[Merged] Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one? [Archive] - Page 10

kitakaze

23rd February 2010, 01:19 AM

Interesting. The "caloric needs" angle is probably the weakest skeptical argument in my opinion. To me, the most compelling argument by far is that there isn't a scrap of physical evidence that has ever been produced to verify the existence of a creature with the largest reputed distribution of any terrestrial mammal other than Homo sapiens.

Kitakaze has a far more eloquent way of phrasing this idea than I do; it was his explanation of the problem that finally swayed me that bigfoot's existence is extremely unlikely. Where I fall short of clarity and succinctness in expressing the idea, I apologize, but I assure you the idea is a sound one.

Serious déjà vu (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5352544#post5352544).

Once again, the caloric needs argument and the no physical evidence are one and the same. An animal as big as Bigfoot, with the amount of food it would need, and the size of its population and distribution could not possibly exist without yielding a type specimen to science. A Bigfoot in Salt Fork State Park, Ohio mulling over another night of sticks and bark for dinner or some three day old Ho Hos in the garbage is not going to be thinking it over for very long before shooting into the dumpster.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/283964b6eb9a526778.jpg

William Parcher

23rd February 2010, 08:42 AM

Parcher - You have a bad habit of trying to put everything into your own, narrow, frame of reference. From the only frame of reference that matters - the scientific one - there is no evidence to preclude there being a bigfoot. (However unlikely we think it is).

To continuously knock, belittle, and attempt to nullify the thoughts of others who are using a truly scientific approach is certainly your M.O. Parcher - and it gets a little tiresome.

I'm curious about the "bigger picture" with relation to Bigfoot. What is going on from the broadest frame of reference? We have a description of a creature which cannot be proven to not exist. Science cannot be used to show that it doesn't exist.

We have this ongoing tit-for-tat battle (so to speak) between absolute believers and absolute skeptics and all points in between them. Able, intelligent, science-oriented people come forward to evaluate proposed evidence of Bigfoot. Sometimes they get paid to do it and sometimes not. Sometimes they conclude that the evidence does not support the hypothesis (it's Bigfoot) and sometimes they say it does support it. Obviously, nothing so far has shown scientifically that Bigfoot exists. If it doesn't exist - then nothing ever will show that it does.

Again think in the big picture... What is the great good that comes from scientifically debunking proposed Bigfoot evidence? It there concern that society-at-large will erroneously declare Bigfoot to be a real species? That the President or the Prime Minister might be tricked into announcing that Bigfoot is real? Is it to prevent folks from being scared or even paranoid to enter forests and wild areas?

Given that Bigfoot can't be debunked in total, this can go on forever, right? Or, is there some point in the future when all of society stops thinking that Bigfoot exists? No more sighting claims. No more plaster casts. There are no more Bigfooters period.

You say I knock, belittle and attempt to nullify the thoughts of others who are trying to use science in the Bigfoot realm. I do that with folks who believe or say they saw a Bigfoot. But I'm trying to point out the "trap" that some people find themselves in. Let's assume that Bigfoot does not exist... There is no way out of the "quest for resolution" taken on by a person who claims to have seen a Bigfoot. No amount of intelligence or scientific application will change the situation. Until the day they die, as far as they're concerned, they saw a Bigfoot - so it must exist. You can't actually see something that doesn't actually exist.

Does there ever come a day when Bitter Monk, wolftrax, WGBH or any other witness declares that they could not have seen a Bigfoot because Bigfoot doesn't even exist? Science cannot bring that day because science cannot prove nonexistence, right?

Anyone can chime in here because this post is a call for "big picture", philosophical and rhetorical views or anything anyone wants to say.

Drewbot

23rd February 2010, 09:06 AM

Does there ever come a day when Bitter Monk, wolftrax, WGBH or any other witness declares that they could not have seen a Bigfoot because Bigfoot doesn't even exist? Science cannot bring that day because science cannot prove nonexistence, right?

