West Virginia Bigfoot Sighting/Footprints? [Archive]

kitakaze

7th November 2009, 09:55 AM

When I saw the title of the thread, but before I clicked on it and read your OP, I went to Yahoo to help search out old research I did on West Virginia Bigfoot claims and saw that. I immediately thought that John Cartwright, Billy Willard, and other Sasquatch Watch members are going to be giddy with the sudden, if not entirely explainable, attention...

Bigfoot gets big buzz (http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93160?fp=1)

Bigfoot: It's a riddle wrapped in a mystery, or something like that. But is it an enigma because it doesn't exist (say it isn't so!) or because we haven't had the technology to properly document the evidence? Members of Sasquatch Watch are definitely in the latter camp. And a group of intrepid Bigfoot hunters were on the move in the Allegheny Mountains of West Virginia, armed with all the gee-whiz gadgets needed to prove, for sure, without ambiguity, definitely, that Bigfoot exists. Maybe. Although some suspicious footprints were preserved with plaster of Paris in areas where there have been previous so-called sightings of the beast, un-fun skeptics are unsure if this is the real deal. But enthusiasts of the furry biped have already helped launch big buzz on the Web. Searches on "latest bigfoot sightings" shot up over 100%. Amateur sleuths also sought out "real bigfoot pictures," "bigfoot evidence," and "bigfoot research organization."

Vort, the following are links to posts from two years ago in which I researched numerous claims of Bigfoot in West Virginia, particularly the Seneca Rocks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKW3zutpvrc) region and surrounding areas...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2946475&postcount=7524

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2946883&postcount=7527

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2946981&postcount=7530

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2947041&postcount=7532

kittynh

7th November 2009, 09:59 AM

the thing is that Bigfoot fasinates people. It also interests the news media, which will always fall for a Bigfoot or ghost story. Heck, most of the media knows it's crap, but you write BIGFOOT and people will click. That's all that matters.

I figure people have to beware of bears in the woods (they never seem to find bears either, which is something we KNOW lives in the woods... or was that the Pope?). How great a hunter can these people be if they can't even find stuff we KNOW lives in the woods?

William Parcher

7th November 2009, 10:35 AM

Here is the feature news banner as it appears on Yahoo.com right now. The BFF is spiking with active guests right now as well. Just a little while ago I saw 400 guests - about 4X the typical number of viewing guests.

WGBH

7th November 2009, 10:54 AM

I immediately thought that John Cartwright, Billy Willard, and other Sasquatch Watch members are going to be giddy with the sudden, if not entirely explainable, attention...

You just could not resist taking a cheap shot at me could you? Typical. With this comment it seems to me that you are the one who wants attention.

Just to let the rest of you non-juvenile posters here in on what happened on the expedition. Nothing happened. The weather was rainy and very cold and we could not accomplish much field work. Our electronics were useless due to the weather. The tracks that were cast were bear prints and the scat collected was coyote. The area was beautiful and very remote. We will try again in better weather.

WGBH

7th November 2009, 11:05 AM

Here is a link to the PBS Mini-Documentary made. We are the middle segment. You can get a good idea of how beautiful the area is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuf1Z8-Fl3M&feature=player_embedded#

Gentlemen start your engines and let the bashing begin...

WGBH

7th November 2009, 11:13 AM

Other articles:

http://www.wpxi.com/news/21447992/detail.html

http://www.wvpubcast.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=11803

kitakaze

7th November 2009, 11:19 AM

You just could not resist taking a cheap shot at me could you? Typical. With this comment it seems to me that you are the one who wants attention.

Oh, come now, John. Of course I'd mention you. It's Yahoo talking about Saquatch Watch. What did you think I would say? You guys aren't exactly the BFRO in terms of media attention. I would think you guys would be happy for the attention. You never know, maybe some people who saw a real Bigfoot in your area will give you some hot leads that will lead to reliable evidence of Bigfoot.

Just to let the rest of you non-juvenile posters here in on what happened on the expedition. Nothing happened. The weather was rainy and very cold and we could not accomplish much field work. Our electronics were useless due to the weather. The tracks that were cast were bear prints and the scat collected was coyote. The area was beautiful and very remote. We will try again in better weather.

I think it's great whenever you get out in the woods.

WGBH

7th November 2009, 11:21 AM

How in the Green Hell is this "big buzz"? Why have searches on "the latest bigfoot sightings" shot up 100%, when there has been no new data collected, no findings that stir the imagination, and indeed, on closer inspection, no story at all? And why is Patty depicted on Yahoo's front page? :confused:

Gaaahhh. Color me deeply annoyed. :mad:

It was news because it was Halloween. It was picked up by several news agencies because it was Halloween. I agree with you, nothing happened that was newsworthy at all.

kitakaze

7th November 2009, 11:24 AM

WGBH

7th November 2009, 11:29 AM

Oh, come now, John. Of course I'd mention you. It's Yahoo talking about Saquatch Watch. What did you think I would say? You guys aren't exactly the BFRO in terms of media attention. I would think you guys would be happy for the attention. You never know, maybe some people who saw a real Bigfoot in your area will give you some hot leads that will lead to reliable evidence of Bigfoot.

I think it's great whenever you get out in the woods.

We received several reports as a result of the media blitz. All of them pranks.
Happy Halloween!

GT/CS

7th November 2009, 11:30 AM

It was news because it was Halloween. It was picked up by several news agencies because it was Halloween. I agree with you, nothing happened that was newsworthy at all.

How did the original story get to the news agencies? Someone must have contacted someone.

WGBH

7th November 2009, 11:38 AM

How did the original story get to the news agencies? Someone must have contacted someone.

I am not sure, but I would guess it was promoted by the West Virginia PBS station. After all they filmed the expedition.

kitakaze

7th November 2009, 11:43 AM

I am not sure, but I would guess it was promoted by the West Virginia PBS station. After all they filmed the expedition.

John, what is the best evidence of Bigfoot in Virginia or West Virginia?

WGBH

7th November 2009, 11:48 AM

John, what is the best evidence of Bigfoot in Virginia or West Virginia?

There is no "best evidence" all we have is trace and anecdotal evidence, you know that as well as I do. We are working for more.

kitakaze

7th November 2009, 11:52 AM

kitakaze

7th November 2009, 11:53 AM

There is no "best evidence" all we have is trace and anecdotal evidence, you know that as well as I do. We are working for more.

OK, how about what is the best trace evidence from Virginia or West Virginia? Like something specific.

WGBH

7th November 2009, 11:57 AM

OK, how about what is the best trace evidence from Virginia or West Virginia? Like something specific.

Print casts, sound recordings and witness testimony.

GT/CS

7th November 2009, 12:00 PM

In the WVPBS documentary at around 16:15 of the video Bill Willard of Sasquatch Watch talks about what Bigfoot might be. He says that maybe Bigfoot is an undiscovered Native American tribe of people or a North American ape. He then says that there are more out there theories concerning UFO's and dimensional portals. Bigfoot the lost Native American tribe is not an out there theory? Is there another native tribe or any group of Homo sapiens that are seven to ten feet tall, completely hirsute, use no technology whatsoever, are capable of infrasound, have midtarsal breaks, etc, etc?

So Native Americans resemble large apes? That's just lovely.

While I'm not NA I grew up in Eastern Washington near and on the Colville Indian Reservation. I have many NA friends and for their sake I take extreme offense to such a theory.

John, I sincerely hope you do not share Bill's supremely ignorant ideas.

WGBH

7th November 2009, 12:02 PM

In the WVPBS documentary at around 16:15 of the video Bill Willard of Sasquatch Watch talks about what Bigfoot might be. He says that maybe Bigfoot is an undiscovered Native American tribe of people or a North American ape. He then says that there are more out there theories concerning UFO's and dimensional portals. Bigfoot the lost Native American tribe is not an out there theory? Is there another native tribe or any group of Homo sapiens that are seven to ten feet tall, completely hirsute, use no technology whatsoever, are capable of infrasound, have midtarsal breaks, etc, etc?

They filmed and interviewed for 3 days. We had no control over what was shown or the context it was portrayed in.

William Parcher

7th November 2009, 12:06 PM

Some of the members of Sasquatch Watch of Virginia have actually had a sighting—where they've come face-to-face with a creature they believe is a Bigfoot. But even those who haven’t believe the creature exists.

Bruce Harrington is the self-described skeptic of the group.

"I think one of the biggest arguments that people have against the existence of Bigfoot is there hasn't been any proof," Harrington said. "From a logical standpoint, absence of proof is not proof of absence. So just because we don't have the proof that these creatures exist doesn't mean they don’t exist."

Oh boy, their doubter believes in Bigfoot anyway. They hand Skeptic Harrington the mic and all he says is there is no proof, then instantly follows that up with the reminder that no proof does not equal no animal. Yippee.

He says the same thing in his only speaking role in the PBS video. Shoot, if it was me I would have said,

Self-described skeptic William Parcher said, "Many hundreds of years have passed without any functional proof of Bigfoot. That fact can serve as very powerful evidence that the creature does not exist. That fact is not nullified by the thousands of eyewitness reports and various non-functional presented evidences. Actually, the thousands of reports support the theory that the creature does not exist. You cannot have that many people seeing Bigfoot spanning across centuries and not have a body or body part. All the presently available Bigfoot evidence is what you would expect with a popular mythological creature that has a cultish and devoted following. Nobody has a piece of the animal because it does not exist."

WGBH

7th November 2009, 12:07 PM

So Native Americans resemble large apes? That's just lovely.
John, I sincerely hope you do not share Bill's supremely ignorant ideas.

These are not his ideas and no I do not share them. He was giving examples of the MANY theories out there. Billy is part native american himself, he would not want to insult them. If you want to know which theory Billy leans to, it is the undiscovered primate theory.

WGBH

7th November 2009, 12:11 PM

Oh boy, their doubter believes in Bigfoot anyway. They hand Skeptic Harrington the mic and all he says is there is no proof, then instantly follows that up with the reminder that no proof does not equal no animal. Yippee.

He says the same thing in his only speaking role in the PBS video. Shoot, if it was me I would have said,

Yes, in case you were not aware, they took the newspaper quotes directly from the film. Bruce does not "believe" in Bigfoot.

kitakaze

7th November 2009, 12:13 PM

Print casts, sound recordings and witness testimony.

Like Moth Man, right?

Yes, but I said something specific for trace evidence. How about we have a look at the best print cast from Virginia or West Virginia and listen to the best alleged Bigfoot sound recording from those states?

William Parcher

7th November 2009, 12:14 PM

Bruce does not "believe" in Bigfoot.

He goes on expeditions and also to Bigfooter conferences across the country because he thinks it's a myth, but just wants to make extra sure of it.

William Parcher

7th November 2009, 12:26 PM

Those guys get a free pass because they had Goya Adobo in the research camp. Is that a hot sauce behind it?

WGBH

7th November 2009, 12:34 PM

Like Moth Man, right?

Yes, but I said something specific for trace evidence. How about we have a look at the best print cast from Virginia or West Virginia and listen to the best alleged Bigfoot sound recording from those states?

I think there are cast pictures on the web site. There may be sound recordings also. I am not sure.

WGBH

7th November 2009, 12:35 PM

Those guys get a free pass because they had Goya Adobo in the research camp. Is that a hot sauce behind it?

Yes it is hot sauce.

GT/CS

7th November 2009, 12:35 PM

These are not his ideas and no I do not share them. He was giving examples of the MANY theories out there. Billy is part native american himself, he would not want to insult them. If you want to know which theory Billy leans to, it is the undiscovered primate theory.

Thank you.

WGBH

7th November 2009, 12:36 PM

He goes on expeditions and also to Bigfooter conferences across the country because he thinks it's a myth, but just wants to make extra sure of it.

He goes on expeditions because he likes getting in the field. You should ask him for the specifics on why.

kitakaze

7th November 2009, 12:57 PM

I think there are cast pictures on the web site. There may be sound recordings also. I am not sure.

Surely you can think of something specific that qualifies as the best or at least a good example of print casts or sound recordings from Virginia or West Virginia. Here, I'll lend a hand...

Sasquatch Watch Trace Evidence Gallery (http://sasquatchwatch.weebly.com/trace-evidence-gallery.html)

Recent Audio Recordings (http://sasquatchwatch.weebly.com/audio.html)

WGBH

7th November 2009, 01:07 PM

Surely you can think of something specific that qualifies as the best or at least a good example of print casts or sound recordings from Virginia or West Virginia. Here, I'll lend a hand...

Sasquatch Watch Trace Evidence Gallery (http://sasquatchwatch.weebly.com/trace-evidence-gallery.html)

Recent Audio Recordings (http://sasquatchwatch.weebly.com/audio.html)

Then why ask? Just post the links the first time. It only slows down to process of you getting to your insults.

kitakaze

7th November 2009, 01:28 PM

Then why ask? Just post the links the first time. It only slows down to process of you getting to your insults.

I don't want to insult you, John. Your rather sensitive that way. You know I like you. It's very simple. You live in Virginia. You think Bigfoot does, too. Bigfoot > Virgina: Check. So giving fair consideration to your position, I want to know what is a good reason for critically-minded people to consider the concept that Virginia and West Virginia are home to Bigfoot. You would say "Because I saw one," (technically in North Carolina). Well, what the heck do I do with that? I mean people there talk about how they saw Moth Man, UFO's, and ghosts, as well. "I saw it" just doesn't help. We need evidence. Yes, yes, you're trying to get more. What I am after is what is the scientifically sound reason to think so. I can't accept things that sociology easily explains.

Thus I ask John Cartwright as a member of Sasquatch Watch of Virginia to point me to a specific bit of what you consider the best trace evidence. Did you realize that your gallery has images of what is an obvious fake cast, bear poop, and even horse poop being attributed to Bigfoot?

WGBH

7th November 2009, 03:13 PM

I don't want to insult you, John. Your rather sensitive that way. You know I like you. It's very simple. You live in Virginia. You think Bigfoot does, too. Bigfoot > Virgina: Check. So giving fair consideration to your position, I want to know what is a good reason for critically-minded people to consider the concept that Virginia and West Virginia. You would say "Because I saw one," (technically in North Carolina). Well, what the heck do I do with that? I mean people there talk about how they saw Moth Man, UFO's, and ghosts, as well. "I saw it" just doesn't help. We need evidence. Yes, yes, you're trying to get more. What I am after is what is the scientifically sound reason to think so. I can't accept things that sociology easily explains.

Thus I ask John Cartwright as a member of Sasquatch Watch of Virginia to point me to a specific it of what you consider the best trace evidence. Did you realize that your gallery has images of what is an obvious fake cast, bear poop, and even horse poop being attributed to Bigfoot?

I don't need to give a reason for critically minded people to consider the concept of Bigfoot in any location. You act like I need to convert the beliefs of people. Believe what you want to. I am not here to preach for the church of Bigfoot. You have mistaken me for Sweaty Yeti.

You answered your own question. I believe because I witnessed one. I look for answers to my own questions. I could care less about any type of trace evidence, there is already plenty around. Nothing short of documentation of the animal will do for me.

It is not my gallery. No, I do not care what pictures of what type of poo are there. I don't care.

You may have also noticed that I refused to give an interview on camera and only appear fleetingly on screen. I am not in this to be on TV.

desertgal

7th November 2009, 03:50 PM

jhunter1163

7th November 2009, 04:08 PM

@ Desertgal? You're six feet tall? That's a big lady.

@GT/CS: I grew up in Spokane and find the suggestion that Native Americans resemble apes offensive, as well.

rockinkt

7th November 2009, 04:08 PM

WGBH

7th November 2009, 04:40 PM

Well said John!
That's two honest and direct answers in two days from Bigfooters.
Too bad more of them didn't hype totally bogus garbage as valid evidence.

I can respect someone who stands on their opinion or belief and doesn't try and pretend that they are going to change the world with pseudo-science and bluster.

Thank you. Contrary to popular belief, I always tell it straight. I will not sit and let people attack me. I am tired of it. My friends are not here to defend themselves. If you do not agree with what we do or how we do it, fine. We try to the best of our ability to do what we do honestly. Of course we screw up or make mistakes. If you want to show us the right way, then by all means join us in the woods. I would welcome the help.

William Parcher

7th November 2009, 05:05 PM

Article... (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/281212)

The group has been conducting an experiment in the Catharpin area of West Virginia this year after receiving a reported sighting of a Sasquatch by building a rock pillar and leaving pennies or tickets with the pillar. They return to the site regularly to monitor the status of the pillar. They say that the rocks have been dismantled every time and the items have been removed. In a post on September 20th, the group said they returned to the site to find a penny had been replaced in the pillar.

The posting says "These experiments so far only prove one thing...either "someone" or "something" is dismantling the rock stack and taking the items left. In addition, for a penny to reappear under the stones, "someone" or "something" with hands."

The group added they would install a camera to monitor who or what has been messing with the pillar.

Story of the rock pillar. (http://sasquatchwatchofvafield.blogspot.com/)

ferd burfle

7th November 2009, 06:39 PM

[Cheech&Chong]

"Like wow, man, I heard someone saw a Bigfoot here. Pretty cool, huh?"

"Yeah, man. Hey, I got an idea. Let's do an experiment!"

"Like what, man?"

"Well, we could pile up some rocks and leave 'em for two or three weeks and come back and see what happened!"

"Hey, no offense man, but that's a pretty lame experiment."

"Yeah, you're right, it needs something more, man. Hey, I know! I've got a penny we could put on top of the rocks."

"Wow, man, now that's pretty scientific!"

"I know, huh?"

"Yeah, cuz if the rocks are different and they had a penny on top, that'll mean something!"

"Wow, man. Science is pretty cool."

[/Cheech&Chong]

With apologies to C&C, who could never have come up with this, no matter how baked.

