with, let's be honest, the most extraordinarily ludicrous claims?

Why is an invisible shape changing Bigfoot currently more interesting than Atlantis, which would be at least quite fun?

Can anyone help?

[madurobob]

Why are these threads going on and on with, let's be honest, the most extraordinarily ludicrous claims?


That question kinda answers itself, doesn't it?

[Hokulele]

Because unlike fairies or unicorns, Bigfoot is real. :rolleyes:

[madurobob]

Regular, everyday mundane claims cause threads to die untimely deaths. Bizarre claims carry a thread much further.

Our cadre of bigfoot bleevers are just as steadfast in their delusions as the hardcore among the troofers. It is the utter contempt for - or at least severe mangling of - logic and rational thought that makes them engaging.

Long live the bigfoot threads!

[Wolverine]

Why? What's the appeal?

Sure beats me.

What I find interesting about the claims is the anthropomorphic angle. Why do the BF proponents focus on some mysterious and elusive variety of biped mammal exhibiting human similarities? Why aren't there similar numbers positing cryptozoological claims of wild cats or bears, or other uncatalogued quadrupeds (or reptiles, or insects, for that matter) ?

Is there a geographic or cultural aspect to BF/yeti/sasquatch claims which may shed any light on the matter?

[tsg]

My main confusion is why Bigfoot should appear to be more worthy of interest and discussion to certain people than, say, Leprechauns, Fairies, Vampires, Atlantis, the Loch Ness Monster or the giant cats of Bodmin Moor.

Mostly because bears and gorillas don't look anything like those things.

[PetersCreek]

The foregoing is all well and good but what's sorely lacking is more photography to evaluate. Something with an actual biological entity in it would be nice.

[LTC8K6]

Bigfoot is more popular because you can make more money off of it, imo.

[William Parcher]

What I find interesting about the claims is the anthropomorphic angle. Why do the BF proponents focus on some mysterious and elusive variety of biped mammal exhibiting human similarities? Why aren't there similar numbers positing cryptozoological claims of wild cats or bears, or other uncatalogued quadrupeds (or reptiles, or insects, for that matter)?

It's because Bigfoot is dramatically fantastic. I mean literally. This is something much like a human but is huge, hairy and mysterious. The element of danger is always there. The Bigfooter-to-Bigfooter dialogue is always an equal measure of intense curiousity and fear. They seek to get close to Bigfoot (expeditions and attempts to lure them in) and at the same time freely talk about the inherent safety risk and fear that they are certain would be part of a truly close encounter. They warn each other that harming a Bigfoot is likely to result in an ambush as others quickly come to the rescue. The whole thing is very high drama.

Some of the many reports of encounters are really great reading. A good writer can create an encounter scenario that is really gripping and not tacitly implausible. We are talking about folk tales, and Bigfoot encounter stories make excellent "campfire stories". Bigfooters cherish these detailed accounts and reading them constitutes an ongoing pleasure for many Bigfooters. These stories can bring Bigfoot right into your lap as you read them. Many Bigfooters speak of real reactions (fear, chills, hair on end, can't sleep, etc) during and after reading these. Any good drama or horror novelist should hope to cause that stuff in their readers.

Bigfoot is the perfect recipe for an enduring myth. It obviously brings enjoyment and intrigue to the Bigfooters. Reading a pro-Bigfoot book filled with encounter stories and great pictures is what got many of them started.

[-=Vagrant=-]

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h310/AdvocatDiaboli/Potilas001.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h310/AdvocatDiaboli/Potilas003.jpg

And strangely enough, I love the furry creature.

[William Parcher]

The foregoing is all well and good but what's sorely lacking is more photography to evaluate. Something with an actual biological entity in it would be nice.

Check this out from Vancouver Island. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=27835)

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=27836

[dirtywick]

I must admit to complete bafflement over the ongoing and staggeringly interminable threads about Bigfoot.

My main confusion is why Bigfoot should appear to be more worthy of interest and discussion to certain people than, say, Leprechauns, Fairies, Vampires, Atlantis, the Loch Ness Monster or the giant cats of Bodmin Moor.

Why? What's the appeal? Why are these threads going on and on with, let's be honest, the most extraordinarily ludicrous claims?

Why is an invisible shape changing Bigfoot currently more interesting than Atlantis, which would be at least quite fun?

Can anyone help?

I think it's because, Bigfoot is a plausible creature and therefore the "well, maybe" response, whereas those others...not so much. Well, the regular Bigfoot, not the shape shifting invisible pyramid building ones.

I think you all Bigfooters should switch to the giant squid. Those were mythical, turned out to be real, and are a lot cooler!

[Lensman]

<snip>This is something much like a human but is huge, hairy and mysterious.

You leave Hagrid out of this!

;)

[Skeptic Guy]

Check this out from Vancouver Island. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=27835)

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=27836

That seems to be a very small BF! :D

[grayman]

This is something much like a human but is huge, hairy and mysterious...

Actually, Just 5'6".

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_924645e65f2fea9d4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4379)

[Starthinker]

Check this out from Vancouver Island. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=27835)

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=27836

Is that a knee-high bigfoot?

[manofthesea]

Check this out from Vancouver Island. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=27835)

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=27836

The story surrounding this encounter needs to be addressed further. It's been requested that someone put themselves in that location to further study the scale, because the ferns aren't helping.

[manofthesea]

Monsterquest- Orang Pendek, or something.
It featured a photographer, Jeremy Holden, who's claimed to have around 60 first species photographs. He said he witnessed this creature, but failed to photograph it. I find this interesting, and like I mentioned earlier in a bigfoot thread, the ease in studying this animal when compared to bigfoot makes it an advantage. Like the relative small amount of plaster and such. :)

[Cuddles]

I think one reason is that, unlike many people who make rather interesting claims, a lot of bigfooters actually do research, and even get out there and look for things themselves. While there are plenty of frauds and nutballs involved as well, there are also people who are genuinely trying to prove something, rather than just coming out with the philosophical dribble that many woos prefer.

Another big reason is that bigfoot is far more realistic than many claims. Most woo claims break the laws of physics, biology, common sense and anything else they can find, even though their proponents usually don't realise this. Bigfoot doesn't. It's entirely possible that there is a large mammal living in the wilderness that we haven't documented. Unlikely, given the evidence, but certainly not impossible. Of course, it depends on the exact claim and many of the claims made about it aren't actually possible, but regardless of that, the idea of there being something out there that we haven't found yet just isn't that implausible. People who wouldn't be dragged into discussions about most woo can end up talking about bigfoot. Having a few crazies to stir the pot up just adds some extra spice to the mix and makes it go on all the longer.

[Drewbot]

Bigfoot Woo's believe they are the Chris Columbus of the modern age. They are trying to prove the world is not flat. Difference is, Columbus was right.

Bigfoot also represents a place in our psyche, Possibly it acts as a physical answer to a neurological question. Do people want to admit they were so tired that they hallucinated? Do people want to admit that they were paralysed by their own brain, and a weight placed on their chest by a dream? No, they want to explain it with a physical tangible explanation. Unfortunately, Bigfoot itself is no more physical than a Narcoleptic sleep experience.

The thing that adds to the Bigfoot phenomenon, is the legends which accompany it. The thing that isn't understood is that Indians probably had Sleep Paralysis, and Fevers back then as well.

[tsg]

I think one reason is that, unlike many people who make rather interesting claims, a lot of bigfooters actually do research, and even get out there and look for things themselves. While there are plenty of frauds and nutballs involved as well, there are also people who are genuinely trying to prove something, rather than just coming out with the philosophical dribble that many woos prefer.

The thing that bothers me about it is the complete blindness to the idea that there may not be any Bigfoot to find. The complete failure to find anything of substance is met with "well, we just haven't looked hard enough."

At some point, you have to consider the possibility that there's no there there.

[Correa Neto]

Well, pretty much what Cuddles said. Excluding the paranormal/alien/interdimensional babble, there's nothing that breaks the laws of physics when it comes to bigfeet. We know that there are and that there were large primates; we know that there are and there were upright-walking, bipedal primates and that some specimens fall within the (lower?) range of bigfoot size. Its perhaps one of the most plausible fringe subjects- more than Atlantis, if you ask me.

The main issue that truly speaks against the claim is that not a single piece of reliable evidence for the existence of such creatures was found and/or made public so far. However, all it takes is beating these odds. Yes, its possible, but the odds are very low.

There's another issue, however. Its the criteria used to select, among the full spectra of "manifestations" or aspects that compose the bifgfoot phenomenon, the features that will be used to buil a "plausible" bigfoot. Its my personal opinion that these criteria are quite loose and arbitrary. This brings us to an issue that I think many bigfoot proponents that post here seem to be misunderstanding- methodology. Regardless of the fact that some have an approach that is different from the standard woo, the methodology used is quite often deeply flawed. Many posts from skeptics are actually addressing this problem and what the proponents must do if they want to be really taken seriously by mainstream science: dump the bad data sets (regardless of the emotional attachments and how iconic they might be for some), create a sound research methodology and start from scratch, if needed. This is not antagonism, this is not denialism. Feel free not to believe, but this is actually an incentive. I believe this is part of the answer to the question about the bigfoot threads longevity. Of course, the "last man standing" tactics some footers seem to use also has a huge role.

[Aepervius]

My answer : You are looking too deep. The reason bigfoot is so atractive to woo-er is that there are photographic/film evidence of it (naturally one may know better on what is evidence of what, like many discussing on the bigfoot skeptic thread, but the average public probably not). The same goes for nessy. Despite all evidence of hoax it is still going on in public mind. Should I cite the moon face on mars ? The average public will see a film and take it as evidence at face value. So this is why bigfoot is more spoken than other less or more ludicrilous stuff.