Anyone can chime in here because this post is a call for "big picture", philosophical and rhetorical views or anything anyone wants to say.

The hope is, for me, that one of the explanations for Bigfoot, will smack one of these 'witnesses' in the head, and they'll say "OH SNAP! I really didn't see Bigfoot, this explanation applies to my sighting"

LuvGodzilla

23rd February 2010, 09:39 AM

I've found bits and pieces about the Basajaun but nothing really about the Salvaje.
I was thinking more about something like the Wild Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_man) or Woodwose. The funny thing in that tradition is that the Wild Men are really humans that went mad and lived in the woods.

You had stated:

A lot of the supernatural Bigfoot stuff seems to be pretty syncretistic around an European/nonnative core and only uses native myths to claim it is older than European settlement.

I had assumed you meant Syncretism:

syncretism

"reconciliation of different beliefs," 1618, from Mod.L. syncretismus (David Pareus, 1615), from Gk. synkretismos "union of communities," from synkretizein "to combine against a common enemy," from syn- + srcond element of uncertain origin. One theory connects it with kretismos "lying," from kretizein "to lie like a Cretan;" another connects it with the stem of kerannynai "to mix, blend;" krasis "mixture."

Combine cultures from all over (entering the New World) in terms of their wildmen/women lore and beliefs and you end up with a newer mixed wildman/woman version (North American Bigfoot) from many cultures.

What is interesting; is how in America the Bigfoot changes based on where it is found. The Skunkape, the Southern Nasty Mean Bigfoot etc., culturally, this is fascinating if a person looks at where the stories originate from and the cultural aspects of the folks that settled in those areas.

The 10 list was basically a nudge to compare some similar examples of world wide wild people beliefs/folklore that are similar to the North American Bigfoot today. :D

Considering the Basajaun or small snippet on the Salvaje you can see some similar attributes to the legends of Bigfoot.

Did the early settlers include their lore (from ancestral tales) of the wildmen/women to help them describe a penal colony outcast, old fur trapper, mountain man or outcast mentally ill?

I think you brought up a good point concerning European settlement.

When someone mentions Supernatural I don't automatically ascribe to something unnatural in terms of physics and science but in terms of a description that defies a natural explanation such as Bigfoot existing in North America to date and not cataloged because (insert supernatural excuse here). :D

William Parcher

23rd February 2010, 12:24 PM

My family was close to Clayton Mack. I learned a great deal of my bear and bushcraft from him. He was my hero. I didn't think he would look me in the eye and tell me a lie. Now - I'm not so sure.

It's interesting what happens when we befriend a person. It's like they get put into a different part of our mind. I wasn't close to him like you were. I would just stick him (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/mack.htm) in the same pile as others I would call Bigfoot *************ers - those grand storytellers of the giant hairy wildman. They aren't bad people and are probably good. They just decided (for whatever reasons) that fabricating Bigfoot encounter stories is a better thing to do than not doing it.

I'm reminded of Longtabber PE. How were your feelings about his honesty and righteousness before being outed as a military fraud? Do you think he really was a professional investigator (like you) or was that made up too?

Drewbot

23rd February 2010, 01:33 PM

The hope is, for me, that one of the explanations for Bigfoot, will smack one of these 'witnesses' in the head, and they'll say "OH SNAP! I really didn't see Bigfoot, this explanation applies to my sighting"

What I have come to realize, is that most Bigfooters are not going to ever accept anything else as an explanation. For example, I thought WGBH was going to have a Mea Culpa when we started in about the hallucination thing, but I underestimated his Woo-ness.

kitakaze

23rd February 2010, 02:36 PM

What I have come to realize, is that most Bigfooters are not going to ever accept anything else as an explanation.