Vortigern99

7th November 2009, 06:48 PM

I fail to understand what the group thinks this proves. That BF is mischievous and/or enjoys collecting bright shiny objects? That unseen powers are at play?

[Dr. Peter Venkman]No human being would ever take pennies from a pile of rocks.[/Dr. Peter Venkman]

WGBH

7th November 2009, 07:03 PM

Well, by placing a camera on it. I think he hopes to get a picture of whoever or whatever is messing around the rock stack. Do you mean what is the rock stack for? They have been found in areas of supposed activity. Kind of like stick structures.

kitakaze

7th November 2009, 07:46 PM

I don't need to give a reason for critically minded people to consider the concept of Bigfoot in any location. You act like I need to convert the beliefs of people. Believe what you want to. I am not here to preach for the church of Bigfoot. You have mistaken me for Sweaty Yeti.

You answered your own question. I believe because I witnessed one. I look for answers to my own questions. I could care less about any type of trace evidence, there is already plenty around. Nothing short of documentation of the animal will do for me.

It is not my gallery. No, I do not care what pictures of what type of poo are there. I don't care.

You may have also noticed that I refused to give an interview on camera and only appear fleetingly on screen. I am not in this to be on TV.

I can not argue with that, nor would I want to. These are probably questions more appropriate for Billy.

For Billy Willard:

Billy, you've got a stomper, bear poo, and horse manure in your Bigfoot trace evidence gallery.

WGBH

7th November 2009, 07:49 PM

I can not argue with that, nor would I want to. These are probably questions more appropriate for Billy.

For Billy Willard:

Billy, you've got a stomper, bear poo, and horse manure in your Bigfoot trace evidence gallery.

Kit, you know Billy hardly posts on the internet. I will relay the message.
BTW, what's a stomper?

kitakaze

7th November 2009, 07:51 PM

Kit, you know Billy hardly posts on the internet. I will relay the message.
BTW, what's a stomper?

Like a fake foot.

WGBH

7th November 2009, 08:09 PM

Like a fake foot.

Oh, He has a copy of a Patty casting from Bluff creek. He must have put up a picture of it on the web site.

He does have a few castings he made of prints he personally found in VA. The toe definition is not good. They are 15 inches long and 6 inches wide.

I have a picture of both of them side by side on my face book page, i think.

I will ask him if he knows about the bear and horse poop.

makaya325

8th November 2009, 07:59 AM

In the WVPBS documentary at around 16:15 of the video Bill Willard of Sasquatch Watch talks about what Bigfoot might be. He says that maybe Bigfoot is an undiscovered Native American tribe of people or a North American ape. He then says that there are more out there theories concerning UFO's and dimensional portals. Bigfoot the lost Native American tribe is not an out there theory? Is there another native tribe or any group of Homo sapiens that are seven to ten feet tall, completely hirsute, use no technology whatsoever, are capable of infrasound, have midtarsal breaks, etc, etc?

Reported, while accidently, you equated Natives to apes? Come on

kitakaze

8th November 2009, 09:26 AM

WGBH

8th November 2009, 02:14 PM

I dunno, it belongs to another researcher not in our group. I can ask Billy. but i think some of it was sent to Fahrenbach...Oy!

kitakaze

8th November 2009, 06:18 PM

I dunno, it belongs to another researcher not in our group. I can ask Billy. but i think some of it was sent to Fahrenbach...Oy!

:D

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1310 Oops.

kitakaze

8th November 2009, 06:19 PM

So John, what food resources and habitats do you think the Bigfoots are using in the Virginias?

WGBH

8th November 2009, 07:04 PM

:D

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1310 Oops.

...yup

WGBH

8th November 2009, 07:05 PM

So John, what food resources and habitats do you think the Bigfoots are using in the Virginias?

Oreos and wal-marts

makaya325

8th November 2009, 10:14 PM

I dunno, it belongs to another researcher not in our group. I can ask Billy. but i think some of it was sent to Fahrenbach...Oy!

Please, don't make fun of Henner. He is light years ahead of you on this subject.

makaya325

8th November 2009, 10:25 PM

Kitz is trying to bait John and setting him up to be made fun of.

LTC8K6

8th November 2009, 10:52 PM

Oreos and wal-marts

If you are going to use Oreos as bait on your next expedition, you can count me in... :D

kitakaze

8th November 2009, 10:54 PM

Oreos and wal-marts

See, John, this is one of the reasons I like you. You always give me such nice setups. Here is the perfect opportunity for me to share one of my very most bestest websites with everbody. The wonderful, the fabulous, the awe-inspiring, the terrifying...

peopleofwalmart.com (http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/)

A collection of all the creatures that grace us with their presence at Walmart, America's favorite store.

Grab yourself a six pack (beer, mountain dew, whatever) and some bleach for your eyes and get ready to enjoy America's best... :eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:boxedin::covereyes

William Parcher

9th November 2009, 12:34 AM

WGBH

9th November 2009, 06:38 AM

John, just curious - on the Sasquatch Watch website in the Trace Evidence Gallery the first photo is a giant clomp of apparently Bigfoot hair. Hot damn, that's a lot of hair. This was tested for DNA, yes?

Talked to Billy about the hair. He said the hair was sent out to 3 different labs by the investigator who owns it. 2 to match the hair and one to determine the nutrition intake from the animal. He is not at liberty (not his place) to publically comment the details, but they were inconclusive and not of very much use.

He said he knows that the poo pictures are from known animals.

WGBH

9th November 2009, 06:42 AM

See, John, this is one of the reasons I like you. You always give me such nice setups. Here is the perfect opportunity for me to share one of my very most bestest websites with everbody. The wonderful, the fabulous, the awe-inspiring, the terrifying...

peopleofwalmart.com (http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/)

Grab yourself a six pack (beer, mountain dew, whatever) and some bleach for your eyes and get ready to enjoy America's best... :eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:boxedin::covereyes

That is funny! But I really do not know why you want me answer that question AGAIN. Many of you have posted the caloric intake requirements for a animal of that reported size. And the hypothosis that it would not be able to sustain itself. Many disagree.

WGBH

9th November 2009, 06:50 AM

Henner Fahrenbach made the mistake of saying or implying that Bigfoot is real. This is kind of sad, and I am wondering what to do and think about it.

Just let it go. Let him live out his life. Leave it alone. Let him have that. It's ok. Let it go. Respect for another man involves letting them have their stuff. Let them keep what they want including things like security blankets. You must do this. You must allow people like Henner to have their Bigfoots. Makaya needs or wants them too.

How can we have a society that understands reality and its creatures and yet has makayas and Henners declaring or begging for more animals than the world actually contains? Is the real world not enough for them?

I also have a problem that some send Dr. Fahrenbach hair samples to identify and it is not really even his specialty. He does it more as a "hobby". I do not have a need to allow any free passes to anyone. Including myself. We do send Dr. Fahrenbach samples, but we also send the same samples to other sources.

In that last paragraph, you came across as closed minded.

I understand the need for the evidence to be scrutinized by non romantic scientists.

WGBH

9th November 2009, 06:52 AM

If you are going to use Oreos as bait on your next expedition, you can count me in... :D

I never go out on expedition without my oreos, but you need to bring your own.

WGBH

9th November 2009, 06:59 AM

Please, don't make fun of Henner. He is light years ahead of you on this subject.

IMO,Henner is a romantic who sees Bigfoot behind every tree. The same way with Bindernagel, who I have had a personal conversation with at the round-up. I prefer my scientists to be more scientific and not so romantic. But, there is a fine line of being too negative.This is not about belief, this is about getting PROOF.

WGBH

9th November 2009, 07:00 AM

Kitz is trying to bait John and setting him up to be made fun of.

And I will tell him to get in line and take a number.

makaya325

9th November 2009, 08:27 AM

Henner is no more romantic than most researchers. Perhaps he is tired of people saying "no, it can't exist"?

LTC8K6

9th November 2009, 08:47 AM

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/culture/2008/10/30/everythings-bigfoot-in-texas.html

Henner is a nutcase of the highest order, imo.

makaya325

9th November 2009, 10:12 AM

In your opinion, that is. He simply took reports people gave too him, and presented it to the best of his ability. There is nothing wrong with that. At least he knows that there is something out there that you do not know exists, due to his experiences with nature, which triumphs many members here. Also, Vanity fair has been known to be biased and cherry picky.

WGBH

9th November 2009, 11:01 AM

I was not aware that this thread was about Dr. Fahrenbach. Isn't there already a thread for that?

makaya325

9th November 2009, 11:03 AM

WP, please, do not classify me as a different kind of human, No need for classifications here. I am quite satisfied with all of the species we know of so far.

desertgal

9th November 2009, 01:20 PM

<snip> Also, Vanity fair has been known to be biased and cherry picky.

"Cherry picky"? :rolleyes:

You have no clue what you are talking about. Please provide evidence that Vanity Fair has this reputation.

makaya325

9th November 2009, 01:40 PM

Just look at the genre. It is specifically celebrity gossip.

desertgal

9th November 2009, 02:20 PM

Just look at the genre. It is specifically celebrity gossip.

Again, you prove that you don't know what you are talking about, and have obviously never read Vanity Fair.

Please provide evidence that Vanity Fair, specifically, is biased and "cherry picky". Just one article. Show us how they cherry picked in just one article. Put your money where your mouth is and back up your statement.

ETA: For that matter, please direct us to a link that shows that Vanity Fair is specifically celebrity gossip and nothing else. I'd like to see that.

GT/CS

9th November 2009, 02:22 PM

Just look at the genre. It is specifically celebrity gossip.

So again you fail to provide any evidence to back up your claim. And since you have no evidence we must declare your response to be total nonsense.

CreatureSeeker

29th November 2009, 04:48 PM

So Native Americans resemble large apes? That's just lovely.

While I'm not NA I grew up in Eastern Washington near and on the Colville Indian Reservation. I have many NA friends and for their sake I take extreme offense to such a theory.

John, I sincerely hope you do not share Bill's supremely ignorant ideas.

GT/CS, you seem to demonstrate the very ignorance you profess to loathe. I watched the WVPBS segment and noWHeRE does Mr. Willard ever say that "Native Americans resemble large apes." This is just your twisted interpretation of what was stated.

You should pay closer attention. In the Dolly Sods segment, Mr. Willard shares some theories about what the sasquatch creature might be. Mr. Willard did not develop this theory that the Sasquatch species might be a long lost Indian Tribe, he merely talks about some prevailing theories of the origin of Sasquatch.

I think you'll find you'd be offended a lot less, if you make the effort to apply critical listening skills.

-CS

GT/CS

29th November 2009, 05:20 PM

CreatureSeeker

29th November 2009, 05:28 PM

I find it curious and enlightening that my fairly insignificant post is the first one you respond to.

Very interesting.

I'm glad we both agree on something...

kitakaze

29th November 2009, 06:22 PM

GT/CS, you seem to demonstrate the very ignorance you profess to loathe. I watched the WVPBS segment and noWHeRE does Mr. Willard ever say that "Native Americans resemble large apes." This is just your twisted interpretation of what was stated.

You should pay closer attention. In the Dolly Sods segment, Mr. Willard shares some theories about what the sasquatch creature might be. Mr. Willard did not develop this theory that the Sasquatch species might be a long lost Indian Tribe, he merely talks about some prevailing theories of the origin of Sasquatch.

I think you'll find you'd be offended a lot less, if you make the effort to apply critical listening skills.

-CS

CreatureSeeker, welcome to the JREF.

Billy Willard is not an idiot. He's a pleasant fellow who unfortunately happens to think Bigfoot is real. Can't be all bad, gives him purpose and a mission, as well as a tight crew of buddies to role with.

Billy did not say "Native Americans resemble large apes." Please go to 16:15 of this video and review...

Iuf1Z8-Fl3M

He said, "I could accept that this thing is human. Some type of a... whether it's a undiscovered Native American tribe of people. I can accept that this thing is some kind of North American ape that just simply hasn't been documented yet."

This is followed by him outlining what he perceives as the more out there theories. He then says, "I think this thing is flesh and blood, whether it's human or more ape..."

I am certainly not going to call racist on Billy. Billy was simply attempting to inform the interviewer about some of the beliefs about Bigfoot and where he was coming from, that they are not paranormal entities. I think Billy had a simple brain fart, though. Lost Native American tribe? Whaaa? There is a cohesive tribe of people that move about throughout America and Canada and are massive hirsute beasts with many inhuman features?

That struck me when Billy offhandedly suggested the notion and seemed ironic that it wouldn't strike him as out there. Some Bigfoot enthusiasts debate whether Bigfoot is related to some kind of early hominid in the lineage that led to Homo sapiens such as the Australopithecines or is an ape tha convergently evolved bipedalism such as Meldrum suggests with Gigantopithecus. Smart Bigfooters should know it is really silly to talk about Homo neanderthalensis or Homo erectus and Bigfoot since our ancestors have not been hirsute since before Homo ergaster.

Billy dropping that lost Native American tribe thing was like oops, what are you talking about, man? He just wasn't really thinking through what he was saying. Once again, I don't care how much inbreeding you're talking about, a lost tribe does not exist all over the North American continent and look like giant monster beasts.

desertgal

29th November 2009, 06:35 PM

GT/CS, you seem to demonstrate the very ignorance you profess to loathe. I watched the WVPBS segment and noWHeRE does Mr. Willard ever say that "Native Americans resemble large apes." This is just your twisted interpretation of what was stated. <snip>

GT/CS did not state that Mr. Willard said that "Native Americans resemble large apes". GT/CS was inquiring for clarification about a post made by Kitakaze (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5287030&postcount=17).

---

WGBH

29th November 2009, 06:45 PM

How's it going, mak?

If you are trying to infer that Creatureseeker is Makaya. That is not the case.

desertgal

29th November 2009, 06:47 PM

If you are trying to infer that Creatureseeker is Makaya. That is not the case.

Okay. I apologize.

CreatureSeeker

29th November 2009, 07:31 PM

GT/CS did not state that Mr. Willard said that "Native Americans resemble large apes". GT/CS was inquiring for clarification
---

Desertgal, if you read GT/CS's post #20, he does state that his interpretation of what Mr. Willard said was that Native Americans resemble Sasquatches. GT/CS also goes on to state that he is offended by that.

The problem I have with that is that Mr. Willard never said that Native Americans resemble Sasquatches. GT/CS totally made that up.

WGBH

29th November 2009, 07:38 PM

Billy's southern accent can sometimes be difficult for some. As Kitakaze said Billy is a pleasant man who would never try to offend anyone. It was all just lost in translation. I think everyone here can agree on that. It is now a non-issue.

CreatureSeeker

29th November 2009, 07:50 PM

Billy dropping that lost Native American tribe thing was like oops, what are you talking about, man? He just wasn't really thinking through what he was saying. Once again, I don't care how much inbreeding you're talking about, a lost tribe does not exist all over the North American continent and look like giant monster beasts.

GT/CS, Mr. Willard was not the first person to mention the theory that Sasquatch might be from lost tribe of Native Americans. The theory was formally published in an Indian National Weekly Publication in 1924 by a man named Jorge Totsgi. Totsgi was the Clallam Tribal Editor of a publication called "The Real American". Totsgi was a Native American representing the Clallam Tribe in the state of Washington. The Clallams believed that the Sasquatch were from a tribe of Native Americans called the "Seahtiks" who settled in the Pacific Northwest. Whether you prescribe to this theory or not is totally up to you. That is your perogative. My point is this... All Mr. Willard can be accused of is mentioning some theories of the origins of Sasquatch and he certainly did not commit any faux paus of the nature that you suggest.

If you feel you must be indignant that this theory exists, perhaps you should direct your misgivings to the Clallam Tribe.

GT/CS

29th November 2009, 07:55 PM

CreatureSeeker

29th November 2009, 08:07 PM

Why do you keep harping on this and why are you addressing it to me?

I really have no more interest in this and it is off-topic. If you want to discuss this with me please send a PM.

If this thread is off -topic, it's because you introduced it. I was merely responding to your post #78. If you insist on making patently false allegations in a public forum, why can't we follow it up with discussion? Isn't critical thinking what this forum is all about?

desertgal

29th November 2009, 08:10 PM

If this thread is off -topic, it's because you introduced it. I was merely responding to your post #78. If you insist on making patently false allegations in a public forum, why can't we follow it up with discussion? Isn't critical thinking what this forum is all about?

GT/CS didn't write post #78 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5358575&postcount=78). :confused:

WGBH

29th November 2009, 08:12 PM

If you are unsure who is making a post. Look to the box on the left. :D

CreatureSeeker

29th November 2009, 08:16 PM

GT/CS didn't write

Desertgal, you are absolutely right. My apologies. Just to clarify, My last post was directed to BOTH GT/CS AND Kitakaze.

CreatureSeeker

29th November 2009, 08:17 PM

If you are unsure who is making a post. Look to the box on the left. :D

Thank you, Helpy Helperton...

desertgal

29th November 2009, 08:18 PM

Desertgal, if you read GT/CS's post #20, he does state that his interpretation of what Mr. Willard said was that Native Americans resemble Sasquatches. GT/CS also goes on to state that he is offended by that.

The problem I have with that is that Mr. Willard never said that Native Americans resemble Sasquatches. GT/CS totally made that up.

I believe that GT/CS was making a tongue in cheek response to Kitakaze's post.

CreatureSeeker

29th November 2009, 08:19 PM

I believe that GT/CS was making a tongue in cheek response to Kitakaze's post.

Hey Desertgal, are you throwing Kitakaze under the bus? LOL!

desertgal

29th November 2009, 08:21 PM

Hey Desertgal, are you throwing Kitakaze under the bus? LOL!

Not intentionally. Maybe under a bicycle, but never a bus. :D

CreatureSeeker

29th November 2009, 08:24 PM

Not intentionally. Maybe under a bicycle, but never a bus. :D

In the old days, you would throw people under the bus. Nowadays, it's more in fashion to throw them under bicycles. Go GREEN! LOL!