[Hitch]

Bigfoot Woo's believe they are the Chris Columbus of the modern age. They are trying to prove the world is not flat. Difference is, Columbus was right.
The only problem is Columbus was wrong. Not about the world being flat. Nobody believed that. But about the world being far smaller that everyone else knew it was. It was common knowledge that it was impossible at the time for a ship to reach the Indies by sailing west. The voyage was simply too long, the crew would die at see long before they reached their destination. A previously unknown land mass was the only thing that saved his life. But everyone who denied him funding for his first voyage was absolutely right. He was a woefully uninformed navigator who was on a mission to kill his crew.

Sometimes it's better to be lucky.

(I'm sorry for this complete derail, but as was pointed out by the original poster, there's little value in yet another bigfoot thread.)

[Correa Neto]

My answer : You are looking too deep. The reason bigfoot is so atractive to woo-er is that there are photographic/film evidence of it (naturally one may know better on what is evidence of what, like many discussing on the bigfoot skeptic thread, but the average public probably not). The same goes for nessy. Despite all evidence of hoax it is still going on in public mind. Should I cite the moon face on mars ? The average public will see a film and take it as evidence at face value. So this is why bigfoot is more spoken than other less or more ludicrilous stuff.
Maybe I am, indeed. But please note I am talking about JREF, and not the general public. When it comes to the general public, I believe bigfoot is not as popular as Atlantis, for example, based on the number of books on both subjects. I belive Martian civilizations is also a "hotter" topic than bigfoot among the general public.

It seems I do have a weak woospot for bigfoot. Heck, I would like to share the world with a bigfoot-like species. It could raise so many interesting questions and challenges! But I also would like to peek at the ruins of a Martian civilizations. That would be even more exciting! A sunken 10Ky-old city in the middle of the Atlantic would also rock.

But lets face it, compared with Martian civilizations and Atlantis, bigfeet are much more plausible. Its not a matter of the quality of the available "evidence", its a matter of what we already know about the geology and biology. This, coupled with the other factors I previously cited, plus the relative frequent input of new pro-bigfoot posters, responds for my personal interest and participation at the threads.

[William Parcher]

My answer: You are looking too deep. The reason bigfoot is so atractive to woo-er is that there are photographic/film evidence of it (naturally one may know better on what is evidence of what, like many discussing on the bigfoot skeptic thread, but the average public probably not).

Bigfootery was well established before we had any photos or film. There were drawings in books however. The detailed encounter stories have always been present and they create a mental image of Bigfoot in the absence of anything graphic.

[William Parcher]

The story surrounding this encounter needs to be addressed further. It's been requested that someone put themselves in that location to further study the scale, because the ferns aren't helping.

Anyone interested in this should read the BFF thread where this photo was first presented. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=21554)

It's an interesting peek inside Bigfootery and how some evaluate new photographic evidence. Spoiler: Presenter majorly loses his cool and has his flamethrower expletives censored. Big fun!

A friend of the photographer presented it there and is talking about it. It is claimed that the friend witnessed this as a living animal which started out on 'all fours', then stood upright and walked away bipedally. A photo was taken and you see the animal that was observed.

[historian]

Check this out from Vancouver Island. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=27835)

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=27836

Suspicious for three reasons. No arms showing. Front side contour is somehow a straight line from head to waste. Branches covering butt show unnatural pattern.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I must admit to complete bafflement over the ongoing and staggeringly interminable threads about Bigfoot.

My main confusion is why Bigfoot should appear to be more worthy of interest and discussion to certain people than, say, Leprechauns, Fairies, Vampires, Atlantis, the Loch Ness Monster or the giant cats of Bodmin Moor.

Why? What's the appeal? Why are these threads going on and on with, let's be honest, the most extraordinarily ludicrous claims?

Why is an invisible shape changing Bigfoot currently more interesting than Atlantis, which would be at least quite fun?

Can anyone help?


I think it has to due with the fact that we do find new creatures, and have found large mammals which were thought mythical. Think giant panda.

[Ashles]

Bigfoot Woo's believe they are the Chris Columbus of the modern age. They are trying to prove the world is not flat. Difference is, Columbus was right.


It's been mentioned already but I just wanted to add that Columbus wasn't trying to prove the earth was round.
See my sig - no-one had believed that for many centuries. (Sorry to be a pedant but it's one of those enduring myths that just bugs me more than it really should - like the 'duck's quack doesn't echo' myth)

But I agree with your point that BF believers, like conspiracy nuts, always want to be a step ahead and in posession of information others do not have.
Even if it's not real information.

I also agree with the "It's almost plausible" explanation for the endurance of the myth.
Well, except for anything historian posts.

[William Parcher]

Suspicious for three reasons. No arms showing. Front side contour is somehow a straight line from head to waste. Branches covering butt show unnatural pattern.

See the drawn proposed outline (including appendages) of the animal here. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=27944)

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

This reminds me of how this site (http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/recasting_bigfoot.html) noted that the Loch Ness Monster was treated more seriously by science (expedition-wise) was because there were less weirdos involved in Nessie "research." The fact that Bermuda Triangle woos are pointing this out makes it even funnier.

[manofthesea]

Bigfoot Woo's believe they are the Chris Columbus of the modern age. They are trying to prove the world is not flat. Difference is, Columbus was right.

Bigfoot also represents a place in our psyche, Possibly it acts as a physical answer to a neurological question. Do people want to admit they were so tired that they hallucinated? Do people want to admit that they were paralysed by their own brain, and a weight placed on their chest by a dream? No, they want to explain it with a physical tangible explanation. Unfortunately, Bigfoot itself is no more physical than a Narcoleptic sleep experience.

The thing that adds to the Bigfoot phenomenon, is the legends which accompany it. The thing that isn't understood is that Indians probably had Sleep Paralysis, and Fevers back then as well.

Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Indians, capitalized, denotes those from India.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

[historian]

It's been mentioned already but I just wanted to add that Columbus wasn't trying to prove the earth was round.
See my sig - no-one had believed that for many centuries. (Sorry to be a pedant but it's one of those enduring myths that just bugs me more than it really should - like the 'duck's quack doesn't echo' myth)

But I agree with your point that BF believers, like conspiracy nuts, always want to be a step ahead and in posession of information others do not have.
Even if it's not real information.

I also agree with the "It's almost plausible" explanation for the endurance of the myth.
Well, except for anything historian posts.

Can you help me out Ashles, with a couple of questions.
First of all, I can't remember whether you are a man or a woman.
Secondly, What is the correct spelling, idyut or idyit, that is used to denote a particular short sighted individual who may not be fully aware of their own condition? I fergit.
Lastly and as a way of lengthening your eyesight. There is a difference between facts and beliefs. You should probably write this down with indelible ink on the back of your hands, from here on out. We will all wait for you to finish scribbling.

Bigfoot is fact.
A 24/7 Flesh & blood Bigfoot is a belief
Paranormal Bigfoot is fact.
A lack of bigfoot's authenticity is a belief
The Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot is a fact
A Patterson-Gimlin man in a bigfoot suit is a belief
Inter-dimensional people are fact.
Atheism is a belief
The higher/parallel dimensions are a fact, and they are at least the exact same size as our 3-dimensions.
Supernatural people that exist in the higher dimensions, are a fact
Angels are a fact
Ghosts are a fact
Orbs are a fact
Life after death is a fact
Spending a least part of your life after death, is a state where your spirit orb or ghost at least appears on film to be on fire, is a fact. That condition may persist into eternity. That condition would be what is commonly referred to as spending the rest of eternity in hell.
Given all of the above, there is a distinct possibility that God is a fact.
Given all of the above, one would be behooved to choose their words carefully here, just in case they themselves are wrong on just about everything that it is possible to be wrong about.
Have a nice day.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

[historian]

See the drawn proposed outline (including appendages) of the animal here. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=27944)

As I recall, that exact same south end of a north bound alleged bigfoot, appeared over on cryptomundo, except it was overlaid and woven into a different background. Which of course means that it would be a hoax, that even Biscardi could be proud of.

[historian]

Because unlike fairies or unicorns, Bigfoot is real. :rolleyes:

Don't be so hard on the fairies. Because, they may trample you with their unicorns.

[grayman]

Bigfoot is fact.


Your Proof?

Paranormal Bigfoot is fact.

Again, Proof?

A Paranormal Bigfoot is fact.

Again, proof?

The Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot is a fact.

There is a character that appears to be a bigfoot or someone dressed as one. That is the same as saying the Jaws shark is fact, except sharks do exist.

Inter-dimensional people are fact.

Proof?

Atheism is a belief

It is the lack of belief.

The higher/parallel dimensions are a fact, and they are at least the exact same size as our 3-dimensions.

Proof?

Supernatural people that exist in the higher dimensions, are a fact.

Evidence? (I'm getting tired of writing proof)

Angels are a fact.

Evidence?

Ghosts are a fact.

Evidence?

Orbs are a fact.

If you mean dust motes captured on camera and mis-identified, then yes.

Life after death is a fact.

Verifiable evidence?

Spending a least part of your life after death, is a state where your spirit orb or ghost at least appears on film to be on fire, is a fact. That condition may persist into eternity. That condition would be what is commonly referred to as spending the rest of eternity in hell.

Where is your proof?

Given all of the above, there is a distinct possibility that God is a fact.

No, there isn't.

Given all of the above, one would be behooved to choose their words carefully here, just in case they themselves are wrong on just about everything that it is possible to be wrong about.

If we are wrong, prove it using verifiable facts, proof, evidence.

Have a nice day.

Thank you. I usually do; free of superstition. :)

[manofthesea]

Don't be so hard on the fairies. Because, they may trample you with their unicorns.

The fairies here can tro'.

[historian]

Your Proof?



Again, Proof?



Again, proof?



There is a character that appears to be a bigfoot or someone dressed as one. That is the same as saying the Jaws shark is fact, except sharks do exist.



Proof?



It is the lack of belief.



Proof?



Evidence? (I'm getting tired of writing proof)



Evidence?



Evidence?



If you mean dust motes captured on camera and mis-identified, then yes.



Verifiable evidence?



Where is your proof?



No, there isn't.