One thing that I disagree with is the Eureka type one explanation for a large portion of sighting claims. I'm referring to the sleep paralysis, three-legged bears, etc type stuff. Don't get me wrong, we have definitely seen some reports that clearly were sleep paralysis, but I don't see anything mysterious that requires such explanations on any siginificant scale. I have no problem with saying every single Bigfoot report is best explained by hoaxing and misidentification. Hallucinations/misperceptions/active imaginations would be included in that.

Maybe in some cases people saw bears walking upright or had sleep paralysis, but I would say most come from people playing Woods & Wildmen, making up stories and seeing what they want to see. I think Grey alien encounters and the whole abduction thing is the same type of social construct (though I would say that sleep paralysis would be more often to blame there).

For example, I thought WGBH was going to have a Mea Culpa when we started in about the hallucination thing, but I underestimated his Woo-ness.

I see a lot of Bigfooters who claim sightings and are flailing woos that have the Fortean addiction bad. Bigfoot is just one of their fixes. They have the UFO/lake monster/whatever cryptid things on the burner, too. We can see this with people like Sweaty (doesn't claim a sighting) with the Martian civilization/Earth connection and UFO battles overhead drool. You can look and quickly discern that they have the woo bad.

I don't think of John as woo. I would have said conviction rather than woo-ness. I never see John talking about any other woo topics and when it comes to Bigfoot, and he will always maintain that the subject does him no favours and that he only wants answers. Everything about John's encounter says to me he experienced something that wasn't actually a Bigfoot in front of him, and John will have nothing but something having been in front of him. There are a number of reasons to be that way. John's encounter story makes up a significant part of his social identity now. Yeah, I'm that guy that had the poop scared out of me by Bigfoot. No, it's not cool, thank you.

John's experience is placed in 1982. I was 4 in 1982, he was 17. Prince just put out 1999 and Blade Runner was in theatres. My memory from when I was 17 is pretty hazy and I'm a lot younger than John (though I never claimed to see a Bigfoot). John does not hide that he was drinking a lot in the years between now and then, and I would say that certainly does not help in terms of accurate memory.

Along with some sort of neurological experience, I'm perfectly willing to consider John had a false memory. He could have experienced something else and that subconciously his mind can't or won't recall. I'm no psychologist and I can't say. It goes without saying that the professional that John has seen isn't inclined to accept Bigfoot. All we can do is evaluate the case for John actually having seen a gargantuan Bigfoot along the Pasquotank River in the midst of an extremely developed area just outside Elizabeth City, NC. This was not something that happened at night. He was supposed to see this giant feeding on a mulberry bush in front of him. He might as well have claimed to see a giant ground sloth. At least for those we could say that there was physical evidence for such creatures recently living in North America at least 10,000 years ago.

In any case, there is unfortunately no hard evidence to believe that Bigfoot has ever lived in NC or anywhere else. John knows that and because of his conviction, he is determined to try and find some. Though I think he is definitely barking up the wrong tree for answers, I can still respect that.

LuvGodzilla

23rd February 2010, 03:32 PM

Once again, the caloric needs argument and the no physical evidence are one and the same. An animal as big as Bigfoot, with the amount of food it would need, and the size of its population and distribution could not possibly exist without yielding a type specimen to science.

I agree. Caloric need is an excellent argument when examining the places that Bigfoot are said to exist. When I see that argument I have to wonder if the arguer is simply having tunnel vision.

A single solitary animal may not show a significant impact on food sources, yet animals must mate to survive (the species), so there are others. When there are others there is competition for food and mating rights.

When there is competition for food that others animals eat (vegetation or proteins) then there is even more competition which leads to even more interesting paths of critical thinking. ;)

Competition between carnivores and a valid food source that sustains the "habitat". The same is true for herbivores. The impact is seen especially when the habitat can't sustain the species living in it. Common known animals have these impacts often where a food source is scarce and their numbers decline or are completely lost.