WGBH

29th November 2009, 08:26 PM

Thank you, Helpy Helperton...

Anything to help the special people. :D

kitakaze

29th November 2009, 10:15 PM

GT/CS, Mr. Willard was not the first person to mention the theory that Sasquatch might be from lost tribe of Native Americans. The theory was formally published in an Indian National Weekly Publication in 1924 by a man named Jorge Totsgi. Totsgi was the Clallam Tribal Editor of a publication called "The Real American". Totsgi was a Native American representing the Clallam Tribe in the state of Washington. The Clallams believed that the Sasquatch were from a tribe of Native Americans called the "Seahtiks" who settled in the Pacific Northwest. Whether you prescribe to this theory or not is totally up to you. That is your perogative. My point is this... All Mr. Willard can be accused of is mentioning some theories of the origins of Sasquatch and he certainly did not commit any faux paus of the nature that you suggest.

If you feel you must be indignant that this theory exists, perhaps you should direct your misgivings to the Clallam Tribe.

Yes, CreatureSeeker, I agree with you that Billy didn't come up with the notion that Bigfoots may have been a lost Native American tribe. Maybe it came from his fellow Sasquatch Watch Bigfoot enthusiast, Bruce Harrington, who is native. That Bruce fellow is interesting. He seems to want to call himself a skeptic for some reason. You see him here in the youtube video at 14:19 and wow, he's flexing some skepticism...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuf1Z8-Fl3M&feature=player_embedded#

He's trotting out the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Bigfooters cling to that one. Yeah, unfortunately having no type specimen nor a single shred of reliable evidence is a pretty good indicator that there are no Bigfoots or Reptoids or whatever silly thing people with the woo pretend are real.

Now as to your reference to "Jorge Totsgi" and "Seahtiks", you mean Jorg Totsgi and Seeahtlk. If you have Robert Michael Pyle's Where Bigfoot Walks: Crossing the Dark Divide, flip it open to page 131 and 132 to see what I am talking about. The Clallam do not have any Bigfoot in their mythology nor are the Seeahtlk considered by the Clallam to be Bigfoot. Apparently the Seeahtlks come from the island where I am from...

Henry Napoleon of the Clallam Tribe is the only Indian who was ever invited to the home of the Seeahtik Tribe. It was while Napoleon was visiting relatives on the British Columbia coast about thirty years ago, [that would have made the year roughly 1895] that he met a Seeahtik while hunting. The giant Indian then invited him to their home, which is in the very heart of the wilderness on Vancouver Island. Napolean claims they live in a large cave. He was treated with every courtesy and told some of their secrets. He claims that the giant Indians made themselves invisible by strange medicine that they rub over their bodies and that they were able to cause great fear by hypnotic power and had the gift of ventriloquism, to mimic the owl and throw their voices.

That is from The Seattle Times, date July 16th 1924. Some Bigfooters think that Seattle got it's name from the legend of the Seeahtlk. In reality Seattle comes from pioneer and doctor, David Swinson Maynard who suggested it as the anglicized version of Sealth, the name of the chief of the two local tribes.

I invite you to discuss whether or not the Clallam had traditions regarding Bigfoot with me in the appropriate thread here...

Native American myths/traditions support Bigfoot? A critical look. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104878)

CreatureSeeker

29th November 2009, 10:52 PM

He's trotting out the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Bigfooters cling to that one.

So do those who practice logic.

Yeah, unfortunately having no type specimen nor a single shred of reliable evidence is a pretty good indicator that there are no Bigfoots or Reptoids or whatever silly thing people with the woo pretend are real.

Nope. having no evidence is actually a good indicator that we have no evidence and that the existence of such creatures is inconclusive.

The Clallam do not have any Bigfoot in their mythology nor are the Seeahtlk considered by the Clallam to be Bigfoot.

Obviously. but what the Clallam Indians do claim is that the Seahtiks are 7-8 feet tall and covered with hair and that the Seahtiks may be mistaken for what people have come to know as Sasquatch.

Apparently the Seeahtlks come from the island where I am from...

Hmm.. you don't say...

That is from The Seattle Times, date July 16th 1924. Some Bigfooters think that Seattle got it's name from the legend of the Seeahtlk. In reality Seattle comes from pioneer and doctor, David Swinson Maynard who suggested it as the anglicized version of Sealth, the name of the chief of the two local tribes.

Who cares. We're not talking about the origins of the name Seattle. I think you should start another thread on that.

I invite you to discuss whether or not the Clallam had traditions regarding Bigfoot with me in the appropriate thread here...

No thanks. The original argument was never about whether the Clallams had bigfoot in their mythology. The original argument was why you would allege that Mr. Willard was saying that Native Americans look like sasquatch when Mr. Willard never said that. He was merely referring to the Clallam legends of the Seahtik.

Marduk

29th November 2009, 11:50 PM

So do those who practice logic.
having no evidence is actually a good indicator that we have no evidence and that the existence of such creatures is inconclusive.

having no evidence is a good indicator that there is no supporting evidence, how you manage to make that the opposite of what it should be is not logic, its belief
;)

kitakaze

29th November 2009, 11:50 PM

So do those who practice logic.

Nope. having no evidence is actually a good indicator that we have no evidence and that the existence of such creatures is inconclusive.

Yes, I can say that there is no reliable evidence of Reptoids and thus the existence of said creatures is inconclusive, but for people free from fortean addiction, when you have a scenario such as having no precedent for a massive land mammal to live across two of the world's most industrialized nation without a type specimen, it's not really a problem.

You can have your inconclusive status on Bigfoots, Reptoids, Mongolian Death Worms, or whatever your particlular brand of crypto foo foo is, but as far as sciences such as biology and zoology are concerned, there are no such things. Until you have a type specimen, those things are myth and folklore.

Obviously. but what the Clallam Indians do claim is that the Seahtiks are 7-8 feet tall and covered with hair and that the Seahtiks may be mistaken for what people have come to know as Sasquatch.

Do the Clallam say the Seeahtlk are hair covered? You mean like Chewbacca hairy as Bigfoot is most commonly described? Are you sure it's not hairy? Like as in how Ainu are relatively hairy compared to the majority of Japanese. I'd like some proof of that. Maybe whomever filled Billy's head with lost Native American tribe gobbledy-gook can help out. You know, these things can get lost in translation, especially when you have Bigfoot enthusiasts doing the translations.

No thanks. The original argument was never about whether the Clallams had bigfoot in their mythology. The original argument was why you would allege that Mr. Willard was saying that Native Americans look like sasquatch when Mr. Willard never said that. He was merely referring to the Clallam legends of the Seahtik.

I'm sorry, are you talking to me or this guy?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/896148ab9e2ca5757.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13469)

Because I'm certianly not the one that said Billy was saying Native Americans look like Bigfoot. I'm the one saying the idea of Bigfoot being a lost tribe of Native Americans is foo foo and certainly out there considering that unless you're Andre The Giant with hypertrichosis, no human is going to a good candidate for Bigfoot.

Do you have something more interesting to discuss or is it just going to be this quibble and bits? Maybe we could discuss Sasquatch Watch and Bigfoot in the Virginias or some such crazy thing.

LTC8K6

30th November 2009, 12:15 AM

The idea that it was a wild human Indian leaving the prints goes right back to the very days of Jerry Crew and the beginning of the term "bigfoot". Bob Titmus thought the tracks were from a "wild" hairy human Indian raised in the wilderness.

CreatureSeeker

30th November 2009, 12:24 AM

Yes, I can say that there is no reliable evidence of Reptoids and thus the existence of said creatures is inconclusive, but for people free from fortean addiction, when you have a scenario such as having no precedent for a massive land mammal to live across two of the world's most industrialized nation without a type specimen, it's not really a problem.

You can have your inconclusive status on Bigfoots, Reptoids, Mongolian Death Worms, or whatever your particlular brand of crypto foo foo is, but as far as sciences such as biology and zoology are concerned, there are no such things. Until you have a type specimen, those things are myth and folklore.

I agree with you. The existence of Bigfoots, Reptoids and Mongolian Death Worms is inconclusive.

Do the Clallam say the Seeahtlk are hair covered? You mean like Chewbacca hairy as Bigfoot is most commonly described? Are you sure it's not hairy? Like as in how Ainu are relatively hairy compared to the majority of Japanese. I'd like some proof of that. Maybe whomever filled Billy's head with lost Native American tribe gobbledy-gook can help out. You know, these things can get lost in translation, especially when you have Bigfoot enthusiasts doing the translations.

Yeah, actually the Clallams do claim that the Seahtik are hair covered. They don't really say in the article what percentage of the body is covered with hair. I don't know if Jorg Totsgi, the Clallam tribe member who talked about the Seahtiks was a bigfoot enthusiast or not.

Because I'm certianly not the one that said Billy was saying Native Americans look like Bigfoot. I'm the one saying the idea of Bigfoot being a lost tribe of Native Americans is foo foo and certainly out there considering that unless you're Andre The Giant with hypertrichosis, no human is going to a good candidate for Bigfoot.

I agree. I doubt that the Seahtiks are the bigfoot of lore; it's just one of the many theories floating around out there. Also, I don't believe I ever said that you were the one who said that Mr. Willard likened Native Americans to Sasquatch. Did I?

Do you have something more interesting to discuss or is it just going to be this quibble and bits? Maybe we could discuss Sasquatch Watch and Bigfoot in the Virginias or some such crazy thing.

I thought we were discussing Sasquatch Watch and Bigfoot in the Virginias. By the way, my Sasquatch Watch is a Casio.

It's funny how you guys introduce a topic in this thread and then don't want to have any discussions on it.

kitakaze

30th November 2009, 12:53 AM

I agree with you. The existence of Bigfoots, Reptoids and Mongolian Death Worms is inconclusive.

That's great. Inconclusive does not equate some amorphous 50/50 hmmm maybe Bigfoot really is real situation. Bigfoots, Reptoids, and Mongolian share the same situation, they have jack for reliable evidence. Bigfoot keeps acting like a social construct and not a real mammal. All the real mammals living today in North America we have a type specimen for. Care to put a percentage value on the likelihood of Bigfoot existing? And how about for it existing in WV?

Yeah, actually the Clallams do claim that the Seahtik are hair covered. They don't really say in the article what percentage of the body is covered with hair. I don't know if Jorg Totsgi, the Clallam tribe member who talked about the Seahtiks was a bigfoot enthusiast or not.

I'm sorry, I don't do well with just-trust-me statements. Can I see some evidence that the Clallam believed the Seeahtlk tribe was completely hirsute and not just hairy? As you can see from my thread, I examine claims of Bigfoot in native folklore in great detail.

I agree. I doubt that the Seahtiks are the bigfoot of lore; it's just one of the many theories floating around out there. Also, I don't believe I ever said that you were the one who said that Mr. Willard likened Native Americans to Sasquatch. Did I?

Yes, you did. That's what the bold and italics was for in my previous post was clearly emphasizing. Here, I'll do it again...

The original argument was why you would allege that Mr. Willard was saying that Native Americans look like sasquatch when Mr. Willard never said that. He was merely referring to the Clallam legends of the Seahtik.

Note the particular use of the word "you" when addressed to me.

I thought we were discussing Sasquatch Watch and Bigfoot in the Virginias. By the way, my Sasquatch Watch is a Casio.

It's funny how you guys introduce a topic in this thread and then don't want to have any discussions on it.

If you had read this thread, you should have noted the links I provided to a detailed examination I made of claims of Bigfoot sightings in WV long before this thread was created. You can conclude from that, that I am most willing to discuss Bigfoot in WV. Is there some reliable evidence of Bigfoot in WV that you think skeptics would be scared of talking about? Because I'd love to see it.

BTW, CreatureSeeker, do you belong to any Bigfoot enthusiast organizations such as Sasquatch Watch of Virginia?

CreatureSeeker

30th November 2009, 09:11 AM

Bigfoot keeps acting like a social construct and not a real mammal.

The evidence about what Bigfoot is is inconclusive and as such, we can not say whether bigfoot is a mammal or not.

All the real mammals living today in North America we have a type specimen for. Care to put a percentage value on the likelihood of Bigfoot existing? And how about for it existing in WV?

I would say that the percentage is more than 0 and less than 100.

I'm sorry, I don't do well with just-trust-me statements. Can I see some evidence that the Clallam believed the Seeahtlk tribe was completely hirsute and not just hairy? As you can see from my thread, I examine claims of Bigfoot in native folklore in great detail.

Sure, No problem. Enjoy.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/legends/seeahtik.htm

Yes, you did. That's what the bold and italics was for in my previous post was clearly emphasizing. Here, I'll do it again...

Note the particular use of the word "you" when addressed to me.

You're right. Now that I reread your original post, it is not clear exactly what you were trying to say.

If you had read this thread, you should have noted the links I provided to a detailed examination I made of claims of Bigfoot sightings in WV long before this thread was created. You can conclude from that, that I am most willing to discuss Bigfoot in WV. Is there some reliable evidence of Bigfoot in WV that you think skeptics would be scared of talking about? Because I'd love to see it.

reliable evidence is what bigfoot researchers are after. LOl!

BTW, CreatureSeeker, do you belong to any Bigfoot enthusiast organizations such as Sasquatch Watch of Virginia?

I have a triple AAA membership, but I wouldn't call it a bigfoot enthusiast organizations. That's irrelevant anyway. Stick to the arguments, Mister.

kitakaze

30th November 2009, 05:03 PM

The evidence about what Bigfoot is is inconclusive and as such, we can not say whether bigfoot is a mammal or not.

Yes, that's right. The evidence about what Reptoids are is inconclusive and as such, we can not say whether they are the ancestor of a Troodontid theropod dinosaur or maybe some unknown Dromaeosaurid or maybe something completely unkown altogether.

Bigfoot may be some kind of new marsupial, some type of phase fluxing quantum foo foo something, or maybe a mammal.

Meanwhile, in the 21st Century of North America where massive land mammals with coast to coast habitats are concerned, the absence of evidence is good evidence of absence. You can hold your finger up defiantly and talk about inconclusive blah blah blah, but until you have a type specimen or at the very least some reliable evidence, your only audience is a bunch of footers.

I would say that the percentage is more than 0 and less than 100.

That's quite forthright of you. Given that I have no reservations about stating my views clearly, I will say that I would put the likelihood of Bigfoot existing at somewhere around 0.001% - 1%. For all intents and purposes, it's a near certainty. The only reason I did not say 0% is to allow for the introduction of better evidence. Nevertheless, AFAIC, Bigfoot does not exist.

Sure, No problem. Enjoy.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/legends/seeahtik.htm

Hey, neato. I see you are providing me a link which I just previously quoted from for you. Remember...

Henry Napoleon of the Clallam Tribe is the only Indian who was ever invited to the home of the Seeahtik Tribe. It was while Napoleon was visiting relatives on the British Columbia coast about thirty years ago, [that would have made the year roughly 1895] that he met a Seeahtik while hunting. The giant Indian then invited him to their home, which is in the very heart of the wilderness on Vancouver Island. Napolean claims they live in a large cave. He was treated with every courtesy and told some of their secrets. He claims that the giant Indians made themselves invisible by strange medicine that they rub over their bodies and that they were able to cause great fear by hypnotic power and had the gift of ventriloquism, to mimic the owl and throw their voices.

Yes, that Bigfoot Encounters link has the Seeahtlk having hairy bodies like the bear...

"As described by the Clallam Indians, the Seeahtiks are seven to eight feet tall. They have hairy bodies like the bear. They are great hypnotists, and kill their game by stunning them with hypnotic power. They also have a gift of ventriloquism, throwing their voices at great distances and can imitate any bird in the Northwest. They have a very keen sense of humor," Totsgi added.

The thing is that I would really need some confirmation that Totsgi didn't fit the translation to his ideas. I'm not seeing the Seeahtlk as being anything more than a Klallam legend about a magical tribe of people. All the sources I try to find from the outset are Bigfoot enthusiast in nature. However, you have already said you don't think the Seeahtlk were supposed to be Bigfoot in origin.

You're right. Now that I reread your original post, it is not clear exactly what you were trying to say.

I'm sorry, was that a switcheroo or are you confused? You attributed someone else's statements to me, said that you didn't think you did, and after being shown again that you did, say that maybe you really did mean to attribute GT's statements to me. Whaaa?

Yeah, it's pretty clear what I was saying...

In the WVPBS documentary at around 16:15 of the video Bill Willard of Sasquatch Watch talks about what Bigfoot might be. He says that maybe Bigfoot is an undiscovered Native American tribe of people or a North American ape. He then says that there are more out there theories concerning UFO's and dimensional portals. Bigfoot the lost Native American tribe is not an out there theory? Is there another native tribe or any group of Homo sapiens that are seven to ten feet tall, completely hirsute, use no technology whatsoever, are capable of infrasound, have midtarsal breaks, etc, etc?

Considering the possibility of Bigfoot being a lost tribe of humans is also an out there theory. That would be exactly what that was saying. Any further quibbles or can we move on?

reliable evidence is what bigfoot researchers are after. LOl!

That neither addresses the fact that counter to what you said, as you can clearly see in this thread, I have researched claims of Bigfoot living in West Virginia nor have you introduced any reason to think Bigfoot does live there. And you are the one complaining we are not discussing it while quibbling non sequiturs.

I have a triple AAA membership, but I wouldn't call it a bigfoot enthusiast organizations. That's irrelevant anyway. Stick to the arguments, Mister.