If we are wrong, prove it using verifiable facts, proof, evidence.



Thank you. I usually do; free of superstition. :)

Step 1. Get off lazy arse
Step 2. Find courage
Step 3. Go to dark forest after midnight with flash digital camera
Step 4 Listen
Step 5. Take pictures
Step 6. Run like hell out of there.

[Locknar]

Step 1. Get off lazy arse
Step 2. Find courage
Step 3. Go to dark forest after midnight with flash digital camera
Step 4 Listen
Step 5. Take pictures
Step 6. Run like hell out of there.That is your best proof...this totally lame camp fire story about the spooky forest? This is hardly proof of anything, other then your lack of supporting your obviously false claims/lies.

[grayman]

Step 1. Get off lazy arse
Step 2. Find courage
Step 3. Go to dark forest after midnight with flash digital camera
Step 4 Listen
Step 5. Take pictures
Step 6. Run like hell out of there.

So your evidence is to tell me to go camping and jogging? I used to do that often. Never, ever saw a "Bigfoot" or anything to suggest one exists.

Besides, you make the claim, you offer the evidence to back it up. Get off your "lazy arse" and provide the proof.



And to demonstrate how easy it is to make a paranormal video (like a Bigfoot video):
_t5Wek5oS58

[Ravenwood]

Step 1. Get off lazy arse
Step 2. Find courage
Step 3. Go to dark forest after midnight with flash digital camera
Step 4 Listen
Step 5. Take pictures
Step 6. Run like hell out of there.

OK, seeing as how I will actually be out in the East Maui mountains tomorrow night after midnight, what am I going to see or hear? I will have a digital flash camera with me, but if I'm supposed to be hearing something, what good is the flash camera? I do this quite frequently & I have never had to run scared of anything out there...

[arthwollipot]

The thing that bothers me about it is the complete blindness to the idea that there may not be any Bigfoot to find. The complete failure to find anything of substance is met with "well, we just haven't looked hard enough."

At some point, you have to consider the possibility that there's no there there.This reasoning is flawed. Absence of evidence is not, and never has been, evidence of absence. However, I can sympathise with your point of view. We've been looking for evidence of psychic powers for a long time, or evidence of the existence of God for even longer, and while our failure to find such evidence is not conclusive proof, it's enough to make you stop wanting to bother.

Suspicious for three reasons. No arms showing. Front side contour is somehow a straight line from head to waste. Branches covering butt show unnatural pattern.It's a tree stump! Can't you see that? It's completely obvious! The colour and texture is exactly the same as the tree in the background! How can you not see that!?

[Maldon]

Absence of evidence is not, and never has been, evidence of absence.
So very true, sir, but some seems to take it as evidence of invincibility;)

[quarky]

medium-size foot is such a boring creature, it adds to the excitement of big foot.

bigness is very big.
the loch-ness monster's babies garner little attention.

[historian]

OK, seeing as how I will actually be out in the East Maui mountains tomorrow night after midnight, what am I going to see or hear? I will have a digital flash camera with me, but if I'm supposed to be hearing something, what good is the flash camera? I do this quite frequently & I have never had to run scared of anything out there...

Take a chair to sit in, and two drum sticks. Find a place with absolutely no noise. Get comfortable. Rap the sticks together twice. Wait. Hear those new sounds. Sounds like electronic clicking. Do you hear them getting closer? Try talking to them. Do you notice any change in those sounds. You should if you are listening closely. But if you have any other background noise, then you picked the wrong spot, and you won't hear squat. But if you picked the right spot, those sounds will be inter-dimensional people. If you hear large branch breaks, those will be bigfoot. If you hear faint or heavy footsteps, those will be bigfoot. If you hear a rock go whistling by your head, that would be a rock. You might fire off a flash picture with a high ISO. Look for orbs.

[historian]

So your evidence is to tell me to go camping and jogging? I used to do that often. Never, ever saw a "Bigfoot" or anything to suggest one exists.



Oh really? You go jogging after midnight through the forest? Uh-uh, I see.

[quarky]

not to defend the yetis, but, if they do exist, we can all agree that they are endangered?

woo, in general, is likely to become endangered.

we need woo.
imagine a woo-less world...

what would we rail against?
how could we tap an unending resevoir of stupidity, and use it to elevate ourselves?

if everyone was smart?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

not to defend the yetis, but, if they do exist, we can all agree that they are endangered?

woo, in general, is likely to become endangered.

we need woo.
imagine a woo-less world...

what would we rail against?
how could we tap an unending resevoir of stupidity, and use it to elevate ourselves?

if everyone was smart?

Revealing thoughts.

[The Atheist]

Take a chair to sit in, and two drum sticks. Find a place with absolutely no noise. Get comfortable. Rap the sticks together twice. Wait. Hear those new sounds. Sounds like electronic clicking. Do you hear them getting closer? Try talking to them. Do you notice any change in those sounds. You should if you are listening closely. But if you have any other background noise, then you picked the wrong spot, and you won't hear squat. But if you picked the right spot, those sounds will be inter-dimensional people. If you hear large branch breaks, those will be bigfoot. If you hear faint or heavy footsteps, those will be bigfoot. If you hear a rock go whistling by your head, that would be a rock. You might fire off a flash picture with a high ISO. Look for orbs.

Have you considered the possibility that you're stark, raving bonkers?

[padego]

Oh boy, my first post!
Having been born and bred on Vancouver Island, hiked and camped in some of her most remote parts, been able to stay awake past midnight on more than one occasion, I can categorically posit that I've never heard or seen a BF. Bears. yes, cougars, once, various other forest creatures, yup.
I agree that the photo looks awfully tree like to me...

[The Atheist]

Hey, welcome aboard!

Check out the enhanced version of the photo - all is revealed.

[grayman]

Oh really? You go jogging after midnight through the forest? Uh-uh, I see.

We're still waiting for you to post irrefutable evidence of Bigfoot's existence.

[historian]

We're still waiting for you to post irrefutable evidence of Bigfoot's existence.
Try holding your breath. It will be just a minute or two.

[zooterkin]

We're still waiting for you to post irrefutable any evidence of Bigfoot's existence.

Fixed.

[quarky]

I'm new to big-foot, but I've heard that it smells pretty bad.
Is it true that it brings presents to poor children?

I wish it was running for president.

(as a republican)

[drapier]

The idea of bigfoot is a vortex that sucks all ideas in.

Apparently there is a Mormon line of thought that links Bigfoot to Cain. (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/is_bigfoot_really_cain/)

Apparently the Bigfoot-Cain connection traces back to a story told by an early leader of the Mormon church, David W. Patten. Patten claimed that in 1835 he encountered Cain walking along the side of the road. He wrote: "He walked along beside me for about two miles. His head was about even with my shoulders as I sat in my saddle. He wore no clothing, but was covered with hair. His skin was very dark."

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The idea of bigfoot is a vortex that sucks all ideas in.

Apparently there is a Mormon line of thought that links Bigfoot to Cain. (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/is_bigfoot_really_cain/)

I thought the Mormons were linked to Romney, not McCain?

[Avindair]

Personally, my favorite Bigfoot was the pizza you could get from Pizza Hut in early 1990s. Those were good! And they weren't even blurry!

;)

Avindair

[quarky]

If I had a big-foot living in my basement, and we were best friends, I wouldn't tell any of you.

Can you imagine the crap he'd have to endure if the media found out?
That's not something friends put other friends thru.

Extrapolating on the theme, I'd guess that most of the big-feet amongst us have had a lot of make-over.
Surgery, even.

If I had one in my basement, and wanted to help him walk freely in the world, I'd see a podiatrist first.
(or a barber)

[Elmer]

Historian, I believe there are bigfoot. Paranormal? I'm not sure. I've been reading forum debates and most of the sightings and encounter databases for years, What are some of your favorite encounters? What is the origin of bigfoot? Giganto? How long have they been around?

Elmer

[Elmer]

Historian, I believe there are bigfoot. Paranormal? I'm not sure. I've been reading forum debates and most of the sightings and encounter databases for years, What are some of your favorite encounters? What is the origin of bigfoot? Giganto? How long have they been around?

Elmer

[historian]

Historian,* I believe there are bigfoot.* Paranormal?* I'm not sure.** I've been reading* forum debates and most of the sightings and encounter databases for years,* What are some of your favorite encounters?** What is the origin of bigfoot?* Giganto?** How long have they been around?*** ElmerBigfoot is likely man's oldest and closest relative.* They have been here since the dinosaurs, which is at least 135 million years.* In order to sleep at night and survive during the day, and make it through the ice ages and the global annihilation of the dinasaurs, they had to be inter-dimensional.* They are not likely very closely related to giganto, at least not much closer than we are.* I have many, many encounters.* The one that quickly wanted to be my bigfoot buddy, and hung around camp overnight and into the next day, would be my favorite.* But most bigfoot want to be our buddies, once we guarantee their safety. When they follow me home, is pretty cool as well. Especially when you hear the heavy breathing of an obviously large person with a huge lung capacity, coming through an open window.

[Elmer]

Bigfoot is likely man's oldest and closest relative.* They have been here since the dinosaurs, which is at least 135 million years.* In order to sleep at night and survive during the day, and make it through the ice ages and the global annihilation of the dinasaurs, they had to be inter-dimensional.* They are not likely very closely related to giganto, at least not much closer than we are.* I have many, many encounters.* The one that quickly wanted to be my bigfoot buddy, and hung around camp overnight and into the next day, would be my favorite.* But most bigfoot want to be our buddies, once we guarantee their safety. When they follow me home, is pretty cool as well. Especially when you hear the heavy breathing of an obviously large person with a huge lung capacity, coming through an open window.


Heavy breathing coming through the window might be a bit disconcerting - LOL. Do some most or all understand english and other spoken languages? How about interpersonal relationships betwwen bigfoot, do they take a partner/mate for life. Do they live as families? Do the males get kicked out after reaching a certain age or maturity level? Are there different species or variations of bigfoot in the United States? Do they ever have multiple births... twins, etc.?