If Bigfoot is an "omnivore" then you have an animal the size if not larger than the largest North American Land Mammal (THE MOOSE) competing for food. If the Moose requires on avg 300 lbs of vegetation a week that is a significant impact by one Moose on the areas vegetation, let alone a "clan :rolleyes:" of Moose.

Each animal has it's predator to help naturally control it's numbers and nature has it's way of stabilizing eco systems. The wolf is the top predator of ungulates in the wild. The Bear is opportunistic and will eat any source of protein it can when required for health and sustainability. We have to include the other canids and felids as well.

The Bear leaves it's foraging impact as well as it's fishing and predation on other animals. All of these animals are documented and their behaviors are well known. Bigfoot manages to escape detection.

But best of all, these animals leave scat. These eaters must make room for more food and thus they leave sign everywhere, scat! Yesterday the game trail I explored was scat heaven, it was everywhere from Elk to Moose to Deer and then the scats of those that eat the ungulates, Bobcat, Cougar, Wolves, Coyotes and I found bones from that feeding carnivore. There is common animal sign where one looks. No sign of Bigfoot though.

Why is it that all those who have these expeditions and outings to find Bigfoot with these so called experiences of tracks, sounds and things thrown at them never find evidence of the ever present feeding and pooping? Especially in what is supposed to be the largest non cataloged land mammal in North America "Bigfoot". My gosh, if that Bigfoot was there yelling and screaming at them at some point it had to eat and poop. Where's the Beef?

Don't tell me they bury their scat, cause I find buried Cougar scat because it leaves sign (scratch and mounds). :p Heck you can even find hunter latrines (my dogs tend to find those easily enough).

The caloric need argument from a skeptical standpoint is necessary, all other animals leave evidence of their need for calories from the damage to vegetation to the bones of the animals that carnivores have killed for sustenance.

Animals that have excessive pressure on their food sources show sign as well by accessing human areas and eating their ornamental vegetation's/gardens and small animals, sometimes even attacking humans.

The complete lack of fossils, current bones, scat, sign of a Moose/Bear size appetite all play a role in the reluctance to determine it's possible for a large land mammal to survive in North America today and not be cataloged.

The argument for "we haven't found everything" doesn't fly well when we are talking about 500+ lb non cataloged land mammal in North America and a lack of fossil record for large primate (ape like) species ever existing in North America. Heck, dinosaur bones are found, why not Bigfoots?

Plus, Apes are specialized eaters and live in social groups - there is significant sign of their forage. The North American Continent isn't all the same when it comes to it's vegetation much like the fact that Great Apes can be found where their diet exists (let alone specific weather patterns), and we must not forget that Apes are eaten by humans.

I think skeptics look at the bigger picture instead of looking through the straw (tunnel vision).

People talk like this highly adaptable mythical animal can't be found because it can outsmart human kind, leaves no trace, can live in any climate eating any food, doesn't hibernate but also doesn't leave evidence of it's death when the weather is frightful, can't be hit by vehicles when it seems to seen an awful lot by people in vehicles. I mean by gosh this animal has super powers, it's so much smarter than humans, it likes to struggle to survive in the wild, it doesn't mind being stalked by predators such as Bears and Wolves. It's just super friggen fantastic super hero kind of stuff. :D

If it needs calories, it's will show an impact on the flora and fauna, it will not be able to survive everywhere in North America without showing that impact. It has to compete with other species in it's niche and that will show, but it doesn't because it's not there.

There are humans performing damage control all over the world due to trying to exist side by side with large cataloged mammals in terms of survivability. Yet, the Bigfoot argument continues as to how it can exist leaving no verifiable sign except for super non natural methods and that is just simply mind boggling. :boggled:

kitakaze

23rd February 2010, 05:22 PM

Excellent post, Luv, and I fully agree. I saw a few pages back that in playing opposition Óðinn raised the question of whether we would know Bigfoot sign such as scat apart from that of say the black bear. It's a good question, but before getting into it, let's simplify for a minute. Forget the sign for now, and back to the bodies. OK, there are these giant mammals out there, yes? Like, you're telling me something about the size of a moose or grizzly is out there from Florida to Alaska? OK, and what's that again about how we don't have them classified and well documented? Can moose live from Florida to Alaska, throw barrels and such, anihilate your chicken coops, steal your propane tanks out the back of your truck in the parking lot, etc and go under the radar?