No, I think it's relevant. You see, I'm pretty certain I'm talking to a certian native Sasquatch Watch guy who feigns skepticism and thus, I can expect your arguments to be based on your affiliations. Like the fact that the first thing you do here his quibble about what is really a non issue about what Billy does or does not think regarding native tribes and Bigfoot. There is also the fact that you're not really introducing any relevant arguments about whether or not there are bigfoots in WV. You seem quite content to insist on the the inconclusiveness of Bigfoot evidence and absence of evidence not being evidence of absence. Yeah, I know who I'm talking to and what arguments they are going to bring.

CreatureSeeker

30th November 2009, 07:55 PM

You can hold your finger up defiantly and talk about inconclusive blah blah blah, but until you have a type specimen or at the very least some reliable evidence, your only audience is a bunch of footers.

I'm not worried about audiences. I'm here to discuss ideas. If you want audiences, you should go into show biz.

That's quite forthright of you. Given that I have no reservations about stating my views clearly, I will say that I would put the likelihood of Bigfoot existing at somewhere around 0.001% - 1%. For all intents and purposes, it's a near certainty. The only reason I did not say 0% is to allow for the introduction of better evidence. Nevertheless, AFAIC, Bigfoot does not exist.

In your opinion.

However, you have already said you don't think the Seeahtlk were supposed to be Bigfoot in origin.

It's the classic chicken and egg dilemma. Were the bigfoot confused with the Seahtiks or were the Seahtiks confused with the bigfoot?

I'm sorry, was that a switcheroo or are you confused? You attributed someone else's statements to me, said that you didn't think you did, and after being shown again that you did, say that maybe you really did mean to attribute GT's statements to me. Whaaa?

Yeah, it's pretty clear what I was saying...

STill don't know what you are trying to say.

Considering the possibility of Bigfoot being a lost tribe of humans is also an out there theory. That would be exactly what that was saying. Any further quibbles or can we move on?

How farfetched the "lost tribe theory" of bigfoot is is purely subjective.

That neither addresses the fact that counter to what you said, as you can clearly see in this thread, I have researched claims of Bigfoot living in West Virginia nor have you introduced any reason to think Bigfoot does live there. And you are the one complaining we are not discussing it while quibbling non sequiturs.

Yes, You seem to be an armchair researcher. Unfortunately, that sort of "research" has its limitations.

No, I think it's relevant. You see, I'm pretty certain I'm talking to a certian native Sasquatch Watch guy who feigns skepticism and thus, I can expect your arguments to be based on your affiliations.

You lost me here. but is most likely Irrelevant.

Like the fact that the first thing you do here his quibble about what is really a non issue about what Billy does or does not think regarding native tribes and Bigfoot. There is also the fact that you're not really introducing any relevant arguments about whether or not there are bigfoots in WV.

Nor have you brought forth any substantial counter arguments to why it is absolutely NOT possible for an unknown creature to be living in the remote areas of West Virginia.

You seem quite content to insist on the the inconclusiveness of Bigfoot evidence and absence of evidence not being evidence of absence. Yeah, I know who I'm talking to and what arguments they are going to bring.
I thought you said you were done quibbling? You seem to like that "absence of evidence" phrase a lot. You just basically repeat your arguments without answering mine, but the bottom line is that you are entitled to your opinions, even if they are based on flawed premises. You keep asking for evidence, but what you don't understand is that people who do bigfoot research are looking for hard evidence of the existence of these creatures. I agree with you that the evidence for the existence of these creatures is very thin, but that doesn't "prove" the creatures don't exist. History is replete with instances of "accepted" theories being proved wrong, especially in the animal kingdom. So you can continue to make fun of paranormal researchers, but that is just an avoidance of the realization that you do not have all the answers. Perhaps that is why it is such a scary concept for some people.

kitakaze

30th November 2009, 10:14 PM

I'm not worried about audiences. I'm here to discuss ideas. If you want audiences, you should go into show biz.

Having an audience is my job but nevermind that. Tell me, why does science not take Bigfoot seriously?

In your opinion.

Yeah, it's pretty common. Tell me, putting aside the vague routine, would you care to actually let us know whether or not you think Bigfoot exists?

It's the classic chicken and egg dilemma. Were the bigfoot confused with the Seahtiks or were the Seahtiks confused with the bigfoot?

There's no chickens and no eggs. There are footers hijacking things like Klallam folklore to fit their woo fantasies. We see that happen a lot.

How farfetched the "lost tribe theory" of bigfoot is is purely subjective.

Subjective? That's interesting. So it's subjective to say that Bigfoot as described is no kind of match for Homo sapiens? If so, how is that?

Yes, You seem to be an armchair researcher. Unfortunately, that sort of "research" has its limitations.

Oh yes, I research oodles of stuff from the comfort of home on a computer. I also spent all of my years growing up and early adulthood all over the wildest areas of the PNW. You may have missed where I mentioned being from Vancouver Island. You can try to get into a wilderness experience pee pee contest with me, but it wouldn't help you in any way.

You lost me here. but is most likely Irrelevant.

I'm sure you are very lost and have no idea what I'm talking about.:rolleyes: Hey, remember the native dude, Bruce, from Sasquatch Watch who was talking about absence of evidence in the video and referring to himself as a skeptic in the printed stories? That's crazy because here's Bruce at the Yakima Round-Up sitting right next to John Cartwright and take me down to Chinatown, he has the nickname "Creature Seeker"!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IICPfj0HCD0/ShOeWEaMQBI/AAAAAAAAAHo/Xle_hiRm6kQ/s1600-h/IMGP1154.JPG

That shot is from this link (http://thunderhawksbigfootblog.blogspot.com/) and has this caption under it...

"Me, Sherry (BigfootGal), Bruce (Creature Seeker), and John Cartright!"

Wooow! What a coincidence that both you and that Bruce guy from Sasquatch Watch and the video that is the subject of this thread both share the name "Creature Seeker". That's nuts. Don't you think that's nuts, unrelated CreatureSeeker person? Yes, nevermind. You have no idea what I'm talking about.:rolleyes:

I'm sure none of your opinions are going to be affected by the fact that Creature Seeker guy who is not you is a member of Sasquatch Watch.

Nor have you brought forth any substantial counter arguments to why it is absolutely NOT possible for an unknown creature to be living in the remote areas of West Virginia.

An unknown creature? Like a single creature? Oh yeah, sure. There could be like a T-Rex, a Reptoid, maybe a couple werewolves, a Beholder, who knows what. A population of giant wood apes sustaining itself successfully and maintaining a healthy breeding population while remaining uncatalogued by science? No, I'm sorry. That foo foo talk.

History is replete with instances of "accepted" theories being proved wrong, especially in the animal kingdom. So you can continue to make fun of paranormal researchers, but that is just an avoidance of the realization that you do not have all the answers. Perhaps that is why it is such a scary concept for some people.

Oh my goodness, do you want to trot out gorilla and platypus reference footer maneuvers? It's a good thing you're not that other Creature Seeker from Sasquatch Watch who calls himself a skeptic, because that would be really bad. OK, by all means, try that. We only get that about three times a month. Never gets any better. Do me a favour and see if you can fish up an analog that could serve as a precedent for where a species of massive land mammal has lived across to of the world's most industrialized nations for decades in recent history without relinquishing a type specimen. Just go ahead and fire that up if you got it.

CreatureSeeker

30th November 2009, 10:32 PM

Having an audience is my job but nevermind that. Tell me, why does science not take Bigfoot seriously?

Based on your poorly constructed posts, I take it your job is standup comedy

Yeah, it's pretty common. Tell me, putting aside the vague routine, would you care to actually let us know whether or not you think Bigfoot exists?

I don't know whether bigfoot exists. The evidence is scant and what there is of it is inconclusive.

There's no chickens and no eggs. There are footers hijacking things like Klallam folklore to fit their woo fantasies. We see that happen a lot.

Nobody's hijacking anything. It's the Klallams themselves who propose that the Seahtiks may be mistaken for bigfoot.

Subjective? That's interesting. So it's subjective to say that Bigfoot as described is no kind of match for Homo sapiens? If so, how is that?

Because that's your opinion. Other people have have different opinions. Hence the word, "subjective".

Oh yes, I research oodles of stuff from the comfort of home on a computer. I also spent all of my years growing up and early adulthood all over the wildest areas of the PNW. You may have missed where I mentioned being from Vancouver Island. You can try to get into a wilderness experience pee pee contest with me, but it wouldn't help you in any way.

I have no interest in getting into a pissing match with what you think you know. I just address the ideas that are presented in the thread. You may want to try and do the same.

I'm sure you are very lost and have no idea what I'm talking about.:rolleyes: Hey, remember the native dude, Bruce, from Sasquatch Watch who was talking about absence of evidence in the video and referring to himself as a skeptic in the printed stories? That's crazy because here's Bruce at the Yakima Round-Up sitting right next to John Cartwright and take me down to Chinatown, he has the nickname "Creature Seeker"!

What I am lost about is how this is relevant to the arguments that have been presented in this thread. Since you cannot further your own arguments, you try to divert attentions with these red herrings. I've said it in the past... Irrelevant.

I'm sure none of your opinions are going to be affected by the fact that Creature Seeker guy who is not you is a member of Sasquatch Watch.

ahhh, I was waiting for this. All of my opinions have been directly presented in this thread. No need to grasp at straws.

An unknown creature? Like a single creature? Oh yeah, sure. There could be like a T-Rex, a Reptoid, maybe a couple werewolves, a Beholder, who knows what. A population of giant wood apes sustaining itself successfully and maintaining a healthy breeding population while remaining uncatalogued by science? No, I'm sorry. That foo foo talk.

I would agree with you that this is foo foo talk. I don't know why you bring it up since I never mentioned anything about reptoids or werewolves. YOU are the one who brought that up.

Oh my goodness, do you want to trot out gorilla and platypus reference footer maneuvers? It's a good thing you're not that other Creature Seeker from Sasquatch Watch who calls himself a skeptic, because that would be really bad.

Your Ad Hominem only reaffirms the fact that your arguments can't stand on their own. You should employ less Ad hominems and more substance in your arguments.

Do me a favour and see if you can fish up an analog that could serve as a precedent for where a species of massive land mammal has lived across to of the world's most industrialized nations woithout relinquishing a type specimen. Just go ahead and fire that up if you got it.
I disagree with your premise. All animals that are currently known to science were, at one time, unknown to science.:D

kitakaze

30th November 2009, 11:19 PM

Nobody's hijacking anything. It's the Klallams themselves who propose that the Seahtiks may be mistaken for bigfoot.

Now that's a weird way to phrase things. If I was talking to someone who was Klallam and they said to me, "Yeah, someone who was predisposed to Bigfoot enthusiasm could mistake our tales of the Seeahtlk as being based on Bigfoot," I would have no problem agreeing. If a person who was not Klallam said to me "The Klallam consider the Seeahtlk to be Bigfoot, a real living animal that now exists," based on fluff they got from fortean addict websites, that I would have a problem with. In that case I would say, yes, let's go find out just what the Klallam really think.

Because that's your opinion. Other people have have different opinions. Hence the word, "subjective".

Fair enough, how about you demonstrate for me an opinion of Bigfoots being a lost Native American tribe of humans that would not be out there?

I have no interest in getting into a pissing match with what you think you know. I just address the ideas that are presented in the thread. You may want to try and do the same.

That is exactly what I am doing. I am not the one who made the tired "armchair researcher" dig. Yes, staying inside and never being in the deep forest will hinder your experience where discussing uncatalogued wildlife is concerned. Rest assured, the dig has no meaning to me and my experiences.

What I am lost about is how this is relevant to the arguments that have been presented in this thread. Since you cannot further your own arguments, you try to divert attentions with these red herrings. I've said it in the past... Irrelevant.

OK, since you are dropping the pretense, I have no problem furthering my arguments. That would be that Bigfoot does not exist in WV nor is there any good reason to think that it does. The people who are in Dolly Sods looking for it will not find anything because there is nothing to find. If there were a population of giant wood apes finding the nutrition it needs, not bottlenecking its breeding adults, living alongside black bears successfully, and being successful at this all throughout human activities in the area, we would have a type specimen. It's that simple. No bones, no Bigfoot.

I would agree with you that this is foo foo talk. I don't know why you bring it up since I never mentioned anything about reptoids or werewolves. YOU are the one who brought that up.

No, you are the on who said an unknown creature living in remote areas of WV and not a population. There is a very Big difference. Thus I illustrated it by suggesting any manner of single unknown creature, such as a Beholder.

Your Ad Hominem only reaffirms the fact that your arguments can't stand on their own. You should employ less Ad hominems and more substance in your arguments.

I think you may have a flawed understanding of what an ad hom is. You are the one that suggested many instances of accepted scientific theories being shown wrong, especially in regarding animals. I simply anticipated some of the usual routines Bigfoot propenents try and the irony that you call yourself a skeptic. There is no ad hom there.

Ironically for you, ad homs look much more like this...

Based on your poorly constructed posts, I take it your job is standup comedy

I'm seeing a glint of intelligence from you, Kit. Scary.:jaw-dropp

See how that works?

I disagree with your premise. All animals that are currently known to science were, at one time, unknown to science.:D

How clever. How does that relate to Bigfoot and the entire history of natural studies such as wildlife biology and zoology in North America? You see, regarding North American fauna, there was a definite pattern to the discovery, cataloguing, and study of these animals. Yes, scientists and naturalists were once unaware of the narwhal. Let's talk about Bigfoot, North America, and WV in particular. How is it that you have Bigfoots there and science is out to lunch?

CreatureSeeker

1st December 2009, 12:15 AM

Fair enough, how about you demonstrate for me an opinion of Bigfoots being a lost Native American tribe of humans that would not be out there?

I didn't say that the theory wasn't farfetched. All I said was that the degree to which you thought it was far-fetched is subjective.

That is exactly what I am doing. I am not the one who made the tired "armchair researcher" dig. Yes, staying inside and never being in the deep forest will hinder your experience where discussing uncatalogued wildlife is concerned. Rest assured, the dig has no meaning to me and my experiences.

That wasn't meant to be a dig, but the fact of the matter is that you probably don't spend a lot of time researching the subject, so your experiences are limited and your outlook is colored by your lack of exposure to the subject matter. For example, you probably don't go to conferences. Have you ever interviewed an eyewitness about their encounter in person? How many books have you read on the subject? How many authors on the subject have you spoken with in real life? How many times have you been to a sighting location to look for evidence? Again, this is not meant to be a dig.

OK, since you are dropping the pretense, I have no problem furthering my arguments. That would be that Bigfoot does not exist in WV nor is there any good reason to think that it does. The people who are in Dolly Sods looking for it will not find anything because there is nothing to find. If there were a population of giant wood apes finding the nutrition it needs, not bottlenecking its breeding adults, living alongside black bears successfully, and being successful at this all throughout human activities in the area, we would have a type specimen. It's that simple. No bones, no Bigfoot.

In your "opinion", there is no bigfoot. I happen to agree with you that the evidence for the existence of a hairy, bipedal primate in the mountains of WVA or anywhere else for that matter is very scant. However, I am not willing to say that there is no such thing as bigfoot. I'm just keeping an open mind. I would like to know the answer to this riddle. You can bury your head in the sand and ignore the evidence (as poor and inconclusive as the evidence may be) or you can examine and evaluate the evidence as it comes along. However, to just summarily dismiss evidence just because it doesn't conform to your "default" position is scientifically dishonest.

No, you are the on who said an unknown creature living in remote areas of WV and not a population. There is a very Big difference. Thus I illustrated it by suggesting any manner of single unknown creature, such as a Beholder.

Still, I did not mention anything about Reptoids or werewolves. You're putting words in my mouth.

You are the one that suggested many instances of accepted scientific theories being shown wrong, especially in regarding animals. I simply anticipated some of the usual routines Bigfoot propenents try and the irony that you call yourself a skeptic.

First of all, I am not a bigfoot proponent. Secondly, I am very skeptical of "accepted scientific" theories. History is replete with instances of "accepted scientific theories" being disproved.

How clever. How does that relate to Bigfoot and the entire history of natural studies such as wildlife biology and zoology in North America? You see, regarding North American fauna, there was a definite pattern to the discovery, cataloguing, and study of these animals. Yes, scientists and naturalists were once unaware of the narwhal. Let's talk about Bigfoot, North America, and WV in particular. How is it that you have Bigfoots there and science is out to lunch?
This is an example of a strawman. What does that have to do with my point? My original point is that science is discovering new species of animals every year. Even animals that were thought to be extinct are being rediscovered. (e.g. the ivory billed woodpecker). If these animals could escape the attention of Zoologists, why can't others?:covereyes

kitakaze

1st December 2009, 01:03 AM

That wasn't meant to be a dig, but the fact of the matter is that you probably don't spend a lot of time researching the subject, so your experiences are limited and your outlook is colored by your lack of exposure to the subject matter. For example, you probably don't go to conferences. Have you ever interviewed an eyewitness about their encounter in person? How many books have you read on the subject? How many authors on the subject have you spoken with in real life? How many times have you been to a sighting location to look for evidence? Again, this is not meant to be a dig.

I think I can categorize this as welcome to the JREF, CreatureSeeker, you don't know who kitakaze is. What the actual fact is, is that I have the most ludicrous amount of knowledge about the subject matter that any person who does not believe the creature exists should have. I have spent my entire life from the third grade onward up to my nostrils in Bigfoot. The vast amount of that time was as a proponent. I have read more books, reports, and material than any random 10 Bigfoot enthusiasts combined. I was already on the fence heavily leaning towards skeptic by the time I came here three and a half years ago. I've lived in Japan for about the last seven years, though I've been back on Vacouver Island since the summer of this year.