Elmer

[tsg]

This reasoning is flawed. Absence of evidence is not, and never has been, evidence of absence. However, I can sympathise with your point of view. We've been looking for evidence of psychic powers for a long time, or evidence of the existence of God for even longer, and while our failure to find such evidence is not conclusive proof, it's enough to make you stop wanting to bother.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if you can expect to find evidence if the thing were present. The only way I know there isn't an orange coffee cup on my table is the complete lack of evidence that there is one there. But I do understand what you are saying: we can't definitively disprove the existence of bigfoot. In my opinion, though, the complete failure to find any substantial evidence whatsoever makes the claim so unlikely that the difference between "unlikely" and "impossible" is negligible.

[devnull]

OT: Im sorry, but someone needs to step in. Historian is so obviously very mentally ill, and yet he's on show here like the elephant man.

The moderators need to act - it simply isnt amusing or entertaining - its actually pretty depressing. Everything time someone quotes Historian (I have him on ignore) I get this sickly feeling in my gut - something similar to what Ive experienced upon witnessing (at close proximity) a fatal accident between a large dog and an even larger car. He adds nothing to the threads beyond amazingly delusional rants, and it cannot be healthy for him to receive responses here which would probably validate his delusions in his mind.

Seriously, can nothing be done? Im all for people with opposing viewpoints, but this is beyond sick.


Keep in mind that your membership agreement requires you to be civil. I realize this post was not intended to be either an insulting or demeaning post. However, such concerns are best expressed in PM's to the administrators, and not posted in a public thread. Moreover, it is inappropriate to draw conclusions or make speculative diagnosis's concerning the mental state of other members.

[historian]

Heavy breathing coming through the window might be a bit disconcerting - LOL. Do some most or all understand english and other spoken languages? How about interpersonal relationships betwwen bigfoot, do they take a partner/mate for life. Do they live as families? Do the males get kicked out after reaching a certain age or maturity level? Are there different species or variations of bigfoot in the United States? Do they ever have multiple births... twins, etc.?

Elmer

Elmer, Continuing with your questions. It would appear that the closer the Bigfoot lives to civilization, then the greater the liklihood that they understand English. They have to be exposed to at least campers and hunters, in order to learn. I have met some that do not have a clue. Some people say that some speak a language that is not English. Some say that they have scribbled in the sand, in Spanish Iberic, which predates the Roman Empire I believe. Bigfoot have families just like us. The kids though, have discipline in their lives, which is almost unheard of in the human world. I doubt that they behave like animals and kick anybody out. There are a lot of single Bigfoot in the forest, however. Just compare the Roe Bigfoot sketch and the Patterson-Gimlin photo, and you can easily see that there are different types. Yeti would also be a different type. I have no idea whether they have multiple births. Bigfoot's most predominant trait, is politeness. For instance, by our standards they have a bad hair day everyday. So they are polite enough that they do not make us look at them on their bad hair days. Yeti are a whole lot different than Bigfoot. Bigfoot are just trying to get along and normally want to be our friends. Yeti tend to be vicious and predatory. Which is why the Australian Government apparently tries to keep their citizens either living in ignorance or in denial.

[Ravenwood]

There are Yetis in Australia? Thats a new one.,,I followed your instructions Historian, with surprise, no contact. I was out there until sunrise, the woods were quite nice, I did not end up running off screaming, in fact I got to do some nice stargazing through a hole in the canopy...it would appear that your creatures exist only in your imagination...

[arthwollipot]

Historian, I believe there are bigfoot. Paranormal? I'm not sure. I've been reading forum debates and most of the sightings and encounter databases for years, What are some of your favorite encounters? What is the origin of bigfoot? Giganto? How long have they been around?

ElmerNo, Elmer! Don't go there, for that way lies madness!

Oh. Too late. Don't say I didn't warn you.

[zooterkin]

Bigfoot is likely man's oldest and closest relative.* They have been here since the dinosaurs, which is at least 135 million years.* In order to sleep at night and survive during the day, and make it through the ice ages and the global annihilation of the dinasaurs, they had to be inter-dimensional.* They are not likely very closely related to giganto, at least not much closer than we are.* I have many, many encounters.* The one that quickly wanted to be my bigfoot buddy, and hung around camp overnight and into the next day, would be my favorite.* But most bigfoot want to be our buddies, once we guarantee their safety. When they follow me home, is pretty cool as well. Especially when you hear the heavy breathing of an obviously large person with a huge lung capacity, coming through an open window.

Thank you for the first laugh of the day. Now, take yourself to your closest mental health practitioner and get yourself looked at; you have a problem.

Keep in mind that your membership agreement requires you to be civil, in addition, do NOT attack the person making the argument - attack the argument.

[rats]

I think it has to due with the fact that we do find new creatures, and have found large mammals which were thought mythical. Think giant panda.
Ooh, I've not heard of the [presumably] 'Western' theory that the giant panda was a mythological creature. Please could you expand on this or point me in the right direction?
Thanks.

This is the first time I've ventured into a bigfoot thread, mainly because most are so huge! So, a few questions for any regulars...

1. Is 'historian' a troll?

2. Is most time on bigfoot threads spent in statistical debate or debunking photographs/videos?

3. Do the bigfoot adherents believe there's a difference between bigfoot, sasquatch, yeti, abominable snowman, wookie, etc.? Is it due to geographical location (yeti in Himalayas, for example)?


Keep in mind that your membership agreement requires you to be civil, in addition, do NOT attack the person making the argument - attack the argument.

[Alice Shortcake]

We desperately need some light relief. So here's a photo of Bigfoot/Patty surfing.

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd293/AliceShortcake/bigfootwave-1.jpg

[Cuddles]

This thread was not started to be yet another thread about bigfoot. It was started to discuss why bigfoot seems to be such a popular idea. Any more off topic postings will be moved straight to AAH.

[Correa Neto]

1. Is 'historian' a troll?
Well, he seems to actually believe in the stuff he posts... He's not a classic internet troll, I would say.

2. Is most time on bigfoot threads spent in statistical debate or debunking photographs/videos?
I would say not most of the time but a lot of time. There are also discussions on paleontology, antropology, etc.

3. Do the bigfoot adherents believe there's a difference between bigfoot, sasquatch, yeti, abominable snowman, wookie, etc.? Is it due to geographical location (yeti in Himalayas, for example)?
It seems unclear, at least for me, but I guess most of them believe there are different species. I don't know, however, if they consider the existence of different genus.

[quarky]

The 'wookie' is not in the same category. Wookies are a fabrication of the Star Wars movies. I think it cheapens this thread to include them with more legitimate, big hairy ape-like creatures

Yet, it does make one wonder if big-foot can operate a space craft.

(I'm a bit surprised that they can surf, actually)

[Maldon]

The 'wookie' is not in the same category. Wookies are a fabrication of the Star Wars movies. I think it cheapens this thread to include them with more legitimate, big hairy ape-like creatures

But they do come with the best pictures:D

[Monza]

The 'wookie' is not in the same category. Wookies are a fabrication of the Star Wars movies. I think it cheapens this thread to include them with more legitimate, big hairy ape-like creatures...

Wookies are real. They even made a movie about them.

[fromdownunder]

There are Yetis in Australia?

There certainly are! We call them Yowies down here. They are, unfortunately close to extinction, because the Dropbears have got most of them.

Norm

[halofish2000]

BF is appealing because it represents the opportunity to witness the discovery of a "hominid" creature here in the USA. How cool would that be? I have read many BF forums and though I feel many have seen something that is still not proof enough. It is utterly amazing, in today's encroachment of the wild, some crazy or brave hunter has not pegged one between the eyes.

[Radrook]

I must admit to complete bafflement over the ongoing and staggeringly interminable threads about Bigfoot.

My main confusion is why Bigfoot should appear to be more worthy of interest and discussion to certain people than, say, Leprechauns, Fairies, Vampires, Atlantis, the Loch Ness Monster or the giant cats of Bodmin Moor.

Why? What's the appeal? Why are these threads going on and on with, let's be honest, the most extraordinarily ludicrous claims?

Why is an invisible shape changing Bigfoot currently more interesting than Atlantis, which would be at least quite fun?

Can anyone help?

I think it has to do with it's relation to evolution.

[The Atheist]

There certainly are! We call them Yowies down here. They are, unfortunately close to extinction, because the Dropbears have got most of them.

Norm

:dl:

Those drop-bears are DEADLY.

[rats]

...snip... *rats asks questions in surprise reaction to some responses on this thread*
I apologise if this post caused offence, none was intended. The purpose of my questions was to ascertain whether to devote time to catching up on the bigfoot threads, and what to expect if I ventured there.

...
I would say not most of the time but a lot of time. There are also discussions on paleontology, antropology, etc.
Thanks for your responses there, you make the discussions sound rather interesting.

The 'wookie' is not in the same category. Wookies are a fabrication of the Star Wars movies. I think it cheapens this thread to include them with more legitimate, big hairy ape-like creatures

Yet, it does make one wonder if big-foot can operate a space craft.

(I'm a bit surprised that they can surf, actually)
Yeah, that probably needed a winking smile thing as I was trying to bring in a little levity. Don't worry folks, I won't be attempting any more jokes!

[Correa Neto]

Sometimes it gets interesting... But nowadays quite often we're just repeating answers to questions and arguments posed a long time ago at a galaxy far, far away...

Aniway, another interesting approach is to observe the minds of believers. Its such a small community that one can get relatively used to many the key players. There are lessons to be learned; I think a PhD thesis or two could be made on this line.

[quarky]

No way I'm ever reading through all the big-foot stuff, and no doubt its been mentioned before, but there have been some new mamallian species discoveries in recent years. A few monkeys; a deer. I found this truly amazing. I would have guessed that all the mammals on earth had been named 50 years ago.

this is in no way an endorsement of big-foot.