But back to discerning the sign. Surely bears and apes don't poop the same, but I think it's fair to make some assumptions about Bigfoot. They are going to need to have a similar diet to that of a black bear and be generally much larger than a black bear. Black bears drop poops that are usually between 1-2 inches in diameter and vary in consistency and content seasonally, with 2¾ inches diameter being at the maximum size. A 6-10 foot adult Bigfoot is going to lay down some serious pipe. Note to Bigfooters in the field - along with your latex gloves and collection bags for scat, get a caliper in your kit. Any scat that looks like a bear's but is over 2 inches, definitely check it out. Anything above 2¾ inches is going to be very unusual. And learn your scat. Don't do like Sasquatch Watch of Virginia and go posting obvious horse and bear droppings as maybe Bigfoot.

Here is a video to help identify bear scat...

zz9v4MVzuaM

Want to learn how to discern bear marks on pine trees so you don't post something stupid on your website?

ydF75rSe4lw&NR=1

Luv pointed out a good point about humans eating apes. It reminded me of what is supposed to be a close relative of the Bigfoot, the orangutan. See, there's a problem with orangs being caught for meat. The interesting thing is that they are often caught when due to human encroachment on their habitat and forest destruction, they come into human inhabited areas and swipe food. They come looking for food and wind up dead as somebody's lunch. A little Adobo for your oranguburger?

Threat: Harvesting (hunting/gathering)

Another significant threat to orangutan survival is hunting as meat and subsequent capture of wild orangutans for sale into the pet trade (Rijksen 2001). This practice is closely tied to swidden agriculture; as local people burn fires to clear forested areas, orangutans within those areas flee from the conflagration and are captured for meat or sale (Rijksen 2001).

It is also directly linked to forest destruction because as timber harvests, both legal and illegal, increase and food sources become more intermittent, orangutans venture out of the forests into surrounding plantations and fields, stealing food and acting as agricultural pests. When this occurs, local people have little tolerance for the apes. As conflicts arise, orangutans are shot or poisoned and surviving infants and juveniles are taken and sold (Rijksen 2001). It is estimated that about two orangutans per week are smuggled off of Borneo and are taken to Singapore for distribution (Rosen & Byers 2002). Many illegal pet orangutans are seized en route to or in Taiwan, a principal destination for illegally trafficked wild orangutans. A popular Taiwanese television show featuring an orangutan as an ideal pet and companion is likely responsible for the popular idea of orangutans as pets (Lee et al. 1993).

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/orangutan/cons

Hmmm... Habitat encroachment by humans causing great apes to come out in search of food and getting killed by humans. Orangutans are critically endangered in the wild and there is thousands of them in a habitat dwarfed by Bigfoot's purported range across North America. So how does this reflect on the no Bigfoot body situation? Oh yes, that's right, it makes it absurd. At least thousands of Bigfoots across North America doing all the crazy stuff they do, constantly coming into contact with humans and stealing their food, and no body. Bigfoot is mind-numbingly stupid to think about in the sense that a bunch of people who don't know anything about animals are making up all sorts of ludicrous garbage for why Bigfoot is unlike any other animal and we can't find it.

You fools, Bigfoot can not have glowing/reflective eyes or see in the infrared like Predators. Stop making up and kicking around goofy crap, go read a book, and stop polluting young minds with Bigfoot gobbledy-gook. If it gets to a point where it doesn't make sense as a real animal, stop trying to make it make sense. If you're going to go on about oh, the mystery this, and what are these people seeing that, go noodle around on some alien forums and check out some Reptoid sightings. Yes, lots of people claim to see all sorts of gonzo stuff that is not there. Yes, people make up lies for a million reasons. We often see what we want to see or what we are conditioned to see. There is no mystery...