I've communicated with plenty of authors of Bigfoot books, not a single one face to face, and what relevance that has regarding the zoological reality of Bigfoot is meaningless. I've communicated with more alleged witnesses than I could ever remember, and again, I fail to see the relevance that I look into their eyes. I have never dismissed a single one as a liar, nut, or simply mistaken without fair examination of the claim. I have been up and down the very heart of many places where Bigfoot is said to be and found no compelling evidence of Bigfoot. I've talked to plenty of people who would be candidates to have an encounter or at least know of someone who does. Nothing. Conferences? Is there reliable evidence at Bigfoot conferences that is otherwise unknown? That love-in that you were at in Yakima? I tried to go to that. They weren't interested in having skeptics anywhere near Gimlin. Funny how that is.

I mean this as no kind of boast, but I would wager that if it came to any kind of comparison of who is more familiar with the subject matter where Bigfoot is concerned, I would leave you in the dust. I was the one giving you the page numbers for Robert Michael Pyle's book and the correct spelling of Jorg Totsgi, you'll recall. Point being, if you would say that kitakaze is a kneejerk skeptic with little knowledge of all things Bigfoot, I would direct you to any number of Bigfooters for opinions otherwise. Go ask Kathy Strain if kitakaze is unfamiliar with the subject matter. Again, not a boast. Just the truth.

In your "opinion", there is no bigfoot. I happen to agree with you that the evidence for the existence of a hairy, bipedal primate in the mountains of WVA or anywhere else for that matter is very scant. However, I am not willing to say that there is no such thing as bigfoot. I'm just keeping an open mind. I would like to know the answer to this riddle. You can bury your head in the sand and ignore the evidence (as poor and inconclusive as the evidence may be) or you can examine and evaluate the evidence as it comes along. However, to just summarily dismiss evidence just because it doesn't conform to your "default" position is scientifically dishonest.

You can't begin to know how wrong the tree you're barking up is. I bury my head in no sand. I bury my head in claims of Bigfoot evidence. I root through it up and down. I say Bigfoot does not exist after years of tugging at every thread of any real importance. I have evaluated with sincere interest an openess mountains of claims of evidence. I came to my position exactly from examining the evidence and not the other way around. You show me something that should make me think Bigfoot exists and we'll talk. Otherwise, you just don't know who you're talking to.

Still, I did not mention anything about Reptoids or werewolves. You're putting words in my mouth.

The point eludes you. Yes, you did not mention werewolves and Reptoids. I did. I did that becase you talked about an unknown creature living in remote areas of West Virginia. Singular not plural. As in not a population. Understand? Could a Bigfoot, Reptoid, or Beholder live undetected by science in the backwoods of WV? OK. A population that has to exist as real species do? No. So very simple a point. No strawmen, no words in your mouth.

First of all, I am not a bigfoot proponent.

OK. Why are you in Sasquatch Watch and going to Bigfoot conferences on the other side of the country if you are not a proponent of the existence of Bigfoot?

Secondly, I am very skeptical of "accepted scientific" theories. History is replete with instances of "accepted scientific theories" being disproved.

Tell me a single one that could be relevant to a species of giant wood apes living across two of the most industrialized nations on Earth over centuries without us having a type specimen.

This is an example of a strawman. What does that have to do with my point? My original point is that science is discovering new species of animals every year. Even animals that were thought to be extinct are being rediscovered. (e.g. the ivory billed woodpecker). If these animals could escape the attention of Zoologists, why can't others?:covereyes

Great! An ivory billed woodpecker reference. Please direct my attention to conclusive proof that the IBW is not extinct. After that, please tell me how all the people scouring the woods for IBW's missed the Bigfoots.

More often than not, species and subspecies are being redefined by cladistic studies and genetic evaluation. You tell me the last time we found a giant land mammal in North America and we'll talk.

CreatureSeeker

1st December 2009, 01:25 AM

I think I can categorize this as welcome to the JREF, CreatureSeeker, you don't know who kitakaze is. What the actual fact is, is that I have the most ludicrous amount of knowledge about the subject matter that any person who does not believe the creature exists should have. I have spent my entire life from the third grade onward up to my nostrils in Bigfoot. The vast amount of that time was as a proponent. I have read more books, reports, and material than any random 10 Bigfoot enthusiasts combined. I was already on the fence heavily leaning towards skeptic by the time I came here three and a half years ago. I've lived in Japan for about the last seven years, though I've been back on Vacouver Island since the summer of this year.

I've communicated with plenty of authors of Bigfoot books, not a single one face to face, and what relevance that has regarding the zoological reality of Bigfoot is meaningless. I've communicated with more alleged witnesses than I could ever remember, and again, I fail to see the relevance that I look into their eyes. I have never dismissed a single one as a liar, nut, or simply mistaken without fair examination of the claim. I have been up and down the very heart of many places where Bigfoot is said to be and found no compelling evidence of Bigfoot. I've talked to plenty of people who would be candidates to have an encounter or at least know of someone who does. Nothing. Conferences? Is there reliable evidence at Bigfoot conferences that is otherwise unknown? That love-in that you were at in Yakima? I tried to go to that. They weren't interested in having skeptics anywhere near Gimlin. Funny how that is.

Thanks for the welcome and the resume. Given your general demeanor, it is a complete mystery to me why you were not extended an invitation to the Yakima event.

I mean this as no kind of boast, but I would wager that if it came to any kind of comparison of who is more familiar with the subject matter where Bigfoot is concerned, I would leave you in the dust. I was the one giving you the page numbers for Robert Michael Pyle's book and the correct spelling of Jorg Totsgi, you'll recall. Point being, if you would say that kitakaze is a kneejerk skeptic with little knowledge of all things Bigfoot, I would direct you to any number of Bigfooters for opinions otherwise. Go ask Kathy Strain if kitakaze is unfamiliar with the subject matter. Again, not a boast. Just the truth.

Kit, you can forget the name dropping. I spent a whole weekend with Robert Michael Pyle (and a host of other researchers and authors) last August so I am familiar with his work both with bigfoot and butterflies. My beef with you is not personal. I just disagree with how you arrive at your conclusions.

You can't begin to know how wrong the tree you're barking up is. I bury my head in no sand. I bury my head in claims of Bigfoot evidence. I root through it up and down. I say Bigfoot does not exist after years of tugging at every thread of any real importance. I have evaluated with sincere interest an openess mountains of claims of evidence. I came to my position exactly from examining the evidence and not the other way around. You show me something that should make me think Bigfoot exists and we'll talk. Otherwise, you just don't know who you're talking to.

Kit, I am not trying to convince anyone that bigfoot exists. All I am saying is that the proof of the existence of sasquatch is very inconclusive. So you and I are on the same page there.

Could a Bigfoot, Reptoid, or Beholder live undetected by science in the backwoods of WV? OK. A population that has to exist as real species do? No. So very simple a point. No strawmen, no words in your mouth.

To answer your question, there is very little evidence in support of the existence of a bigfoot, werewolf or reptoid (LOL!) in West Virginia. The evidence is inconclusive.

OK. Why are you in Sasquatch Watch and going to Bigfoot conferences on the other side of the country if you are not a proponent of the existence of Bigfoot?

Because I don't think that it is scientifically honest to summarily dismiss all evidence because it doesn't conform to my "default" position. I evaluate the evidence and then either discard it (if it can't stand up to scrutiny) or I file it away as "possible evidence for the existence of a hairy bipedal animal in north america". Do not equate "looking for answers" with "believing in" the existence of a creature(s).

Tell me a single one that could be relevant to a species of giant wood apes living across two of the most industrialized nations on Earth over centuries without us having a type specimen.

I disagree with your premise. You are missing the point which is that "accepted scientific theories" have been proven wrong in the past. Why is it hard to accept that this situation could happen again.

Great! An ivory billed woodpecker reference. Please direct my attention to conclusive proof that the IBW is not extinct. After that, please tell me how all the people scouring the woods for IBW's missed the Bigfoots.

Researchers filmed the ivory billed woodpecker (which was thought to have been extinct) and thus have video evidence. I can't speak to why the birdwatchers didn't see signs of bigfoot. I imagine it has something to do with the fact that they were looking up into trees looking for woodpeckers.

More often than not, species and subspecies are being redefined by cladistic studies and genetic evaluation. You tell me the last time we found a giant land mammal in North America and we'll talk.
I don't see the connection. This ia another straw man argument. The frequency of new animal species identification in NA has nothing to do with whether or not a hairy, bipedal animal may or may not exist in North America.

kitakaze

1st December 2009, 02:02 AM

Thanks for the welcome and the resume. Given your general demeanor, it is a complete mystery to me why you were not extended an invitation to the Yakima event.

There is no reason why the Bigfoot enthusiasts that organized the Yakima Round-Up would want Bigfoot skeptics there. They said that it was not a conference. Why was Scott Herriott denied attendance and told he would likely face physical violence if he did attend? Because he expressed doubts about the authenticity of the PGF? I don't pretend to be so important in Bigfootery that I would be invited to any Bigfoot conference. Bigfooters have zero use for knowledgable skeptics.

Kit, you can forget the name dropping. I spent a whole weekend with Robert Michael Pyle (and a host of other researchers and authors) last August so I am familiar with his work both with bigfoot and butterflies. My beef with you is not personal. I just disagree with how you arrive at your conclusions.

That is so bizarre that you would ask me to forget name-dropping when that is exactly what you asked me for...

How many books have you read on the subject? How many authors on the subject have you spoken with in real life?

You just wanted like a 12 or 42 or what?

Kit, I am not trying to convince anyone that bigfoot exists. All I am saying is that the proof of the existence of sasquatch is very inconclusive. So you and I are on the same page there.

To answer your question, there is very little evidence in support of the existence of a bigfoot, werewolf or reptoid (LOL!) in West Virginia. The evidence is inconclusive.

Let's talk about this. BTW, you seem to have a weird concept of proof when you put it in the same sentence as the word "inconclusive". This is semantics, but you should have said evidence. There is an important difference.

Nevermind that, tell me, Bruce (I'm typing Bruce because it is easier than CreatureSeeker - feel free to proceed with Kit), why is the evidence for Bigfoot so scant, in WV or anywhere else? Give me some of your personal thoughts on this. This is what I really want to discuss with you, and not the quibbles we've been bouncing around.

Because I don't think that it is scientifically honest to summarily dismiss all evidence because it doesn't conform to my "default" position. I evaluate the evidence and then either discard it (if it can't stand up to scrutiny) or I file it away as "possible evidence for the existence of a hairy bipedal animal in north america". Do not equate "looking for answers" with "believing in" the existence of a creature(s).

So then it would be fair to say that you are a proponent of the possibility of Bigfoot's existence to the extent of joining a Bigfoot organization and attending gatherings of Bigfoot enthusiasts on the other side of the country. I admire your commitment to that possibility. Once again, please note that I have dismissed nothing unfairly and without deep examination nor do I have any postion that came without careful study.

I disagree with your premise. You are missing the point which is that "accepted scientific theories" have been proven wrong in the past. Why is it hard to accept that this situation could happen again.

No, I don't think I am missing the point. Tell me that there is a single wild wolverine living in Northern California and provide the evidence. I'll go there with you. It's happened and I'm already there. Show me a new beetle and do the same. I'm there.

What has not happened nor do I think will happen is that a massive species of animal has lived all over two of the most industrialized nations on Earth and eluded being a known and accepted species of real animal. How can this happen? Let's talk about that. How can such a massive beast be everywhere and oops, science is out to lunch?

Researchers filmed the ivory billed woodpecker (which was thought to have been extinct) and thus have video evidence. I can't speak to why the birdwatchers didn't see signs of bigfoot. I imagine it has something to do with the fact that they were looking up into trees looking for woodpeckers.

Uh-oh. You made a reference to a blurry video that proves nothing. It certainly doesn't discount known species of woodpecker that are not extinct. Let's have proof that the IBW still exists. Not references to bad video that could be other woodpeckers.

The looking up thing just is nonsense. You're in the woods looking all about, up and down, for woodpeckers in an aree that we are told by Bigfooters is Bigfoot territory, yet no Bigfoot. Put that aside. Take any number of biological field work or anything else that puts trained observers in Bigfootland. You know that's how they found the wolverine in Cali, right? They weren't looking for wolverines. They had a massive array of game cams and track plates to detect mammal activity. No Bigfoot there either and that was where the PGF was from.

I don't see the connection. This ia another straw man argument. The frequency of new animal species identification in NA has nothing to do with whether or not a hairy, bipedal animal may or may not exist in North America.

No strawman at all. How we have detected the all the species of mammals living in North America is directly relevant to how we have not detected what would be one of the biggest with the greatest range. Show me one case where we found a population of land mammals of any significant size that we did not know was there. Something like holy crap, we found kermode bears over here and we didn't even know they were there.

LuvGodzilla

1st December 2009, 08:22 AM

To answer your question, there is very little evidence in support of the existence of a bigfoot, werewolf or reptoid (LOL!) in West Virginia. The evidence is inconclusive.

Because I don't think that it is scientifically honest to summarily dismiss all evidence because it doesn't conform to my "default" position. I evaluate the evidence and then either discard it (if it can't stand up to scrutiny) or I file it away as "possible evidence for the existence of a hairy bipedal animal in north america". Do not equate "looking for answers" with "believing in" the existence of a creature(s).

CreatureSeeker;

You mention evidence several times. What little "evidence" has been collected and analyzed to conform to "evidence" in WV? Is there or is there not "evidence", any "evidence" in WV?

What is "possible evidence"?

If you evaluate "evidence", can you please give examples of the types of "evidence" you evaluate in WV?

If the "evidence" is inconclusive, can you explain why it's "inconclusive" and what level of scrutiny you use to determine "inconclusive" or which science has examined the "evidence", "possible evidence" and determined it "inconclusive".

Yet, it still remains that you have stated "little evidence" which means that there is "some evidence". I'd be very interested in what that "evidence" is and how a conclusion was reached that it is actually "evidence" of Bigfoot in WV.

Thank you.

rockinkt

1st December 2009, 11:51 AM

CreatureSeeker;

You mention evidence several times. What little "evidence" has been collected and analyzed to conform to "evidence" in WV? Is there or is there not "evidence", any "evidence" in WV?

What is "possible evidence"?

If you evaluate "evidence", can you please give examples of the types of "evidence" you evaluate in WV?

If the "evidence" is inconclusive, can you explain why it's "inconclusive" and what level of scrutiny you use to determine "inconclusive" or which science has examined the "evidence", "possible evidence" and determined it "inconclusive".

Yet, it still remains that you have stated "little evidence" which means that there is "some evidence". I'd be very interested in what that "evidence" is and how a conclusion was reached that it is actually "evidence" of Bigfoot in WV.

Thank you.

Excellent post!

I look forward to CreatureSeeker's specific and detailed answers to these very important questions.

WGBH

1st December 2009, 02:55 PM

I thought I told you guys in about the 5th post, the weather was bad and that we did not find any evidence on the Dolly Sods trip. Not even trace evidence. It was our only trip to Dolly Sods so far.. Therefore, you can deduce that we found no evidence in our only time there.

kitakaze

1st December 2009, 03:39 PM

I thought I told you guys in about the 5th post, the weather was bad that we did not find any evidence on the Dolly Sods trip. Not even trace evidence. It was our only trip to Dolly Sods so far.. Therefore, you can deduce that we found no evidence in our only time there.

Yes, he did. Sixth post...

Nothing happened. The weather was rainy and very cold and we could not accomplish much field work. Our electronics were useless due to the weather. The tracks that were cast were bear prints and the scat collected was coyote. The area was beautiful and very remote. We will try again in better weather.

CreatureSeeker

1st December 2009, 06:19 PM

CreatureSeeker;

You mention evidence several times. What little "evidence" has been collected and analyzed to conform to "evidence" in WV? Is there or is there not "evidence", any "evidence" in WV?

What is "possible evidence"?

In any research, pretty much anything can be "possible" evidence. What must be determined is the relevance, authenticity and identity of the evidence and in the case of eyewitness testimony, the credibility of the witness and whether their accounts contain inconsistencies which may discount their testimony .

If you evaluate "evidence", can you please give examples of the types of "evidence" you evaluate in WV?

Eyewitness accounts, track impressions, hair samples, vocalizations

If the "evidence" is inconclusive, can you explain why it's "inconclusive" and what level of scrutiny you use to determine "inconclusive" or which science has examined the "evidence", "possible evidence" and determined it "inconclusive".

Generally speaking, evidence is inconclusive if you can not verify its authenticity, identify it, or establish any relevance.

Yet, it still remains that you have stated "little evidence" which means that there is "some evidence". I'd be very interested in what that "evidence" is and how a conclusion was reached that it is actually "evidence" of Bigfoot in WV.

Thank you.
Over the years, I have been presented with plaster cast impressions of what is purported to be a bigfoot track. The casts seem to be of a track that is made by a large bipedal creature and possesses characteristics similar to that of primates. However, I would say that track impressions are inconclusive unless there was some photographic record of the Sasquatch creature making said imprint -- and most usually there is not. Even if the track is authentic, it qualifies as "possible" evidence, but there is no way to conclusively say that the track is a bigfoot track since we have not been able to obtain a specimen of said creature and verify what sort of tracks they leave behind. The same goes with unidentified vocalizations and hair samples that do not have a DNA match.

Excellent Questions, by the way. :)

kitakaze

1st December 2009, 09:55 PM

John and I have already discussed Sasquatch Watch of Virginia's Trace Evidence Gallery, which has bear scat, horse manure, storm damaged trees, and a fake stomper...

Surely you can think of something specific that qualifies as the best or at least a good example of print casts or sound recordings from Virginia or West Virginia. Here, I'll lend a hand...

Sasquatch Watch Trace Evidence Gallery (http://sasquatchwatch.weebly.com/trace-evidence-gallery.html)

Recent Audio Recordings (http://sasquatchwatch.weebly.com/audio.html)

John said he mentioned the horse and bear poo to Billy, but's it's still there.

kitakaze

4th December 2009, 06:55 PM

WGBH

5th December 2009, 08:23 AM

*bump*

For John or Bruce of Sasquatch Watch of Virginia. Considering the massive amount of media attention the WVPB special brought your group, don't you think it would be prudent to remove the bear and horse droppings from your Bigfoot trace evidence gallery? I can only assume many others like myself who know what bear and horse droppings look like will see it and wonder how these Bigfoot researchers don't know what bear and horse droppings look like.