[Spektator]

Just a little observation: I recently caught a "MonsterQuest" show on the History Channel devoted to gigantopithecus and floating the idea that bigfoot, the yeti, et al. are the descendants of giganto (as the program called him).

They offered Theodore Roosevelt's "encounter" with a bigfoot as evidence, but did a frankly shoddy job of it, amounting to a grossly misleading interpretation. The narrator said that Roosevelt wrote in his diary of an 1890 encounter with bigfoot. He did not; the material is not taken from his diary at all, but loosely and carelessly paraphrased from Roosevelt's 1893 book The Wilderness Hunter. In fact, in 1890 TR was in Washington, serving on the United States Civil Service Commission, and he made no extended hunting expeditions, dividing his time between Washington, D.C. and his home in Oyster Bay, New York.

Early on in the "bigfoot encounter" recreation, the show quotes Roosevelt's "1890 diary entry" as saying, "I can either be President of the United States, or I can control Alice; I cannot do both!" But TR would not be President until 1901, and his daughter Alice was only six years old in 1890, hardly a control problem (not true when she was seventeen, however!). The remnant of the re-enactment suggested that some roaring beast came lumbering into Roosevelt's camp; it wasn't shown on camera, but you saw the actor portraying Roosevelt reacting as the voice-over (a paraphrase from Wilderness Hunter) described the horrific sounds the intruder made. The bit concluded with Roosevelt telling his companion, "This is a night we shall always remember!"

But the whole point of the chapter in Roosevelt's book was that the normal sounds of nature in the high passes--the wind in the trees, the sound of a distant avalanche, and so on--were all of ordinary origin, though weird and spooky sounding, so spooky that Roosevelt said he undertood why "people who live in lonely forest regions are prone to believe in elves, wood spirits, and other beings" (467). He saw nothing; he heard only natural, explicable sounds. The TV show's recreation is at odds with what TR actually reported--is in fact a travesty of the actual report.

[Locknar]

Just a little observation: I recently caught a "MonsterQuest" show on the History Channel devoted to gigantopithecus and floating the idea that bigfoot, the yeti, et al. are the descendants of giganto (as the program called him).

They offered Theodore Roosevelt's "encounter" with a bigfoot as evidence, but did a frankly shoddy job of it, amounting to a grossly misleading interpretation. The narrator said that Roosevelt wrote in his diary of an 1890 encounter with bigfoot. He did not; the material is not taken from his diary at all, but loosely and carelessly paraphrased from Roosevelt's 1893 book The Wilderness Hunter. In fact, in 1890 TR was in Washington, serving on the United States Civil Service Commission, and he made no extended hunting expeditions, dividing his time between Washington, D.C. and his home in Oyster Bay, New York.

Early on in the "bigfoot encounter" recreation, the show quotes Roosevelt's "1890 diary entry" as saying, "I can either be President of the United States, or I can control Alice; I cannot do both!" But TR would not be President until 1901, and his daughter Alice was only six years old in 1890, hardly a control problem (not true when she was seventeen, however!). The remnant of the re-enactment suggested that some roaring beast came lumbering into Roosevelt's camp; it wasn't shown on camera, but you saw the actor portraying Roosevelt reacting as the voice-over (a paraphrase from Wilderness Hunter) described the horrific sounds the intruder made. The bit concluded with Roosevelt telling his companion, "This is a night we shall always remember!"

But the whole point of the chapter in Roosevelt's book was that the normal sounds of nature in the high passes--the wind in the trees, the sound of a distant avalanche, and so on--were all of ordinary origin, though weird and spooky sounding, so spooky that Roosevelt said he undertood why "people who live in lonely forest regions are prone to believe in elves, wood spirits, and other beings" (467). He saw nothing; he heard only natural, expicable sounds. The TV show's recreation is at odds with what TR actually reported--is in fact a travesty of the actual report.It would be interesting to point this out to the History Channel folks, or the producer of the show, and see what they say.

Shoddy, or even false, evidence (such as getting the whole Teddy issue wrong) does not lend credence to their claims.

[Dfoot]

It would be interesting to point this out to the History Channel folks, or the producer of the show, and see what they say.

Shoddy, or even false, evidence (such as getting the whole Teddy issue wrong) does not lend credence to their claims.

So what happened was that TR wasn't really killed by the campfire (by what could only be a Bigfoot, although no one actually saw it) he was, in fact, killed by Bigfoot when his body vanished after skiing wildly off a cliff while attempting to evade the Bigfeet (that no one actually saw).

The later story has a chase scene involved. I'm spreading that one.:boxedin:

(*The part of the Bigfootologist has been portrayed by Dfoot. Any resemblance to real life Bigfootologists is completely unintentional*)

[uruk]

Step 1. Get off lazy arse
Step 2. Find courage
Step 3. Go to dark forest after midnight with flash digital camera
Step 4 Listen
Step 5. Take pictures
Step 6. Run like hell out of there.

Seeing as you are rather solid in your conviction as to the existance of Big foot (bigfeet?)
and that you have recomended this particular method of gathering evidence on the existance of bigfeet, I am going to assume that you have tried this method out for yourself with some success. (Otherwise why would have offered it as a viable method of Bigfoot detection unless you were successful at it. That is, unless you pulled this out of your posterior.)

So, let see your pictures.

[madurobob]

...So, let see your pictures.
You've seen them. His avatar is one.

Did you skip the part where bigfoot are invisible, but sometimes can be seen and photographed as "spirit orbs"?

[William Parcher]

It would be interesting to point this out to the History Channel folks, or the producer of the show, and see what they say.

Shoddy, or even false, evidence (such as getting the whole Teddy issue wrong) does not lend credence to their claims.

Is the truth about TR more important than revenue for the History Channel? Do they often run corrections of their programs (like newspapers will do if they print a wrong name, etc.)? Did any of the paying advertisers on the History Channel ask for a refund because MQ was not accurate in what they said about Teddy?

[Spektator]

I've emailed the History Channel; I doubt I'll get a response, but if I do, I'll let you know. Meanwhile a surprise: I did not have time to read all of Jack Lapseritis' book Psychic Sasquatch, but when I took it back to our college library (I got it on interlibrary loan from a North Carolina library), I was told, "Keep it!" The N.C. library had included a note when they sent the book: "This was a gift and has never been checked out. We don't regard it as a worthwhile volume and have deleted it from our records. The patron may keep the copy."

So I can finish reading it! I'm learning all sorts of things. Bigfoot's urgent message to a Texan: Tell everyone "Love is God, God is Love." (Later this Texan is present when a fishing vessel in the Gulf brings up a four-foot tall amphibious sentient humanoid creature with lobster-claw hands that is immediately commandeered by the U.S. Coast Guard, along with all evidence, photographic and otherwise, that the creature existed.)

Another informant says that bigfoot is extraordinarily gentle and loves people. One of them, she says, "Often threatened to kill me."

One informant says bigfoot is 100% human and evolved alongside us. Another one says they are extraterrestrial, with no relationship to us. Another one says they are "physical-ethereal" beings, spirits rather than material.

On one page, the author says he knows of 76 eyewitnesses, and adds, "I am one of the 76 percipients who experienced the psychic Sasquatch." On the next page, he says "I and 76 others" have experienced the psychic Sasquatch. All of the eyewitness accounts seem to be anonymous or pseudonymous; some locations are not exactly pinpointed ("This took place west of the Rocky Mountains...."). Lapseritis has a rather detailed chapter about a fellow whom bigfoot led to a cave in the Cascade range; in the cave was a massive underground city, populated by Skypeople (tall and gracile), short extraterrestrials (gray-skinned, four feet tall), Sasquatches, and others. It is a huge place. Lapseritis gets directions to the cavern, makes a grueling climb...and there's no cavern opening there. He can't find the underground metropolis. Was it all just a fantasy of the witnesses', he asks; and he answers that he cannot say.

There is one sentence, from a pseudonymous woman, claiming that bigfoot contacted Jimmy Carter. No support at all is offered.

Although the author claims 76 eyewitnesses (or maybe 77), I can count only about half that number in the stories he relays.

Finally, it's interesting (probably only to me) that Lapseritis talks about one bigfoot outbreak in a specific location in North Carolina in a year when I not only lived in that exact area, but also had a lot of free time and hiked along the Appalachian Trail, went camping numerous times, and met an awful lot of hikers, fishermen, and hunters, all of them with stories of their experiences and none of whom mentioned any awareness of the elusive Sasquatch. In fact, I didn't even know the whole area was densely populated by the critters the very year I was living there--nothing in the papers, and nothing on the news!

[William Parcher]

Aniway, another interesting approach is to observe the minds of believers. Its such a small community that one can get relatively used to many the key players. There are lessons to be learned; I think a PhD thesis or two could be made on this line.

One thesis could be on the Economics of Bigfootery. It's a subculture with a mostly internal economy, and there are dots to connect with cash transactions as the driver. Want the LMS DVD on your hard drive? You have to send cash to Doug Hajicek (White Wolf Productions). Want to see Scott Herriott's Bigfoot encounter on the Klamath hillside? You have to send cash to Scott. Want to see the braid worn by Patty? You have to send cash to Pat Holbrook (Grendel Films producer of the MK Davis findings).

Attempts to influence the Economy of Bigfootery? Yes. Soon after the publication of Greg Long's book there was a grassroots attempt on BFF to dissuade Bigfooters from buying this book. They even suggested the best plan was to share already purchased copies. Why? Because buying the book as new put cash into the hands of a man who wrote about the PGF being a hoax. He was declared a deluded demon, and who wants to fund that?

A thesis on Bigfootery Economics must also address determined attempts to shift profits away from PGF skeptics who sell things that support the hoax theory. Good stuff.

[quarky]

Again, not to sound like big-foot's defender, but I've spent the last 40 years in near wilderness, and done quite a bit of hiking and camping and extended canoe trips...and I've never encountered a bob-cat in the wild...much less returned with a decent picture of one.

one could hardly expect to see big-foot on a weekend expedition, if they are any where near as stealthy as a common bobcat.