...except for what The Lord Jesus is doing upon this doggy's ass...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=314&pictureid=2462

Vortigern99

23rd February 2010, 05:59 PM

:cool:

Bitter Monk

23rd February 2010, 06:49 PM

Any scat that looks like a bear's but is over 2 inches, definitely check it out. Anything above 2¾ inches is going to be very unusual.

This is the biggest scat I ever found. This was in late December when the foraging is hard on all animals. The composition was mostly crushed hickory nuts. In the last photo you can see a pile of loose stool in close proximity to the "pecan log" as we referred to it.

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk102/theponderingpossum/DSC04394.jpg

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk102/theponderingpossum/DSC04393.jpg

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk102/theponderingpossum/DSC04395.jpg

This photo was from the previous week and in the same area. Might have even been the same bear. Just goes to show how different scat can look based on diet. This was right at the base of a holly tree.

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk102/theponderingpossum/DSC04360.jpg

Volsquatch

23rd February 2010, 07:30 PM

LuvGodzilla

23rd February 2010, 08:01 PM

This is the biggest scat I ever found.

Dang Bitter Monk, our wolves scat bigger than your Bear :D

Wolf Scat Feb 2010. (Melted into snow)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_292174b8496576e2ab.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19207)

Bear Scat Nov 09

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_292174b849667de8ce.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19208)

atpeace

23rd February 2010, 11:17 PM

I do know having a sound scientific background and getting your wits scared out of you by some obviously fictitious story or movie are not mutually exclusive but…

The supernatural is sooo hot now. You have so many (young) people arguing for ghosts and beasties on sites it is like an epidemic. So I see the possibility of BF enthusiast numbers growing. If he’s marketed a little better.

Unfortunately, for some the wonders of real science and real nature just aren’t as thrilling as vampires and haunted places and creepy creatures. Reality can’t compete, so why would the reality of the insanity of a Bigfoot population inhabiting N.A. be any different.

There are also way too many who know better who are more than happy to take the willing for the supernatural thrill ride they’re looking for.

Buying into this pseudo science is a lot more exciting, not to mention a quicker fix, than scat sizing or critical thinking or taking the time to gain some real zoological, etc, knowledge.
So much is entertainment based, even the news and documentaries. Many are unwilling to sort fact from fiction, too much work, and the rest could care less because fiction is too much fun.

Sure, you will always get those genuinely looking for some real science in their search for bigfoot whose eyes may be opened, but I do not believe that is the case for many.

It takes a certain type of person, seeking something specific, I believe, to stick with their belief in anything woo after being confronted repeatedly with sound scientific reasoning.

I think a lack of knowledge or critical thinking skills is often a byproduct of other issues: Real science is “booooring” and throws a wet blanket on their (vicarious) late night visits, spine tingling encounters, and their reality that there are 10 foot beasts roaming neighborhoods and campgrounds!!!

Maybe some legends throughout history were just for the darn vicarious thrill of it!!! I believe man learned early how it feels to spin a mesmerizing tale over a captive audience. And science will NEVER win out completely over our need for scary or larger than life stories. And the ignorant (whether by choice or from lack of knowledge or both) will forever continue to defend in the face of sound scientific reasoning to the contrary.
ap

WGBH

24th February 2010, 08:41 AM

Real Science is not boring, neither are good attempts at Bigfoot investigating. You just do not get to see much of either on internet forums.

Bitter Monk

24th February 2010, 09:29 AM

Real Science is not boring, neither are good attempts at Bigfoot investigating.

It certainly isn't boring. Even if I never find the definitive proof of Bigfoot the experiences I have had learning and observing about all the other flora and fauna out there has been its own rich reward.