I could care less about media attention. In my experience it has always been negative.Prudent why? Even I know what bear poop looks like and I have only been in the field since May 2008. People will assume what they want. Perhaps it's not the horse poop, perhaps it was the location or circumstances in which it was found and photographed? Perhaps new researchers like myself need to see examples of known animal scat?

I am not understanding your concern about the contents of a Bigfoot organization's web site anyway. Bigfoot is not real correct?

kitakaze

5th December 2009, 01:18 PM

Perhaps it's not the horse poop, perhaps it was the location or circumstances in which it was found and photographed? Perhaps new researchers like myself need to see examples of known animal scat?

I don't know what that means. You have a Bigfoot trace evidence gallery and you have pictures of scat from a horse and a bear. There's no caption explaining the droppings are from known animals. We are supposed to think we are seeing something that came out of a sasquatch.

I am not understanding your concern about the contents of a Bigfoot organization's web site anyway. Bigfoot is not real correct?

My issue is simply with attemp to convey the scientific method while displaying "evidence" that is easily discernable as coming from known animals.

WGBH

5th December 2009, 02:57 PM

I don't know what that means. You have a Bigfoot trace evidence gallery and you have pictures of scat from a horse and a bear. There's no caption explaining the droppings are from known animals. We are supposed to think we are seeing something that came out of a sasquatch.

My issue is simply with attemp to convey the scientific method while displaying "evidence" that is easily discernable as coming from known animals.

First of all. "I" do not have pictures of anything, I have nothing to do with the web site design or content. If you have issues with it contact them at the e-mail located on the page.

Going to look, (and this is my first time), it does not say "Bigfoot trace evidence gallery" it says " Trace evidence gallery". Which to me says look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions. You have come to the conclusion that the scat evidence is from known animals and that is fine.

LuvGodzilla

5th December 2009, 03:04 PM

If it's a Bigfoot website, a rational person will draw a conclusion that what is posted is Bigfoot related. Unless a disclaimer is put up ;)

CreatureSeeker

5th December 2009, 03:42 PM

If it's a Bigfoot website, a rational person will draw a conclusion that what is posted is Bigfoot related. Unless a disclaimer is put up ;)

The trace evidence gallery is a communications tool used by team members to share photos of expeditions with other team members and close colleagues that are not members of Sasquatch Watch.

When the team does go out on expeditions, they sometimes find "oddities" that they document and share with other team members via the trace evidence gallery. Those oddities may or may not have any relevance to Sasquatch.

Here's a hypothetical example: if one of the team members finds what they believe to be mountain lion tracks in an area where mountain lions aren't thought to exist, they may photograph the tracks (or the cast impressions of those tracks) and post the photos in the trace evidence gallery, awaiting feedback from other team members whom they've had communication with.

WGBH is correct in his assertion that there is nothing on the website or in the gallery that would suggest that the photos in the trace evidence gallery are being offered as proof of the existence of Sasquatch.

Your suggestion for a disclaimer is duly noted.:)

kitakaze

5th December 2009, 05:38 PM

The trace evidence gallery is a communications tool used by team members to share photos of expeditions with other team members and close colleagues that are not members of Sasquatch Watch.

When the team does go out on expeditions, they sometimes find "oddities" that they document and share with other team members via the trace evidence gallery. Those oddities may or may not have any relevance to Sasquatch.

Here's a hypothetical example: if one of the team members finds what they believe to be mountain lion tracks in an area where mountain lions aren't thought to exist, they may photograph the tracks (or the cast impressions of those tracks) and post the photos in the trace evidence gallery, awaiting feedback from other team members whom they've had communication with.

WGBH is correct in his assertion that there is nothing on the website or in the gallery that would suggest that the photos in the trace evidence gallery are being offered as proof of the existence of Sasquatch.

Your suggestion for a disclaimer is duly noted.:)

Again you have the proof/evidence mix up.

Wow. That was finesse. You go to the website called Sasquatch Watch of Virginia, top page heading Field Research for a Peaceful Contact - Specializing in "HABITUAL RECURRING ENCOUNTERS". There you have the trace evidence gallery showing various things like storm damaged trees, horse manure, bear scat, various prints and no, no, nothing is necessarily offered as Bigfoot. May or may not be...

I am impressed.

So the trace evidence gallery is not to display photos for visitors to the public website of what is trace evidence of Bigfoot, such as hair, scat, footprints, tree breaks. It's just a collection of oddities from the field for SWoV members and their buddies to check out and discuss. I guess for SWoV and their buddies horse and bear poo constitute an "oddity". :rolleyes:

Funny, don't you have Field Scenery Gallery for that sort of thing? The average person who is not a Bigfoot enthusiast doesn't seem to get that you're not presenting normal things like storm damaged trees and bear and horse poo as coming from Bigfoot.

John told Billy about the bear and horse poo. The poo is still there. Reality seems to have been duly ignored. Maybe Billy just hasn't gotten around to it.

CreatureSeeker

5th December 2009, 05:55 PM

Again you have the proof/evidence mix up.

I would surmise it is you who is mixed up. I never said that one equaled the other.

You go to the website called Sasquatch Watch of Virginia, top page heading Field Research for a Peaceful Contact - Specializing in "HABITUAL RECURRING ENCOUNTERS". There you have the trace evidence gallery showing various things like storm damaged trees, horse manure, bear scat, various prints and no, no, nothing is necessarily offered as Bigfoot. May or may not be...

It seems that you understand my post. Excellent.

So the trace evidence gallery is not to display photos for visitors to the public website of what is trace evidence of Bigfoot, such as hair, scat, footprints, tree breaks. It's just a collection of oddities from the field for SWoV members and their buddies to check out and discuss. I guess for SWoV and their buddies horse and bear poo constitute an "oddity". :rolleyes:

I can not speak to the specific reason why certain photos were chosen, but yes once again, you have demonstrated excellent reading comprehension. The reality of an all-volunteer research group is that not all of the members have the same level of knowledge about flora, fauna, meteorology, what bear scat looks like etc. If they have questions, they will ask to post the photos and wait for feedback. Also, it is not always the object in the photo that is in question, sometimes it is the location that object was discovered which constitutes the oddity. In my previous example regarding the mountain lion track, there is nothing odd about a mountain lion track, but if the track was discovered in an area where mountain lions are not known to exist, the track may qualify as an oddity.

Funny, don't you have Field Scenery Gallery for that sort of thing? The average person who is not a Bigfoot enthusiast doesn't seem to get that you're not presenting normal things like storm damaged trees and bear and horse poo as coming from Bigfoot.

As I said before, the suggestion was duly noted.

John told Billy about the bear and horse poo. The poo is still there. Reality eems to have been duly ignored. Maybe Billy just hasn't gotten around to it.
I take back my earlier statement about your reading comprehension. :rolleyes: Please refer back to my earlier mountain lion track example which demonstrates that sometimes it is the circumstances in which certain objects are found, and not the objects themselves, that makes them an oddity.

Thank you for taking such an interest in Sasquatch Watch's website. I'm sure they appreciate your patronage.:D

WGBH

5th December 2009, 05:58 PM

John told Billy about the bear and horse poo. The poo is still there. Reality eems to have been duly ignored. Maybe Billy just hasn't gotten around to it.

Correct, it was duly ignored.

kitakaze

5th December 2009, 06:12 PM

I would surmise it is you who is mixed up. I never said that one equaled the other.

Oops for you, you did exactly that...

Kit, I am not trying to convince anyone that bigfoot exists. All I am saying is that the proof of the existence of sasquatch is very inconclusive.

You specifically equated evidence with proof.

I can not speak to the specific reason why certain photos were chosen, but yes once again, you have demonstrated excellent reading comprehension. The reality of a volunteer research is that not all of the members have the same level of knowledge about flora, fauna, meteorology, what bear scat looks like etc. If they have questions, they will ask to post the photos and wait for feedback. Also, it is not always the object in the photo that is in question, sometimes it is the location that object was discovered which constitutes the oddity. In my previous example regarding the mountain lion track, there is nothing odd about a mountain lion track, but if the track was discovered in an area where mountain lions are not known to exist, the track may qualify as an oddity.

That's some nice fluffing...

1) Who posted the pictures of horse and bear poo for feedback from other SWoV members?

2) Where would they receive that feedback for the pictures of horse and bear poo they stuck in the trace evidence gallery on the Bigfoot enthusiast site?

3) In the case of horse and bear poo, how long does it take SWoV members to come to a consensus and recognize the obvious horse and bear poo? A few months or what? Those pictures have been there for a while. Doesn't Billy know what bear and horse poo look like? Even John knew that and he's pretty green in the woods.

4) You hypothetical cougar track thing kind of sucks. The implication is that the horse and bear poo are out of place. Are horses and bears out of place in Virginia? That's funny, I thought they had tons of horses and bears in Virginia.

kitakaze

5th December 2009, 06:22 PM

Correct, it was duly ignored.

Oh, OK. So Billy does know it is horse and bear poo. That doesn't really go well with Bruce's fluff job about the private feedback for SWoV members and buddies for normal things in weird circumstances foo foo.

Since you guys know it is horse and bear poo and there is no feedback like Hey, Sean. Yeah that's horse manure and that is bear scat. Thanks for the pictures, buddy. Now you know, what is the point of keeping the pictures up and having people think that SWoV is kind of clueless about normal animals?

Maybe SWoV is like "let's have a trace evidence gallery on our Bigfoot group website. Into that gallery we will place photos of normal things, such as bear and horse poo, so as to allow our members to recognize what bear and horse poo look like, but let's leave off any kind of notification whatsoever." :boggled:

CreatureSeeker

5th December 2009, 06:30 PM

Oops for you, you did exactly that...

You specifically equated evidence with proof.

I specifically used the word "proof" to demonstrate how you equate proof and evidence. There, is this better?

All I am saying is that the "proof" of the existence of sasquatch is very inconclusive.

My punctuation notwithstanding, the gist of my statement is that am affirming the inconclusiveness of what evidence has been brought to light.

That's some nice fluffing...

1) Who posted the pictures of horse and bear poo for feedback from other SWoV members?

That information was not available. The gallery does not allow for notations.

2) Where would they receive that feedback for the pictures of horse and bear poo they stuck in the trace evidence gallery on the Bigfoot enthusiast site?

phone/email/private website area

3) In the case of horse and bear poo, how long does it take SWoV members to come to a consensus and recognize the obvious horse and bear poo? A few months or what? Those pictures have been there for a while. Doesn't Billy know what bear and horse poo look like? Even John knew that and he's pretty green in the woods.

The organization is a volunteer organization. Most of the members have families and full-time jobs. Website administration is not as high a priority. If your beef is with the administration of the site, perhaps you should contact the website admin.

4) You hypothetical cougar track thing kind of sucks. The implication is that the horse and bear poo are out of place. Are horses and bears out of place in Virginia? That's funny, I thought they had tons of horses and bears in Virginia.
I'm not even going to dignify that question with a response.

WGBH

5th December 2009, 06:30 PM

Oops for you, you did exactly that...

You specifically equated evidence with proof.

That's some nice fluffing...

1) Who posted the pictures of horse and bear poo for feedback from other SWoV members?

2) Where would they receive that feedback for the pictures of horse and bear poo they stuck in the trace evidence gallery on the Bigfoot enthusiast site?

3) In the case of horse and bear poo, how long does it take SWoV members to come to a consensus and recognize the obvious horse and bear poo? A few months or what? Those pictures have been there for a while. Doesn't Billy know what bear and horse poo look like? Even John knew that and he's pretty green in the woods.

4) You hypothetical cougar track thing kind of sucks. The implication is that the horse and bear poo are out of place. Are horses and bears out of place in Virginia? That's funny, I thought they had tons of horses and bears in Virginia.

1. Some of those photos do not even belong to members of our group. We have tons that are not even posted on the web site.

2. The feedback is done on our private SWOV researchers yahoo group.

3. Before it is even posted. I told you earlier that Billy knew what kind of scat it is.

4. And your implication is that they are not out of place. And you base that on the fact that "there are tons of horses and bears in Virginia." :rolleyes:
There are tons of people in Virginia too, but if someone took a dump in my living room, I would say that was "out of place".

LuvGodzilla

5th December 2009, 06:43 PM

I think KK has a good point and being defensive about the "fact" that the website does have a gallery of pictures that have no disclaimer associating them with anonymous folks not necessarily associated with the group and these pictures give the impression they are bigfoot related feeds the wrong impression to those not in the KNOW.

Whether that is an accidental omission on the behalf of the webmaster doesn't change the public perception that these pictures would be construed as Bigfoot Trace Evidence by Sasquatch Watch of Virginia.

I'm sure you can understand that John. The pictures in the Trace Evidence Gallery are on the SWofV's website thus they are in all rights the views of SWofV's beliefs without a prominent disclaimer stating otherwise.

KK, this is for you:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_292174b1b0962efac0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18375)

CreatureSeeker

5th December 2009, 06:52 PM

I think KK has a good point and being defensive about the "fact" that the website does have a gallery of pictures that have no disclaimer associating them with anonymous folks not necessarily associated with the group and these pictures give the impression they are bigfoot related feeds the wrong impression to those not in the KNOW.

Whether that is an accidental omission on the behalf of the webmaster doesn't change the public perception that these pictures would be construed as Bigfoot Trace Evidence by Sasquatch Watch of Virginia.

I'm sure you can understand that John. The pictures in the Trace Evidence Gallery are on the SWofV's website thus they are in all rights the views of SWofV's beliefs without a prominent disclaimer stating otherwise.

Luvgodzilla (BTW, I used to love godzilla too), I don't think anyone is being defensive and I think WGBH's point is that KK's misunderstanding of certain areas of the website are not really a high priority of the Sasquatch Watch groups day to day operations.

kitakaze

5th December 2009, 06:56 PM

1. Some of those photos do not even belong to members of our group. We have tons that are not even posted on the web site.

2. The feedback is done on our private SWOV researchers yahoo group.

3. Before it is even posted. I told you earlier that Billy knew what kind of scat it is.

4. And your implication is that they are not out of place. And you base that on the fact that "there are tons of horses and bears in Virginia." :rolleyes:
There are tons of people in Virginia too, but if someone took a dump in my living room, I would say that was "out of place".

So SWoV keeps horse and bear poo unlabeled in there trace evidence gallery on their Bigfoot site because they were found where horses and bear shouldn't be. Where in Virginia should bears and horses not be?

From the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries...

Black bears are becoming an increasingly common sight in Virginia — bears now live in almost every county! We are fortunate to have a healthy and sustainable population of these animals in the Commonwealth. But even as our black bear population grows and expands, at the same time, residential areas are encroaching into the forested lands and habitats used by bears and other wildlife, thus increasing the chances for bear/human interaction or conflicts. Let's all do our part to help manage black bears by watching this video and learning how to live with bears in Virginia.

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/video/living-with-black-bears/

Please don't tell me the horse poo was anomalous because of it's location. There's horses all over Virginia. You've got wild ones, too.

kitakaze

5th December 2009, 06:59 PM

KK, this is for you:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_292174b1b0962efac0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18375)

Oh, that's very nice. Thanks. My current quest is to locate the elusive not tiny Janeway (Voyager) facepalm.

WGBH

5th December 2009, 06:59 PM

Please don't tell me the horse poo was anomalous because of it's location.

OK, then I will not tell you.

kitakaze

5th December 2009, 07:08 PM

Luvgodzilla (BTW, I used to love godzilla too), I don't think anyone is being defensive and I think WGBH's point is that KK's misunderstanding of certain areas of the website are not really a high priority of the Sasquatch Watch groups day to day operations.

Yeah, I had a misunderstanding about a trace evidence gallery on a Bigfoot enthusiast website that shows bear and horse poo, storm damaged trees, and clumps of hair not from a Bigfoot without any notification that they are in fact those things and should not be considered as coming from Bigfoot. :rolleyes:

I'm just going to rest my head a bit...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1372

Cool, let's look at the hair and poo and twisted trees that have nothing to do with Bigfoot at all...

http://sasquatchwatch.weebly.com/trace-evidence-gallery.html

kitakaze

5th December 2009, 07:11 PM

OK, then I will not tell you.

I never saw that coming at all.

Let's try again. I am now being told that the pictures of bear and horse poo are in the trace evidence gallery unlabeled because they were found in an area where there shouldn't be the poo of a horse or bear. What location in Virginia was that?

WGBH

5th December 2009, 07:21 PM

Yeah, I had a misunderstanding about a trace evidence gallery on a Bigfoot enthusiast website that shows bear and horse poo, storm damaged trees, and clumps of hair not from a Bigfoot without any notification that they are in fact those things and should not be considered as coming from Bigfoot. :rolleyes:

I'm just going to rest my head a bit...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1372

Cool, let's look at the hair and poo and twisted trees that have nothing to do with Bigfoot at all...

http://sasquatchwatch.weebly.com/trace-evidence-gallery.html

How do you know the hair was not from Bigfoot? Did you ever see the lab results? How would the lab know to match it with Bigfoot as there is no type specimen? Perhaps it just came back unknown? I am a group member and I do not know.

How do you know all of those supposed tree structures were from storm damage? Were you there? Did you see how far they had fallen? How they where snapped off? How far they were from where they broke off and where they were placed? I am a member of the group and I do not know.

You jump to your conclusions are much as you accuse footers of doing the same.

WGBH

5th December 2009, 07:28 PM

I never saw that coming at all.