(I have heard a bob-cat. Unless bigfoot makes a similar catty noise.)

Drat. It probably does sound like I'm defending bigfoot.

In reality, I doubt that the ivory-billed woodpecker still exists.
Point being, its quite difficult to sneak up on certain wildlife.
Its far easier to find scat.

Anyone got a good picture of bigfoot poo?

[Hitch]

Its far easier to find scat.

Anyone got a good picture of bigfoot poo?

I'm pretty sure I read in one of the threads here a report of someone observing bigfoot poo falling out of a horse. Those wily, interdimensional 'squatch sure get up to some creative tricks.

That's why we need so many bigfoot threads. You can't buy that kind of entertainment.

[halofish2000]

I believe creekfreak said one took a massive dump in his yard. Then it went to be a star on South Park... Hiiiiidy ho.

[arthwollipot]

I've emailed the History Channel; I doubt I'll get a response, but if I do, I'll let you know. Meanwhile a surprise: I did not have time to read all of Jack Lapseritis' book Psychic Sasquatch, but when I took it back to our college library (I got it on interlibrary loan from a North Carolina library), I was told, "Keep it!" The N.C. library had included a note when they sent the book: "This was a gift and has never been checked out. We don't regard it as a worthwhile volume and have deleted it from our records. The patron may keep the copy."Oh that's gold. So much for historian's much-vaunted "evidence". A book that's so bad that even the public library doesn't want it.

Whereas Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku in no way supports the existence of extradimensional beings on earth no matter how historian wants to distort it.

[Spektator]

Oh that's gold. So much for historian's much-vaunted "evidence". A book that's so bad that even the public library doesn't want it.

....

I had finished the first half, which gives anecdote after anecdote of the psychic Sasquatch. Now I'm into the second half, which interprets the anecdotes' meaning. I find it odd that in many cases, Lapseritis says the witnesses didn't know what they were dealing with--even that it was a Sasquatch--until he interviewed them and told them how to get telepathic messages from bigfoot: You simply project love, and then thoughts will come into your mind which are put there by the bigfoot. They seem a varied lot: One of them, for example, though he lived in the same area year around ("I live nearby and I am always watching you") did not recognize the concepts of winter, spring, or snow, while another is well up on ancient languages and quantum physics.

And by the way, one of the author's witnesses does not conceal her identity with a pseudonym: Betty Hill, of Interrupted Journey fame. When the author asks her about her UFO encounter, she tells him about it; then when he asks, "Did you ever meet a Sasquatch," she says, essentially, "Oh, sure. They're all over the place."

[uruk]

You've seen them. His avatar is one.

Did you skip the part where bigfoot are invisible, but sometimes can be seen and photographed as "spirit orbs"?

I would never have guessed in a million years that that picture was of a bigfoot.

I guess I missed that part. So it seems the bigfoot camp has become so desparate that they are claiming that bigfoot has the capability of becoming invisible. I'll also add they become inconsequential and immaterial as to be nonexistant. That is untill they are photographed then they become something else like a volkswagon beatle or a 300lb woman named Frieda.

My avatar is a picture of an invisible pink unicorn. When photographed they sometime look like Homer Simpson.

[quarky]

I wonder if bigfoot is making crop circles? That would simplify things. It would be extra cool if bigfoots get abducted by flying saucers, and have some relationship with 'nessy'.

(I dig hybrid woo)

[William Parcher]

Many Bigfooters speak of real reactions (fear, chills, hair on end, can't sleep, etc) during and after reading these.

This is what I am talking about...

I'm on the skeptical side of the fence (about the PGF), but the film still makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

He is skeptical, but still mentions the profound emotional reaction when watching Patty. Others would say that this response only reinforces their own conviction that the film is authentic. This dovetails with something that is regularly cited and mentioned by Bigfooters concerning dogs. When dogs get a whiff of the horrific and disgusting smell of Bigfoot they get crazy fearful. These dogs will suddenly get very scared and want to 'run home to momma', or at least get back inside the vehicle that delivered them to this very dangerous situation. The Bigfooters already know that dogs are often attracted to stinky stuff and will actually roll around in this. But Bigfoot is something categorically different and the dogs know this.

You see, dogs are not burdened with critical thinky think and skepticism. Dogs react to, and deal with the world exactly as it is. Dogs do not read JREF, and they certainly don't hoax, lie or even believe that things like myths are true. Dogs are some kind of pure ideal of reality and proper reaction to it. If you take a dog into the wilderness and it becomes paranoid, it is because Bigfoot exists and was (or is) at that location. Any common cur has the ability to confirm that the Bigfoot skeptics are wrong!

[Cuddles]

So it seems the bigfoot camp has become so desparate that they are claiming that bigfoot has the capability of becoming invisible.

In all fairness, I don't think anyone apart from Historian is claiming that, and I don't think he's taken seriously by anyone inside or outside the bigfoot community.

[Locknar]

In all fairness, I don't think anyone apart from Historian is claiming that, and I don't think he's taken seriously by anyone inside or outside the bigfoot community.This is, of course, because he is the only one that can see them...and the only one that can escape the NSA agents and thus able to post all sorts of "valuable"* information"

* NOTE: In this context, "valuable" stands for false, or other wise made up claims/lies

[William Parcher]

In all fairness, I don't think anyone apart from Historian is claiming that...


"Luke. There is another Skywalker."

http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e8/Yoda%27s_death.jpg

http://www.beckjord.com/whoisbeckjord/ebness.jpg

[historian]

In all fairness, I don't think anyone apart from Historian is claiming that, and I don't think he's taken seriously by anyone inside or outside the bigfoot community.

Fairness? You have got to be kidding. Show me your poll. Show me any poll that verifies your ascertation. There are other chat rooms for the people who know about the inter-dimensional nature of the Bigfoot. It is certainly not at JREF because the truth is not what they stand for. Half of the International Bigfoot Society, is of paranormal belief. There are thousands of an older generation, that was alive in the 60' s and 70's, when the inter-dimensional nature of the Bigfoot was COMMON KNOWLEDGE ON THE WEST COAST. Why the west coast? Because that is where many observers for the Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Bigfoot captivity study in the 60's, came from. And when they got home, they naturally could not contain their excitement. So everybody knew. Even my grandmother. So you boys and girls are living in the wrong times and the wrong place, to have received the memo on the subject matter. But that doesn't stop you from claiming that you are "being fair, by smearing me".

Many of the older BFRO people are well aware that Bigfoot are paranormal. I had much of what I have stated here, explained to me by BFRO persons.

So in all fairness, Cuddles appears to have reached a premature conclusion based on a complete lack of adequate preparation and research in regard to the true nature of the Bigfoot people, again.

[historian]

I've emailed the History Channel;

Did you tell them that you think that you are a BIGSHOT, and that the History Channel would do well to at least read what you have too say, instead of delete it?

Now that the History Channel has moved the Bigfoot shows up to 7 pm, where can they go from here? 24/7 Bigfoot just to irritate people like Spektator? Interview a Bigfoot on the nightly news? Set a Bigfoot up as a nightly news anchor at 6PM? Or they could interview the moronic majority, that does not want to learn about Bigfoot. Now that would be priceless.

[kitakaze]

When one is considering Burgstahler's claims of Carter this or spirit orb that I find it rather fun to reflect on this post of his in which he explains to us that an art piece by Kainan Jordan is in fact an undebunkable photo of bigfoot:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3268878#post3268878

Posting the above link is in fact, as I have found, a sure-fire way to Neal to ignore you, if anyone is interested...

[LTC8K6]

Uruk, the BF community does not accept Historian's or Monstro's (or Beckjord's) versions of bigfoot. They pretty much point at them and laugh just like skeptics do.

It's unfair to saddle bigfootery with Historian, imo.

[Locknar]

When one is considering Burgstahler's claims of Carter this or spirit orb that I find it rather fun to reflect on this post of his in which he explains to us that an art piece by Kainan Jordan is in fact an undebunkable photo of bigfoot:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3268878#post3268878

Posting the above link is in fact, as I have found, a sure-fire way to Neal to ignore you, if anyone is interested...Priceless!

[Correa Neto]

Maybe better say "part of the bigfoot community". Some, from the tone of their posts, are more open to paranormal bigfoot.

Its not unlike UFOlogy, where you have the "esoteric" and the "scientific" branches. I suppose the "esoteric" bigfoot community is smaller than the "scientific", but my sampling may be biased. Not to mention that surely there are "transitional members".

[LTC8K6]

I've never run across any other footer that comes close to Historian for being off of plumb, though. The fake beliefs, dishonesty, and whackiness are unique in my experience.

[aggle-rithm]

Bigfoot is likely man's oldest and closest relative.* They have been here since the dinosaurs, which is at least 135 million years.*

I won't ask you for evidence, historian. I'm just curious: Why do you believe this? What is your source of information?

[historian]

I won't ask you for evidence, historian. I'm just curious: Why do you believe this? What is your source of information?

It is outlined in The Psychic Sasquatch, I believe. Fossil record of bigfoot sized bare foot footprints, along side dinosaur footprints in stone.

[Locknar]

It is outlined in The Psychic Sasquatch, I believe. Fossil record of bigfoot sized bare foot footprints, along side dinosaur footprints in stone.Either it is or it's not; which is it? If you could give a page reference that would be grand.

"BF" sized bare footprints along side dinosaur ones; you'd think that would be pretty heavily covered...almost to the point of common knowledge...in paleontology. Odd I can't find mention of this.

Hopefully though, with your help and page reference you can shed some insight into this claim of yours.

[madurobob]

There are thousands of an older generation, that was alive in the 60' s and 70's, when the inter-dimensional nature of the Bigfoot was COMMON KNOWLEDGE ON THE WEST COAST. Why the west coast? Because that is where many observers for the Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Bigfoot captivity study in the 60's, came from.