The Shrike

24th February 2010, 10:04 AM

A single solitary animal may not show a significant impact on food sources, yet animals must mate to survive (the species), so there are others. When there are others there is competition for food and mating rights.

The problem is that this is undergraduate ecology you're relying on here, and it gets a bit more complicated at the graduate level. Contrary to the principle of competitive exclusion, two species can occupy the same niche indefinitely, so long as resources are abundant relative to the number of individuals.

Let's assume that bigfoots eat pretty much the same thing as black bears, are about the same size, and need about the same calories. Typical home range size (upper estimate) for male black bears is about 60 square miles. (Females' are smaller and generally contained within one or more males' home ranges.) So you might be able to support a population of 50 males - and at least 50 females - in a wilderness area of 3000 square miles. That's 100 bears at a density of 0.033 per square mile.

Now let's put some bigfoots in there. All you have to assume to hide their impact that the density is really low, but the animals are mobile enough to find each other every few years for mating. So how 'bout 10 of 'em? That's a density of 0.003 per square mile.

I'd wager that a density that low would not place our 10 bigfoots in significant competition with our 100 bears. Such a density would also decrease the probability that any human would stumble upon bigfoot "feeding sign" (whatever that is) in the wilderness area. Finally, the bigfoot density relative to the bear density would mean that any human who did stumble upon that bigfoot evidence (sign, scat, etc.) would be likely to write it off as having come from the bears.

So I don't see why from any ecological perspective there can't be a small, widely dispersed population of highly mobile and generally human-avoiding ape-men in the North American wilds right now. I don't presume to know what such creatures might eat or how they might go about obtaining it. I'm neither convinced that we would recognize their feeding sign nor see evidence of competition with other species.

From a "you 'footers are nuts" perspective, however, I find the lack of physical evidence quite damning. To me, the lack of evidence of thousands of years (at least) of occupation in multiple habitats over broad geographic areas is the far taller hurdle to be cleared, and perhaps the primary reason for my skepticism.

Drewbot

24th February 2010, 11:04 AM

Let's assume that bigfoots eat pretty much the same thing as black bears, are about the same size, and need about the same calories. Typical home range size (upper estimate) for male black bears is about 60 square miles. (Females' are smaller and generally contained within one or more males' home ranges.) So you might be able to support a population of 50 males - and at least 50 females - in a wilderness area of 3000 square miles. That's 100 bears at a density of 0.033 per square mile.

Now let's put some bigfoots in there. All you have to assume to hide their impact that the density is really low, but the animals are mobile enough to find each other every few years for mating. So how 'bout 10 of 'em? That's a density of 0.003 per square mile.

I'd wager that a density that low would not place our 10 bigfoots in significant competition with our 100 bears. Such a density would also decrease the probability that any human would stumble upon bigfoot "feeding sign" (whatever that is) in the wilderness area. Finally, the bigfoot density relative to the bear density would mean that any human who did stumble upon that bigfoot evidence (sign, scat, etc.) would be likely to write it off as having come from the bears.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Bear_Guide_09_275336_7.pdf
Baraga County, Michigan Bear Harvests
2007- 435
2008- 462

Baraga County is 1069 Square miles

I would assume there are 2000 bears in Baraga County.
That is a lot of competition for ol' 'Foot.

The Shrike

24th February 2010, 11:29 AM

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Bear_Guide_09_275336_7.pdf
Baraga County, Michigan Bear Harvests
2007- 435
2008- 462

Baraga County is 1069 Square miles

I would assume there are 2000 bears in Baraga County.
That is a lot of competition for ol' 'Foot.

Maybe, maybe not. That's the point. We shouldn't assume that because there are what seem to be a lot of animals in an area that there must be intense competition for the resources to sustain them. Were those 462 nice, plump, healthy bears? If so, then on balance competition probably isn't having a significant effect on the population. Why would tossing a few bigfoots into the mix really matter?

atpeace

24th February 2010, 11:53 AM

Real Science is not boring, neither are good attempts at Bigfoot investigating. You just do not get to see much of either on internet forums.