Let's try again. I am now being told that the pictures of bear and horse poo are in the trace evidence gallery unlabeled because they were found in an area where there shouldn't be the poo of a horse or bear. What location in Virginia was that?

I don't know anything about the bear poop. I was told that the horse poop was in a location not accessible to horses.

LuvGodzilla

5th December 2009, 07:29 PM

Luvgodzilla (BTW, I used to love godzilla too), I don't think anyone is being defensive and I think WGBH's point is that KK's misunderstanding of certain areas of the website are not really a high priority of the Sasquatch Watch groups day to day operations.

Please don't tell me you out grew Godzilla :eek:

Come on now CreatureSeeker, I don't believe it would just be KK who would have a misunderstanding about parts of the website that would seem questionable at best.

The website promotes Sasquatch Watch, wouldn't that be a priority if someone from the public were looking for a place to report a Bigfoot encounter from the State of Virginia?

The information provided at the website would logically be perused to determine the credibility of the folks investigating reports and help a witness decide if these are the people to talk to.

You claim to be fairly skeptical yourself, would you without being involved with this specific group personally, knowing nothing about them, take a look at that trace evidence gallery and feel they are capable of the knowledge to investigate your encounter/claims and be able to indentify what ever evidence you might produce? Seriously? ;)

kitakaze

5th December 2009, 07:34 PM

I don't know anything about the bear poop. I was told that the horse poop was in a location not accessible to horses.

How was it discerned that a horse couldn't get to where that poop was? Because let me tell you, I've seen a lot of horse poop, which that is, and a horse's butt got to wherever that photo was taken. What it is not is Bigfoot poop. That's for sure.

WGBH

5th December 2009, 07:36 PM

[QUOTE=LuvGodzilla;5381260
The information provided at the website would logically be perused to determine the credibility of the folks investigating reports and help a witness decide if these are the people to talk to.
[/QUOTE]

Curious. To you, what would determine the credibility of a Bigfoot researcher or Research group? Who are some that you would deem credible?

WGBH

5th December 2009, 07:38 PM

How was it discerned that a horse couldn't get to where that poop was? Because let me tell you, I've seen a lot of horse poop, which that is, and a horse's butt got to wherever that photo was taken. What it is not is Bigfoot poop. That's for sure.

I don't know where, but may be able to find out and no one said it was anything other then what it is. It is YOU who is making a stink about it. Stink..heh I kill myself.

GT/CS

5th December 2009, 07:38 PM

I don't know anything about the bear poop. I was told that the horse poop was in a location not accessible to horses.

Not accessible to horses???!!!!
What type of location is not accessible to horses?

ETA: Too slow, Kit beat me to it.

kitakaze

5th December 2009, 07:43 PM

Curious. What to you would determine the credibility of a Bigfoot researcher or Research group? Who are some that you would deem credible?

Oo.. oh... me, me, me. Ability to discern normal things from Bigfoot things? Like horse poo and Bigfoot poo...

kitakaze

5th December 2009, 07:45 PM

I don't know where, but may be able to find out and no one said it was anything other then what it is. It is YOU who is making a stink about it. Stink..heh I kill myself.

You can't have a discussion about poo and not ask what the stink is about. Duh. :D

No one on the Bigfoot site said that the trace evidence wasn't from Bigfoot. That would be the problem.

WGBH

5th December 2009, 07:46 PM

Oo.. oh... me, me, me. Ability to discern normal things from Bigfoot things? Like horse poo and Bigfoot poo...

Your horns are showing again.

shandyjan

5th December 2009, 07:47 PM

Photographs of Possible Trace Evidence

Possible trace evidence of Bigfoot is shown in a slideshow of photographs taken by "Sasquatch Watch of Virginia." Click on the link below to activate the slideshow.

Gallery of Possible Trace Evidence of Bigfoot

As a none researcher with passing interest I'd say that could be misleading. No need NOY to put a label, unless it is meant to mislead?

WGBH

5th December 2009, 07:48 PM

You can't have a discussion about poo and not ask what the stink is about. Duh. :D

No one on the Bigfoot site said that the trace evidence wasn't from Bigfoot. That would be the problem.

And what exactly would you say was trace evidence from a Bigfoot?

WGBH

5th December 2009, 07:56 PM

Not accessible to horses???!!!!
What type of location is not accessible to horses?

ETA: Too slow, Kit beat me to it.

Are you saying that horses have the dexterity to access all areas? If so then how can we fence them in?

Kit, you really need to teach me this face palm thing. It's not fair I cant use it.

WGBH

5th December 2009, 07:58 PM

LuvGodzilla

5th December 2009, 08:00 PM

Curious. To you, what would determine the credibility of a Bigfoot researcher or Research group? Who are some that you would deem credible?

I don't deem any credible in terms of Bigfoot because Bigfoot doesn't exist. The people involved in the world of Bigfoot put themselves on a credibility scale. Sasquatch Watch of Virginia is all over the Bigfoot Web Presence.

If you want to talk about Research Groups that are professionally educated and funded for Wildlife Research well then we can talk about credibility.

Two of my favorites that I support:

Conservation Northwest (http://www.conservationnw.org/northcascades/cascades-citizen-wildlife-monitoring)

Wildlife Media/Chris Morgan Bear Trek (http://wildlifemedia.org/mission-vision)

Oo.. oh... me, me, me. Ability to discern normal things from Bigfoot things? Like horse poo and Bigfoot poo...

KK may be joking here but the truth is being able to discern what one is looking at and putting it under a "possible trace evidence gallery" on a Bigfoot website.

WGBH

5th December 2009, 08:07 PM

I don't deem anything credible in terms of Bigfoot because Bigfoot doesn't exist.

Exactly, you do not deem anything Bigfoot related credible, so why should Sasquatch Watch care what you think?

Pup

5th December 2009, 08:24 PM

How is using the word POSSIBLE misleading? That means it either IS or IS NOT.

Using the word that way, every single flickr slideshow contains possible evidence of bigfoot.

WGBH

5th December 2009, 08:31 PM

Using the word that way, every single flickr slideshow contains possible evidence of bigfoot.

OK? and that problem would be? They are accusing that it is being touted as evidence and not open to interpretation.

LuvGodzilla

5th December 2009, 08:49 PM

Exactly, you do not deem anything Bigfoot related credible, so why should Sasquatch Watch care what you think?

That is absolutely glorious John. :D I never suggested or even implied that I cared what Sasquatch Watch of Virginia would care what I thought. I'm just one of those :boxedin: skeptics who need some form of substantial proof.

I implied that they should consider what the public accessing their website would think when exposed to trace evidence galleries containing common phenomena related to a common animal or weather. Just some good old fashioned common sense.

Perhaps CreatureSeeker would like to interject on your behalf now and tell me that your not being defensive and I've misconstrued your post. :boggled:

Perhaps you would like to enlighten me on the truths about anything/anyone Bigfoot related being credible. Please offer some factual evidence that I can sink my teeth into :D real honest to goodness factually documented Bigfoot "evidence" and what makes a Bigfooter credible.

LuvGodzilla

5th December 2009, 08:51 PM

OK? and that problem would be? They are accusing that it is being touted as evidence and not open to interpretation.

Your kidding right? Open to interpretation? Come on, it's Bear and Horse poop what other interpretation should be garnered from that?

CreatureSeeker

5th December 2009, 09:01 PM

Your kidding right? Open to interpretation? Come on, it's Bear and Horse poop what other interpretation should be garnered from that?

WGBH, don't get sucked into this irrelevant thread on the Sasquatch Watch website. A typical ploy of certain members of this site is to introduce miscellaneous arguments that are irrelevant to any discussion about the possible existence of a bipedal primate. Hey, let's make a fuss about how often they administer their website, Sasquach Watch's group protocol concerning photos acquired during an expedition, etc. , etc., etc..

Very lame attempt at a "critical thinking" discussion of the topic of Sasquatch.:eye-poppi:

CreatureSeeker

5th December 2009, 09:07 PM

Please don't tell me you out grew Godzilla :eek:

Hey, don't forget Gamera, too!

Come on now CreatureSeeker, I don't believe it would just be KK who would have a misunderstanding about parts of the website that would seem questionable at best.

The website promotes Sasquatch Watch, wouldn't that be a priority if someone from the public were looking for a place to report a Bigfoot encounter from the State of Virginia?

The information provided at the website would logically be perused to determine the credibility of the folks investigating reports and help a witness decide if these are the people to talk to.

You claim to be fairly skeptical yourself, would you without being involved with this specific group personally, knowing nothing about them, take a look at that trace evidence gallery and feel they are capable of the knowledge to investigate your encounter/claims and be able to indentify what ever evidence you might produce? Seriously? ;)

Luvgodzilla, as I have said in the past, any discussion about the administration of the website is irrelevant to the main argument of whether a hairy, bipedal primate is lurking around the remote areas of the world.

WGBH

5th December 2009, 09:08 PM

That is absolutely glorious John. :D I never suggested or even implied that I cared what Sasquatch Watch of Virginia would care what I thought. I'm just one of those :boxedin: skeptics who need some form of substantial proof.

We aim to please.

I implied that they should consider what the public accessing their website would think when exposed to trace evidence galleries containing common phenomena related to a common animal or weather. Just some good old fashioned common sense.

But the trace evidence gallery has not been a issue with the general public. Please supply evidence of this if you are implying this is the case. It is only a problem with scoftics. Our membership applications and sighting report submissions have increased yearly.

Perhaps CreatureSeeker would like to interject on your behalf now and tell me that your not being defensive and I've misconstrued your post. :boggled:

You have not misconstrued at all. If it was not the poop pictures it would have been something else. Which is why I am telling you we simply do not care. Your mind was made up before you even clicked your mouse. You know it and I know it to.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten me on the truths about anything/anyone Bigfoot related being credible. Please offer some factual evidence that I can sink my teeth into :D real honest to goodness factually documented Bigfoot "evidence" and what makes a Bigfooter credible.

There is no credible evidence. You were simply pointing fingers directly at us as being not credible. This is why I asked you who and what you thought was credible. I knew what your scoftic answer would be.

Pup

5th December 2009, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by Pup http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5381376#post5381376)
Using the word that way, every single flickr slideshow contains possible evidence of bigfoot.

OK? and that problem would be? They are accusing that it is being touted as evidence and not open to interpretation.

Maybe you didn't get what I was saying. Based on the literal way that you expect us to interpret the word "possible," it's also possible that any photograph at all is evidence of bigfoot too. Bigfoot might be lurking in the background of a paparazzi shot of George Clooney. You never know. I mean, it's possible. Unlikely, but possible.

The problem seems obvious. When too many people immediately recognize that something labelled as "possible evidence" is "not actually evidence," it makes those who labeled the evidence look gullible or desperate. If an organization cries wolf (or bigfoot) too many times, it loses credibility.

WGBH

5th December 2009, 10:44 PM

Maybe you didn't get what I was saying. Based on the literal way that you expect us to interpret the word "possible," it's also possible that any photograph at all is evidence of bigfoot too. Bigfoot might be lurking in the background of a paparazzi shot of George Clooney. You never know. I mean, it's possible. Unlikely, but possible.

The problem seems obvious. When too many people immediately recognize that something labelled as "possible evidence" is "not actually evidence," it makes those who labeled the evidence look gullible or desperate. If an organization cries wolf (or bigfoot) too many times, it loses credibility.

Fair enough. So would a disclaimer make a difference to you?

Marduk

5th December 2009, 10:46 PM

Fair enough. So would a disclaimer make a difference to you?

how about some evidence that allows this animal to be classified by science ?
that would make a big difference
do you have any or not ?
;)

WGBH

5th December 2009, 10:54 PM

how about some evidence that allows this animal to be classified by science ?
that would make a big difference
do you have any or not ?
;)

Does it look like I have any genius?

Marduk

5th December 2009, 10:56 PM

Does it look like I have any genius?
so just your imagination then ?
thats what I figured,
when you have no evidence yet are still claiming somethings there then you only have two appearences
1. Nut
2. Genius

are you the latter genius ?
:D

kitakaze

6th December 2009, 04:02 AM

Are you saying that horses have the dexterity to access all areas? If so then how can we fence them in?

I just don't even want to talk to you anymore. We're looking at a bunch of horse dump and talking about the dexterity of horses. That horse was dexterous enough to stand and push in that particular spot. Feel free to post some reason why a horse wouldn't unload the poop there.

Kit, you really need to teach me this face palm thing. It's not fair I cant use it.

Remember how I taught you to make a JREF photo album? Anyway, if you make Starfleet facepalms, I will come after you and your Oreo's. Make some Obama facepalm foo foo, if you must.

GT/CS

6th December 2009, 06:15 AM

Does it look like I have any genius?

No you certainly don't have any genius. You're a long way from genius. Your post prove that.

WGBH

6th December 2009, 08:14 AM

No you certainly don't have any genius. You're a long way from genius. Your post prove that.

My post was missing a word. Your posts usually read " blah,blah,blah,woo". Dazzle us with more.

WGBH

6th December 2009, 09:07 AM

Remember how I taught you to make a JREF photo album? Anyway, if you make Starfleet facepalms, I will come after you and your Oreo's. Make some Obama facepalm foo foo, if you must.

Nope, would not do a Starfleet facepalm. I am not that geeky.:D

RayG

6th December 2009, 09:27 AM

Going to look, (and this is my first time), it does not say "Bigfoot trace evidence gallery" it says " Trace evidence gallery". Which to me says look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions. You have come to the conclusion that the scat evidence is from known animals and that is fine.

Am I looking at the same page? I clicked on that 'Trace Evidence Gallery' button, and I was taken to the page that says, "Possible trace evidence of Bigfoot is shown in a slideshow of photographs taken by "Sasquatch Watch of Virginia.""

(my bolding)

WGBH is correct in his assertion that there is nothing on the website or in the gallery that would suggest that the photos in the trace evidence gallery are being offered as proof of the existence of Sasquatch.

Correct, the gallery isn't suggesting proof of anything, but then you really need to nail down the difference between 'proof' and 'evidence', 'cause they ain't one and the same.

Bottome line, instead of correctly labeling horse/bear poop, the website is presenting it as possible evidence of bigfoot poop instead.

How is using the word POSSIBLE misleading? That means it either IS or IS NOT.

Well hell, why not slap a photo of a log cabin up there too. I mean it's POSSIBLE bigfoot built one, right?

So would a disclaimer make a difference to you?

No, but the application of some critical thinking skills would. It's really sad to see supposed intelligent, grown adults grasping at straws, and presenting everything and anything as possible evidence of bigfoot. Burps, farts, barks, bumps, thumps, clumps, stick piles, poop piles, howls, yowls, bits of hair... it's just not fair... it's insulting.

Faceplams? You want facepalms? You got 'em...

http://www3.sympatico.ca/raygavel/facepalm.jpg

RayG

Pup

6th December 2009, 09:31 AM

Fair enough. So would a disclaimer make a difference to you?

Absolutely. But I'm not sure what the disclaimer would say, because I'm not sure of the reason that photos are chosen as potential evidence and others aren't.

Something like, "this is the complete raw data of all photos taken on an expedition. Many of the things were not suspected of being bigfoot evidence when photographed, or have subsequently been confirmed or suspected as not being evidence of bigfoot" would explain why they're all there--the organization is going for total transparency and including even the sightseeing shots. Then the logical thing to do would be to set up a sub-gallery of the best evidence, so people only interested in the evidence could just skip to that.

Even better I think would be to explain why things are taking up bandwidth. For example, on the infamous horse manure shot: "This image of horse manure shows that large, docile prey animals exist in the area, which formerly was thought not to have enough potential food to support a large primate" casts a whole different light on an image.

Or perhaps there's a reason not self-explanatory in the image itself: "This picture appears to be horse manure but when a sample was analyzed at such-and-such lab, it was shown that the creature had a diet composed 30% of meat."

Even, "All scat was photographed on the expedition. This is a sample probably left by a horse," is an explanation that adds confidence.

drapier

6th December 2009, 09:39 AM

How was it discerned that a horse couldn't get to where that poop was? Because let me tell you, I've seen a lot of horse poop, which that is, and a horse's butt got to wherever that photo was taken. What it is not is Bigfoot poop. That's for sure.

I think you are overlooking the very real possibility that a bigfoot carried the horse poop to this inaccessible spot and left it there as some sort of marker of its territory, not unlike it does with the stick structures.

WGBH

6th December 2009, 09:55 AM

Am I looking at the same page? I clicked on that 'Trace Evidence Gallery' button, and I was taken to the page that says, "Possible trace evidence of Bigfoot is shown in a slideshow of photographs taken by "Sasquatch Watch of Virginia.""

(my bolding)

Yes, you are looking at the same page.

Bottome line, instead of correctly labeling horse/bear poop, the website is presenting it as possible evidence of bigfoot poop instead.

Bottom line, you guys focus and insult on trivial issues to distract and vilify.

Well hell, why not slap a photo of a log cabin up there too. I mean it's POSSIBLE bigfoot built one, right?

See my point?

No, but the application of some critical thinking skills would. It's really sad to see supposed intelligent, grown adults grasping at straws, and presenting everything and anything as possible evidence of bigfoot. Burps, farts, barks, bumps, thumps, clumps, stick piles, poop piles, howls, yowls, bits of hair... it's just not fair... it's insulting.

RayG

How is it we are "presenting everything and anything as possible evidence?" You really think we find evidence every time we go out in the field? The pictures span years and are from many separate locations. Do not imply other wise. If you find it insulting close the web page.

So the argument is, we need a disclaimer or need to label the photos? Do we need to label the deer in the game cam videos or draw those silly red circles around them so that web site visitors know what they are looking at?

WGBH

6th December 2009, 10:02 AM

Absolutely. But I'm not sure what the disclaimer would say, because I'm not sure of the reason that photos are chosen as potential evidence and others aren't.