Bah - not troo. All of those legacy footers know the truth: that LLNL accidentally created Morgellons disease during their invisibility tests and that this dreadful disease actually creates invisible bigfoot out of otherwise healthy humans. Why do you continue to bury your head in the sand on this?

[zooterkin]

Bigfoot is likely man's oldest and closest relative.* They have been here since the dinosaurs, which is at least 135 million years.*
How can bigfoot both be man's closest relative and 135 million years old?

[grayman]

How can bigfoot both be man's closest relative and 135 million years old?

When you're making the facts up, anything is possible.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

It is outlined in The Psychic Sasquatch, I believe. Fossil record of bigfoot sized bare foot footprints, along side dinosaur footprints in stone.

*cough* (http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm)

[quarky]

I'm starting to think that I'm bigfoot.

[historian]

How can bigfoot both be man's closest relative and 135 million years old?

Closest relative = closest DNA match to man

135 million years old = Bigfoot was on earth for at least 135 million years vs. modern man's 100,000 tops.

They have nothing to do with each other.

[arthwollipot]

I guess I missed that part. So it seems the bigfoot camp has become so desparate that they are claiming that bigfoot has the capability of becoming invisible.Oh, you've barely scratched the surface of historian's bigfoot claims. I'd be satisfied if I were you. That way lies madness.

[historian]

Either it is or it's not; which is it? If you could give a page reference that would be grand.

"BF" sized bare footprints along side dinosaur ones; you'd think that would be pretty heavily covered...almost to the point of common knowledge...in paleontology. Odd I can't find mention of this.

Hopefully though, with your help and page reference you can shed some insight into this claim of yours.

p.178
"Geological Engineer John Morris, in his book "Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs and The People Who Know Them", discusses at length the Paluxy River enigma in Texas, where human-like tracks are commonly found in limestone deposits beside footprints of dinosaurs."

[Locknar]

p.178
"Geological Engineer John Morris, in his book "Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs and The People Who Know Them", discusses at length the Paluxy River enigma in Texas, where human-like tracks are commonly found in limestone deposits beside footprints of dinosaurs."So then your claim is not in The Psychic Sasquatch?

ETA: This claim has largely been abandoned by the creationists as it is unsupported by the facts. There is a wealth of information that debunks the Paluxy River myth, such as this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html).

To be clear, Morris (a creationist) claimed the "footprints" found at Paluxy River were human, NOT BF as you (Historian) claim.

[historian]

So then your claim is not in The Psychic Sasquatch?

ETA: This claim has largely been abandoned by the creationists as it is unsupported by the facts. There is a wealth of information that debunks the Paluxy River myth, such as this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html).

To be clear, Morris (a creationist) claimed the "footprints" found at Paluxy River were human, NOT BF as you (Historian) claim.

READ MY LIPS.
p. 178 of The Psychic Sasquatch

Why do you keep trying to start arguements?

Nobody cares what fabrications that you pull out of thin air. Lapseritis visited the site and the footprints were TOO SMALL to be human. Furthermore, from his experience, they appeared to be EXACTLY LIKE BIGFOOT TRACKS that are found today.

What is your next outrageous claim? That Wallace placed them in the past, in one of his earlier lives?


Morris misidentified the footprints, most likely because he was not likely a believer in Bigfoot and thus was inclined to cherry pick his field observations.

[zooterkin]

Closest relative = closest DNA match to man

135 million years old = Bigfoot was on earth for at least 135 million years vs. modern man's 100,000 tops.

They have nothing to do with each other.

How does man get to be closely related to something which evolved that long before? Are we descended from bigfoot? How did bigfoot exist for so long and yet leave no trace? And, since it has left no trace, on what do you base this claim of 135 million years or existence? Finally, on what are you basing the claim of the DNA match, since there's been no DNA of bigfoot collected?

[zooterkin]

I'm starting to think that I'm bigfoot.

No, I'm bigfoot...

[Locknar]

READ MY LIPS.
p. 178 of The Psychic Sasquatch

Why do you keep trying to start arguements?

Nobody cares what fabrications that you pull out of thin air. Lapseritis visited the site and the footprints were TOO SMALL to be human. Furthermore, from his experience, they appeared to be EXACTLY LIKE BIGFOOT TRACKS that are found today.

What is your next outrageous claim? That Wallace placed them in the past, in one of his earlier lives?


Morris misidentified the footprints, most likely because he was not likely a believer in Bigfoot and thus was inclined to cherry pick his field observations.What you just stated (or paraphrased from Lapseritis) can not possibly be true.

The "footprints" can not possibly be to small to be human, yet exactly like "BF" tracks found today.

As to the Paluxy River myth, while perhaps endorsed by Lapseritis (a "Maste Herbalist") it has largely been debunked by the scientific community.

[arthwollipot]

No, I'm bigfoot...I'm bigfoot! And so is my wife!

[fromdownunder]

I'm bigfoot! And so is my wife!

I am Spatacus!

Sorry, just got the urge to say that all of a sudden.

[/derail]

Norm

[quarky]

Because I suspect that I may be bigfoot, I must now hide in the woods, and wait for someone with a crappy video camera. There's no sense fighting it any more.

Unless there's a support group.
I'd go to a meeting, if there was one.

[historian]

What you just stated (or paraphrased from Lapseritis) can not possibly be true.

The "footprints" can not possibly be to small to be human, yet exactly like "BF" tracks found today.

As to the Paluxy River myth, while perhaps endorsed by Lapseritis (a "Maste Herbalist") it has largely been debunked by the scientific community.

Your statement regarding the Paluxy River myth, is a blatant lie. But I am not calling you a liar, mind you. Footprints in limestone, are fairly difficult to make. Limestone is hard bedrock and not sandstone for instance.

[arthwollipot]

Your statement is a lie. But I am not calling you a liar, mind you.Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

[rats]

...
Why the west coast? Because that is where many observers for the Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Bigfoot captivity study in the 60's, came from. And when they got home, they naturally could not contain their excitement. So everybody knew.
...
This sounds rather interesting. Did LLNL publish any results from such studies? Were there any local newspaper reports? I couldn't find any relevant details here (https://www.llnl.gov/llnl/about/history.jsp), although I could only get the top two links to work - could someone in the US try the bottom three?

[Correa Neto]

Making footprints in limestone or sandstone?
Impossible (unless you carve them), since they are rocks.
Now, making footprints in sand (a type of sediment) that later will be lithified (consolidated) and become sandstone (a type of clastic sedimentary rock), this is possible.

Footprints in limestone?
Gentlemen, limestone is a chemical or biological sedimentary rock. As chemical sediment, it is deposited at the bottom of water bodies such as seas, lagoons and playa lakes. Quite often, however, it has a biologic source such as reefs built by coral or cyanobacteria. Now, what are the odds of a bigfoot (assuming they are or were real) or a human leaving a footprint at such stuff?

[Locknar]

Your statement regarding the Paluxy River myth, is a blatant lie. But I am not calling you a liar, mind you. Footprints in limestone, are fairly difficult to make. Limestone is hard bedrock and not sandstone for instance.I've only made one statement regarding Paluxy River; in that the "footprints" aspect is a myth that has been scientifically debunked. Your non-acceptance of this or scientific fact, does not change its truth.

Perhaps you have other credible evidence/documentation you can lend to the discussion that the scientific community (et all) have over-looked? If so, please provide.

Specifically regarding the myth:
However, these anachronistic human footprints were shown to be either mistaken interpretation and even some outright fakes.

Further information regarding the Paluxy River myth can be found here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html) (and LOTS of other places).

The above discussion aside, this does not change the inaccuracies in your previous statement(s), such as

Lapseritis visited the site and the footprints were TOO SMALL to be human. Furthermore, from his experience, they appeared to be EXACTLY LIKE BIGFOOT TRACKS that are found today.
As previously noted, the "footprints" can not be both smaller then a human, yet "EXACTLY LIKE BIGFOOT TRACKS that are found today."

For that matter, Lapseritis' amature observations wrt the "footprints" aside, Morris' book Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs has largely been discredited. The books publisher, as well as creationist groups such as the "Institute for Creation Research" have admited/concluded that Morris' claims in his book were wrong.

The "footprints" that Lapseritis wrongly claims "BIGFOOT TRACKS" were actually made by the central part of a 3-toed dinosaur's foot. More information on this can be found at the site I've referenced.

[uruk]

In all fairness, I don't think anyone apart from Historian is claiming that, and I don't think he's taken seriously by anyone inside or outside the bigfoot community.

Uruk, the BF community does not accept Historian's or Monstro's (or Beckjord's) versions of bigfoot. They pretty much point at them and laugh just like skeptics do.

It's unfair to saddle bigfootery with Historian, imo.

Sorry. I haven't been keeping up general Bigfootery. I am aware that there are serious crypto-zoologists looking into this.

But invisibility?, Multi-dimensional wa-hoosits? I'm sorry but this is the lamest attempt to desparately cling on to the belief of an ever increasingly mythical beast.

[uruk]

Closest relative = closest DNA match to man
{snip}
Oh great! We have physical evidence. DNA no less.

So where is the report? Who was the lab that did the comparison?, Who obtained the DNA sample? How was the DNA sample obtained? How was the source of the DNA sample verified?

[uruk]

READ MY LIPS.
p. 178 of The Psychic Sasquatch Hey just because someone wrote it in a book doesn't mean it is true. I learned that when I was six years old. Where is the corroberating support and evidence?

{snip}

Nobody cares what fabrications that you pull out of thin air. Lapseritis visited the site and the footprints were TOO SMALL to be human. Furthermore, from his experience, they appeared to be EXACTLY LIKE BIGFOOT TRACKS that are found today. Well if they were too small to be human footprints how could they be "bigfoot" footprints? Really tiny bigfeet? A mutant Bigfoot? Trans-dimensional teleportation causes you to shrink?

What is your next outrageous claim? That Wallace placed them in the past, in one of his earlier lives? Well if you buy trans-dimensional, invisible, spirit-ball-photographing bigfeet why not past lives? Maybe Wallace used trans-dimensional/time traveling to fake the foot prints and the process made him shrink and that's why the footprints are too small.