Something like, "this is the complete raw data of all photos taken on an expedition. Many of the things were not suspected of being bigfoot evidence when photographed, or have subsequently been confirmed or suspected as not being evidence of bigfoot" would explain why they're all there--the organization is going for total transparency and including even the sightseeing shots. Then the logical thing to do would be to set up a sub-gallery of the best evidence, so people only interested in the evidence could just skip to that.

Even better I think would be to explain why things are taking up bandwidth. For example, on the infamous horse manure shot: "This image of horse manure shows that large, docile prey animals exist in the area, which formerly was thought not to have enough potential food to support a large primate" casts a whole different light on an image.

Or perhaps there's a reason not self-explanatory in the image itself: "This picture appears to be horse manure but when a sample was analyzed at such-and-such lab, it was shown that the creature had a diet composed 30% of meat."

Even, "All scat was photographed on the expedition. This is a sample probably left by a horse," is an explanation that adds confidence.

Can this even be done on a flickr page? I doubt it.

LuvGodzilla

6th December 2009, 10:23 AM

There is no credible evidence. You were simply pointing fingers directly at us as being not credible. This is why I asked you who and what you thought was credible. I knew what your scoftic answer would be.

If you feel that it applies:

Roger Knights wrote: By “scoftic” [I mean] someone who…gives witness testimony no weight whatsoever, on ideological grounds, and who asserts numerous other bits of unreasonable dogma, such as that the quantity of reports is insignificant. Scofticism is thus fanaticism behind a pose of reasonableness. The reasonable pose is “show me the evidence.” The “fine print” is all the qualifiers, and all the hidden assumptions and misdirections.

A nutshell definition of scofticism would be “scientism in disguise,” although that’s not quite accurate….Another thumbnail definition is “a cranky skeptic.”

You have cherry picked my posts so you could use that term and disregard a discussion in a discussion forum about Bigfoot in Virginia.

I don’t feel I’m a fanatic behaving behind a pose of reasonableness. I asked you to show me the evidence of credible Bigfoot evidence of which none exists and yet you yourself have claimed to see and be affected by one, when zero evidence exists for the existence of Bigfoot. I also asked you to tell me what a credible Bigfooter was and you label me a scoftic.

From the man who made up the term scoftic above, I don’t feel my posts have met the criteria of Mr. Knights definition of a term he made up. Besides, who the heck is Roger Knights and why does his term become a common use word in Bigfootery? What has been his contribution? It must have been valuable enough to latch onto a term used often by believers in Bigfoot to describe those of us who feel that realistically you need to bring more to the table than unknown or anecdotes.

What is your definition of “Scoftic” John? Perhaps you should look up the terms:

Conversion Disorder
La Belle Indifference

I have had an interest in the Bigfoot phenomenon for well over 45 years. I’ve spent a considerable amount of time in the forests of the PNW, on average 3-5 days a week. I have had a few rare experiences that took me a long time to find answers for, one took over 2 years. I have found that the vast majority of information concerning Bigfoot is without merit and wishful thinking. I’m willing to consider reliable validated evidence John but it doesn’t seem to be forthcoming. The website with the “possible trace evidence gallery” is typical of the types of wishful thinking throughout the world of Bigfootery. Those that allow that type of information to stand without comment should be held responsible for allowing it to be “interpreted” when it is without a doubt evidence of a common animal.

If you can not see that I can’t help you.

If you would like to label me a scoftic so be it. It's a passive aggressive loss of control that resorts to childish labels when all else fails. :)

LuvGodzilla

6th December 2009, 10:26 AM

WGBH, don't get sucked into this irrelevant thread on the Sasquatch Watch website. A typical ploy of certain members of this site is to introduce miscellaneous arguments that are irrelevant to any discussion about the possible existence of a bipedal primate. Hey, let's make a fuss about how often they administer their website, Sasquach Watch's group protocol concerning photos acquired during an expedition, etc. , etc., etc..

Very lame attempt at a "critical thinking" discussion of the topic of Sasquatch.:eye-poppi:

CreatureSeeker;

The topic of the thread is West Virginia Bigfoot Sighting/Footprints.

I guess I feel it’s relevant that the leading Bigfoot website concerning the topic of Bigfoot in West Virginia is Sasquatch Watch. I also feel it is relevant to discuss the “possible trace evidence gallery” of the leading Bigfoot Website for West Virginia.

I’m interested in knowing about a “hairy bipedal” monster lurking in West Virginia. You think it’s irrelevant that the website shows common scat as an interpretive subject that shouldn’t be debated (regardless of where it’s debated)? I think it has a great deal of relevance concerning the topic of Bigfoot in West Virginia and trace evidence collected by West Virginians.

The main argument is post number 1 by Vortigern99 Let’s go back to Vort’s original post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5286690&postcount=1 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5286690&postcount=1)

Yahoo is posting a picture of Patty and claiming that "Bigfoot gets big buzz!" this week, owing to a sighting/footprints/some other unspecified evidence supposedly gathered by a group called Sasquatch Watch in the Allegheny Mountains in WV.

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93160?fp=1 (http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93160?fp=1)

But following the links supplied turns up exactly nothing of interest.

The article linked below describes that the group, founded by Billy Willard, descended on the "Dolly Sods Wilderness Area with GPS navigators, cameras, voice recorders and plaster of Paris to make casts of huge footprints...."

The final sentence is "The group took plaster casts of suspicious prints but didn't spot the creature during the expedition last weekend."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNew...552686-ap.html (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2009/10/28/11552686-ap.html)

How in the Green Hell is this "big buzz"? Why have searches on "the latest bigfoot sightings" shot up 100%, when there has been no new data collected, no findings that stir the imagination, and indeed, on closer inspection, no story at all? And why is Patty depicted on Yahoo's front page?

Gaaahhh. Color me deeply annoyed.

This is your quote from the Article:

Bruce Harrington, the group's self-described skeptical member, says he has yet to see convincing proof that the creature exists.

Yet you appear to be defending and appear to be making excuses for a section of West Virginia website that offers pictures of “trace evidence” that is misleading (or interpretive :boggled:) concerning Bigfoot in West Virginia.

I will have to go with RayG’s collage of facepalms.

WGBH

6th December 2009, 10:31 AM

If you feel that it applies:

[/FONT]

You have cherry picked my posts so you could use that term and disregard a discussion in a discussion forum about Bigfoot in Virginia.

I don’t feel I’m a fanatic behaving behind a pose of reasonableness. I asked you to show me the evidence of credible Bigfoot evidence of which none exists and yet you yourself have claimed to see and be affected by one, when zero evidence exists for the existence of Bigfoot. I also asked you to tell me what a credible Bigfooter was and you label me a scoftic.

From the man who made up the term scoftic above, I don’t feel my posts have met the criteria of Mr. Knights definition of a term he made up. Besides, who the heck is Roger Knights and why does his term become a common use word in Bigfootery? What has been his contribution? It must have been valuable enough to latch onto a term used often by believers in Bigfoot to describe those of us who feel that realistically you need to bring more to the table than unknown or anecdotes.

What is your definition of “Scoftic” John? Perhaps you should look up the terms:

Conversion Disorder
La Belle Indifference

I have had an interest in the Bigfoot phenomenon for well over 45 years. I’ve spent a considerable amount of time in the forests of the PNW, on average 3-5 days a week. I have had a few rare experiences that took me a long time to find answers for, one took over 2 years. I have found that the vast majority of information concerning Bigfoot is without merit and wishful thinking. I’m willing to consider reliable validated evidence John but it doesn’t seem to be forthcoming. The website with the “possible trace evidence gallery” is typical of the types of wishful thinking throughout the world of Bigfootery. Those that allow that type of information to stand without comment should be held responsible for allowing it to be “interpreted” when it is without a doubt evidence of a common animal.

If you can not see that I can’t help you.

If you would like to label me a scoftic so be it. It's a passive aggressive loss of control that resorts to childish labels when all else fails. :)

I am not disregarding discussing Bigfoot in Virginia. It was not me who drew the conversation to " Sasquatch Watch does not label the poo on their web site correctly". By all means lets discuss Bigfoot in VA shall we? That would be great.

I agree with you totally about the evidence issues.

WGBH

6th December 2009, 10:39 AM

This is your quote from the Article:

Yet you appear to be defending and appear to be making excuses for a section of West Virginia website that offers pictures of “trace evidence” that is misleading (or interpretive :boggled:) concerning Bigfoot in West Virginia.

I will have to go with RayG’s collage of facepalms.

We are a Virginia Based Group not West Virginia. Two different places you know?

None of the pictures from the web site were from West Virginia. Heck, some of them are not even Virgina. Some are from Beaver Creek Ohio, The Pine Barrons in New Jersey, and the NY Adirondacks.

There are some Bigfoot research groups based in West Virginia. We are not one of them. Google can be your friend.

LuvGodzilla

6th December 2009, 11:05 AM

We are a Virginia Based Group not West Virginia. Two different places you know?

None of the pictures from the web site were from West Virginia. Heck, some of them are not even Virgina. Some are from Beaver Creek Ohio, The Pine Barrons in New Jersey, and the NY Adirondacks.

There are some Bigfoot research groups based in West Virginia. We are not one of them. Google can be your friend.

Yet, in the article it states that the group was investigating reports in West Virginia. I'm confuzeled.

Yahoo is posting a picture of Patty and claiming that "Bigfoot gets big buzz!" this week, owing to a sighting/footprints/some other unspecified evidence supposedly gathered by a group called Sasquatch Watch in the Allegheny Mountains in WV.

Not a problem.

Sasquatch Watch (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2009/10/28/11552686-ap.html) are definitely in the latter camp. And a group of intrepid Bigfoot hunters were on the move in the Allegheny Mountains of West Virginia

Does the website state the pictures are from these other states? I went back through that slideshow and did not see any pictures labeled with the exception of the date taken, am I missing something?

Possible trace evidence of Bigfoot is shown in a slideshow of photographs taken by "Sasquatch Watch of Virginia."

West Virginia and Virginia have been used throughout the discussion relating specifically to the research of Sasquatch Watch going back to the OP. One would naturally assume that the pictures on the site (photographs taken by SWofV) were from Virginia. I guess I should have intrepeted that :)

Bigfoot enthusiasts go high tech
(http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2009/10/28/11552686-ap.html)
Using GPS navigators, voice recorders

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeGlobalnav/invisible.gif

http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-5aWVS_roA1dVM.gif?labels=News (http://www.quantcast.com/p-5aWVS_roA1dVM)
ELKINS, W.Va. - A team of Bigfoot enthusiasts is hoping to find the legendary creature in the bogs and barrens of a West Virginia wilderness area.

Members of Sasquatch Watch of Virginia went camping in the rugged Allegheny Mountain highlands of the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area with GPS navigators, cameras, voice recorders and plaster of Paris to make casts of huge footprints, West Virginia Public Broadcasting reported.

Billy Willard, founder of the group, says they're looking in places where people have reported sightings. He says he has never seen Bigfoot himself.

Bruce Harrington, the group's self-described skeptical member, says he has yet to see convincing proof that the creature exists.

The group took plaster casts of suspicious prints but didn't spot the creature during the expedition last weekend.

CreatureSeeker

6th December 2009, 11:14 AM

Yet, in the article it states that the group was investigating reports in West Virginia. I'm confuzeled.

No problem. We'll just add this to your list of things you're confused about. The group is based in Virginia, but collaborates with other researchers in other locations and often conducts research outside of Virginia.

Does the website state the pictures are from these other states? I went back through that slideshow and did not see any pictures labeled with the exception of the date taken, am I missing something?

More website administration questions???

West Virginia and Virginia have been used throughout the discussion relating specifically to the research of Sasquatch Watch going back to the OP. One would naturally assume that the pictures on the site (photographs taken by SWofV) were from Virginia. I guess I should have intrepeted that :)
They would if they were a scoftic.:D

kitakaze

6th December 2009, 12:05 PM

WGBH

6th December 2009, 12:59 PM

Yet, in the article it states that the group was investigating reports in West Virginia. I'm confuzeled.

Not a problem.

Does the website state the pictures are from these other states? I went back through that slideshow and did not see any pictures labeled with the exception of the date taken, am I missing something?

West Virginia and Virginia have been used throughout the discussion relating specifically to the research of Sasquatch Watch going back to the OP. One would naturally assume that the pictures on the site (photographs taken by SWofV) were from Virginia. I guess I should have intrepeted that :)

I totally understand how it can be confusing. No worries. I just wanted to be clear that we are from VA not West VA. That was our group's first and only trip to Dolly Sods.

You are correct,none of the pictures that I saw were labeled. I think it needs to be updated anyway. I have hundreds of pictures from 2009 expeditions that I would like to share. I will have Billy speak to the man who created the web site. I hate that format too.

WGBH

6th December 2009, 01:01 PM

A ploy? It's a ploy? Miscellaneous arguments? You are the people that can't identify what fell out the back of a horse and sticking it in Bigfoot evidence galleries and we're making ploys to distract from the discussion about the possible existence of Bigfoot?

It is to laugh.

I can identify it, you can identify it, most of us can identify it. Yet still you harp on it.

RayG

6th December 2009, 01:17 PM

Yes, you are looking at the same page.

Then apparently the group thinks everything on that page/in those photos is possible bigfoot evidence.

Bottom line, you guys focus and insult on trivial issues to distract and vilify.No we focus on evidence and facts. I see precious little of either being presented in your arguments.

See my point?Yes, anything is possible with bigfoot. He leaves behind hair, poop, tracks, and stick piles, but apparently he's also a woods ninja 'cause nobody can bag one. Did you see mine? If you stumble across a log cabin in the forest, how can you be sure bigfoot didn't build it?

How is it we are "presenting everything and anything as possible evidence?" You really think we find evidence every time we go out in the field? The pictures span years and are from many separate locations. Do not imply other wise. If you find it insulting close the web page.If you are one of those romantic footers who see bigfoot in every pile of poop, stack of twigs, bent tree, unidentified sound, etc. etc. that they find in the woods, then yes I was implying you, and you are insulting my intelligence. Not to worry, my only visit to that particular website was to confirm what was being discussed in this thread. I have no intention of exploring it further.

So the argument is, we need a disclaimer or need to label the photos?My argument is that misleading/incorrect/unintelligent content shouldn't be presented in the first place.

I can identify it, you can identify it, most of us can identify it. Yet still you harp on it.

Yet it's presented on the website as though it is something other than what it is. For what possible purpose? To mislead the gullible? Should a group describing itself as 'scientific' be giving the impression they're ignorant twits by misidentifying horse poop?

RayG

WGBH

6th December 2009, 02:01 PM

Then apparently the group thinks everything on that page/in those photos is possible bigfoot evidence.

Apparently you are mistaken in your observation.

No we focus on evidence and facts. I see precious little of either being presented in your arguments.

How can I supply evidence and facts in arguments?

Yes, anything is possible with bigfoot. He leaves behind hair, poop, tracks, and stick piles, but apparently he's also a woods ninja 'cause nobody can bag one. Did you see mine? If you stumble across a log cabin in the forest, how can you be sure bigfoot didn't build it?

Wow, really? This is interesting news. Care to provide evidence of these claims? I tend to focus on evidence and facts.

[COLOR=Black]If you are one of those romantic footers who see bigfoot in every pile of poop, stack of twigs, bent tree, unidentified sound, etc. etc. that they find in the woods, then yes I was implying you, and you are insulting my intelligence. Not to worry, my only visit to that particular website was to confirm what was being discussed in this thread. I have no intention of exploring it further.
[COLOR="Red"]
I am not one of those people. Not insulting your intelligence,your disposition.

My argument is that misleading/incorrect/unintelligent content shouldn't be presented in the first place.

I agree

Yet it's presented on the website as though it is something other than what it is. For what possible purpose? To mislead the gullible? Should a group describing itself as 'scientific' be giving the impression they're ignorant twits by misidentifying horse poop?

RayG

Last time I looked it was not identified at all. The ignorant twits are the people making accusations. Impressions are like you-know-what's, everyone has one.

Not going to discuss the web site administration again. It is off topic.

shandyjan

6th December 2009, 04:04 PM

How is using the word POSSIBLE misleading? That means it either IS or IS NOT.

How very woo, like horse crap could ever be possible evidence of bigfoot? After making my comment, as a none expert, I have after seeing the defenses of it,now thought maybe not misleading accidentally either! I think its deliberate to catch the unaware who doesnt look too far at the possible evidence.

kitakaze

6th December 2009, 05:45 PM

I can identify it, you can identify it, most of us can identify it. Yet still you harp on it.

I don't think I'm harping or being unfair about anything. When I click on a link that says "Possible Trace Evidence of Bigfoot" and I see a clump of hair, hair under magnification, footprints, a big pile of shizzle, etc, I know that I am supposed to think My goodness, these Sasquatch Watch of Virginia have found a lot evidence of Bigfoot. Wow, that's a big dump.

There is nothing to tell me that the dump came out of a horse. People who are not familiar with horse manure and believe in Bigfoot are looking at that and thinking Wow, that Bigfoot sure takes monster dumps. Good job, SWoV! People who know what horse manure looks like have the palm somewhere around the face and are thinking Wow, those Bigfoot guys don't know what horse manure looks like. SWoV are not too swift.

I don't care what laughable fluff Bruce tries to pass me about private research feedback hooey. You said yourself that the fact that SWoV knows it is horse manure has been ignored. And some of the pictures are years old? How old is the horse dump photo? How long does it take to get the feedback that hey, that's horse dump? And how old is the very first photo of the big clump of hair? You would have to be a Mexican dentist not to get DNA out of that. You would think a Bigfoot research group would know what to do with organic samples like hair and scat.

People might get the impression that a research group that posts photos of horse dump and can't get DNA from big clumps of hair is pretty inept. You can understand that, right? I mean these are just the plain facts. It's not like I'm trying to be facetious.