Morris misidentified the footprints, most likely because he was not likely a believer in Bigfoot and thus was inclined to cherry pick his field observations. Well you said yourself that the footprints were too small to be human.

[arthwollipot]

Well if they were too small to be human footprints how could they be "bigfoot" footprints? Really tiny bigfeet? A mutant Bigfoot? Trans-dimensional teleportation causes you to shrink?According to historian? Gnomes.

Seriously. Gnomes.

Historian believes that interdimensional gnomes and leprechauns exist too. One of these "little people" undoubtedly made the footprints.

[Spektator]

From "Human Tracks Sprouting Dinosaur Toes," by Jim Jones, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, February 22, 1986, pp. 21A-22A: geological engineer John Morris, author of Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs..., is interviewed after having revisited, in the company of a paleontologist, the "man tracks." The paleontologist showed Morris the undeniable dinosaurian characteristics of the "man tracks," and Morris concludes to the reporter, "As much as it hurts me, it is very likely that my original interpretation was wrong." Another "man's footprint" is revealed to be a modern carving (there were actually a bunch of these, but they're easily identified as fakes because they did not depress the original mud from which the limestone was formed, but rather cut right through the layers of stone).

It isn't clear why Lapseritis didn't know this when he wrote his own book--except that Morris remained very coy about his misinterpretation of the tracks, and it's possible that outside of creationist and paleontological circles the debunking of the tracks didn't get much press attention. The book and a film about the Paluxy tracks were disowned by the Institute for Creation Research, though copies probably still circulated.

Anyway, none of the original discoverers claimed these were bigfoot prints.

[Belz...]

Step 1. Get off lazy arse
Step 2. Find courage
Step 3. Go to dark forest after midnight with flash digital camera
Step 4 Listen
Step 5. Take pictures
Step 6. Run like hell out of there.

:dl:

Gosh, I love those cryptozoo nutters.

[Belz...]

Nobody cares what fabrications that you pull out of thin air.

Ditto.

[quarky]

Is it legal to kill a bigfoot?
If any ever does kill a bigfoot, I bet it won't be legal for long.

By the way, I just finished an autobiographical book "Tiger of the snows" by Tenzing Norgay.
He was the sherpa on the first Mt. Everest conquest; made it to the top.
In the photo section, there is a picture of women holding a yeti skull. Tenzin mentions Yetis a few times in the tale, but doesn't seem to believe in them, particularly.

No doubt this photo has been mentioned before.
The book was published in 1955

[William Parcher]

He had a picture of a woman holding a Yeti skull and yet he still didn't believe? That is the kind of thing that drives Bigfooters crazy. :D

[quarky]

it sort of looks like a coconut shell in the picture, but coconuts are rare in the himalayas.
Tenzing mentioned his father claiming to encounter a yeti. He remains non-commital on the subject in his story. He often mentions the superstitions of other sherpas, and seems intent on rising above it. It helps in the effort to climb Mt. Everest, evidently. No fluff.

[TheChadd]

I agree, I really wish these fantasies would be more creative (then again, maybe like Hubbard they'd end up starting a cult), perhaps someone could believe 'pokemon' exist or something.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

it sort of looks like a coconut shell in the picture, but coconuts are rare in the himalayas.

Oh...you're talking about the "Yeti scalp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1954-lowres-JAJ-daily-mail-pangboche-scalp-+hand.jpg)," aren't you? That was made from the hide of a serow, a (quote) "goat-like Himalayan antelope." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti)

[Creekfreak]

Ive got 4 large amounts of different hair samples from bigfoots if anyone wants to pay for them to be dna tested let me know .
I will give them up for free just to shut some of you up .

[kitakaze]

freak,

1) For this solicitation why don't you post pictures of the large amounts of hair.

2) How did you obtain these hair samples?

3) If you think you have bigfoot hair, why haven't you taken it to your nearest university and told them you have bigfoot hair?

4) If you really want to shut us up, why don't you just set out some cans of beans and a screwdriver and when bigfoot shows up you stick him with the harpoon?

ETA: What about the blood?:

We also have hair ,blood and other evidence you can touch .

[Akhenaten]

Ive got 4 large amounts of different hair samples from bigfoots if anyone wants to pay for them to be dna tested let me know .
I will give them up for free just to shut some of you up .

No, you don't.

[zooterkin]

Historian, in case you missed them:
How does man get to be closely related to something which evolved that long before?
Are we descended from bigfoot?
How did bigfoot exist for so long and yet leave no trace?
And, since it has left no trace, on what do you base this claim of 135 million years or existence?
Finally, on what are you basing the claim of the DNA match, since there's been no DNA of bigfoot collected?

[Locknar]

Ive got 4 large amounts of different hair samples from bigfoots if anyone wants to pay for them to be dna tested let me know .
I will give them up for free just to shut some of you up .So you would not want them tested to confirm/deny "BF", but rather just to shut some of us up?

Is this anything like your "BF" photoshoped pic, your IBW pic, "pyramids" in the bible, inventor of the bungee cord, or any of your other (false) claims?

So when were these hair samples collected, where, how have then been handled since, chain of custody, do these hairs have the roots still in tact, etc.? All of these things would be in the log/diary...that you don't keep; thus any "proof" you might have is totally worthless due to [i]your[i] or carelessness. But you knew this already.

Heck...why stop there? You've claimed "BF" leaves droppings in your yard...how about collecting that and getting it tested? I'd suggest getting a pic, but who really wants to see a pic of "BF" "doing its business" in your yard.

In the end, just more silliness.

[uruk]

Ive got 4 large amounts of different hair samples from bigfoots if anyone wants to pay for them to be dna tested let me know .
I will give them up for free just to shut some of you up .

Why don't you pay for the DNA testing. If the hair turns out to be actual "bigfoot" hair, you'll make many times over what you paid for the testing. Get it done within two years and you can claim the jref million bucks.


So what's stopping you?

[quarky]

Why don't you pay for the DNA testing. If the hair turns out to be actual "bigfoot" hair, you'll make many times over what you paid for the testing. Get it done within two years and you can claim the jref million bucks.


So what's stopping you?

Can you imagine the stir that would cause? The reporters? The exploiters?
I wouldn't want the hassle.

(maybe bigfoot isn't someone you want to betray)

[kitakaze]

Another option available to you, freak, is to contact Meldrum about your hair and blood samples. Make sure you get a friend to type for you and don't use the words 'creek' and 'freak'. You never know, that could get the testing done. And please, don't bother with the 'Meldrum might screw me' silliness.

BTW, how did you obtain your blood sample(s)?

[bencg]

Elmer, Continuing with your questions. It would appear that the closer the Bigfoot lives to civilization, then the greater the liklihood that they understand English. They have to be exposed to at least campers and hunters, in order to learn. I have met some that do not have a clue. Some people say that some speak a language that is not English. Some say that they have scribbled in the sand, in Spanish Iberic, which predates the Roman Empire I believe. Bigfoot have families just like us. The kids though, have discipline in their lives, which is almost unheard of in the human world. I doubt that they behave like animals and kick anybody out. There are a lot of single Bigfoot in the forest, however. Just compare the Roe Bigfoot sketch and the Patterson-Gimlin photo, and you can easily see that there are different types. Yeti would also be a different type. I have no idea whether they have multiple births. Bigfoot's most predominant trait, is politeness. For instance, by our standards they have a bad hair day everyday. So they are polite enough that they do not make us look at them on their bad hair days. Yeti are a whole lot different than Bigfoot. Bigfoot are just trying to get along and normally want to be our friends. Yeti tend to be vicious and predatory. Which is why the Australian Government apparently tries to keep their citizens either living in ignorance or in denial.

Wow. When I started reading this thread I thought this post was in jest... I realise this is not the case.

Historian - this is probably futile and almost certainly asked of you before, but (assuming you really do believe this stuff) I have a serious question;

Why, or maybe rather How do you expect other people to believe it? I am sure you have lots of reasons that make sense to you, but surely you can understand that the more outlandish your claims are the more improbable they seem to anyone else? For example if I claimed to talk to leprechauns every night you would (well you certainly should) demand some extrememly convincing proof before you accepted this - right? If I then offered you a picture of my garden and told you it was an invisible leprechaun you'd rightly think I hadn't proved anything.

I'll accept that you truly believe what you say, but its beyond my comprehension why you expect anybody at all, let alone self professed skeptics, to believe what you say. It would be nice if you acknowledged this issue because it seems like you expect everyone to just accept your theories with no evidence at all, the world simply dosen't work that way.

Besides, the leprechauns told me the last bigfoots were wiped out in the fairy war :jaw-dropp

[bencg]

^^ that same question can be answered by any bigfooters here :) Historian just caught my eye as his claims are even more extreme than the usual cryptozoologist.

[kitakaze]

Besides, the leprechauns told me the last bigfoots were wiped out in the fairy war :jaw-droppHo ho... You might have an easier sell with the leprechauns than you think. Burgstahler thinks they're real:

I have spoken with Americans who have spent a summer in Ireland, and they assured me that Leprechauns are quite real.Kinda changes the humour, doesn't it? Welcome to the board, bencg.

[quarky]

As bigfeet become an acknowledged and threatened minority, I suspect they will demand an end to the 'bigfoot' moniker.
Its a bit degrading, really.

Sasquatch is more elegant, and we better get used to it, now that bigfoot has been spotted on mars.

How would you like to be called "bigfoot"?

(besides, new fossil evidence suggests that their feet aren't all that big)

[bencg]

Ho ho... You might have an easier sell with the leprechauns than you think. Burgstahler thinks they're real:

Kinda changes the humour, doesn't it? Welcome to the board, bencg.


:eye-poppi

LOL, yeah and I am still having trouble working out who is serious and who is joshing in this thread;

As bigfeet become an acknowledged and threatened minority, I suspect they will demand an end to the 'bigfoot' moniker.<