I have loved science since I was a kid and have passed that love on to my own teenagers. I think it is the most exciting thing going, but that is just not the case for everyone by far. It is like history or classic literature. Those aren't exactly at the top of many people's lists when there is (to them) much more exciting stuff to view and read out there.
ap

William Parcher

24th February 2010, 11:55 AM

Such a density would also decrease the probability that any human would stumble upon bigfoot "feeding sign" (whatever that is) in the wilderness area.

Special pleading. Let's see you put some numbers to the probability.

Finally, the bigfoot density relative to the bear density would mean that any human who did stumble upon that bigfoot evidence (sign, scat, etc.) would be likely to write it off as having come from the bears.

Special pleading. Let's see you put some numbers to "likely".

Óðinn

24th February 2010, 12:33 PM

Special pleading. Let's see you put some numbers to the probability.

Special pleading. Let's see you put some numbers to "likely".
1 in umpteen,000. Rhetorical?

Surely the "probability" goes down that you will find remains/signs with decreasing density. Don't need any numbers to know that. Or do you want an estimate for how small a population would have to be not to find any sign of them? Not that anyone could supply those numbers.

William Parcher

24th February 2010, 12:50 PM

The point is that I (or anyone) could make opposite probability claims.

1. In spite of a small population density, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that "recognizable feeding sign" would be stumbled upon in the totality of hundreds of years and millions of wilderness visitors.

2. In spite of a small population density relative to bears, across hundreds of years and with millions of wilderness visitors it is HIGHLY LIKELY that found Bigfoot evidence would not simply be written off as bear evidence.

William Parcher

24th February 2010, 12:53 PM

For numbers... think of the sum total of all people who have ever entered Bigfoot habitat.

It's millions for sure. Is it billions?

LTC8K6

24th February 2010, 12:58 PM

Why would tossing a few bigfoots into the mix really matter?

Bigfoot without competition and good habitat = exploding population...

So, do they have competition, or not? If so, what is that competition and what is the conflict? If not, then where are the numbers?

Is the habitat ideal, or not? If so, why aren't they flourishing? If not, why are they here/there?

William Parcher

24th February 2010, 01:07 PM

Bear or other animal scat might contain Bigfoot hairs from predation or scavenging. Biologists doing surveys (or other qualified observers) will find Bigfoot hair in the scat. Or do you special plead that BF hair looks just like some other species?

William Parcher

24th February 2010, 01:24 PM

Think of all the historical wars in North America (Revolutionary, Civil, Indian, etc) and the number of armed troops moving across the land. They never produced a Bigfoot either shot or found dead.

The Shrike

24th February 2010, 01:29 PM

1. . . "recognizable feeding sign" . . .
Which is?

If flesh and blood bigfoots are out there in the woods right now, then I think it's ridiculous that (a) we have had no specimen of such a creature come to light. I'm pretty sure we agree on that. I do not think it's ridiculous that, especially given (a), people would not be able to recognize bigfoot feeding sign if they encountered it.

As for special pleading, I agree with you that presumptions about what must be the niche requirements, population structure, and behavior of such a creature as a bigfoot are textbook logical fallacy. But as I've indicated before, it is no great stretch to suggest that a large mammal occurs at low density and tries to avoid humans. We've got plenty of animals that do that. Eating powdered rocks to render oneself invisible? Now that's special pleading.

The Shrike

24th February 2010, 01:32 PM

Think of all the historical wars in North America (Revolutionary, Civil, Indian, etc) and the number of armed troops moving across the land. They never produced a Bigfoot either shot or found dead.

Your last two posts = awesome insights into the ridiculousness of not having physical evidence if bigfoots are real. I wholeheartedly agree.

The distinction I'm trying to make is that I can't necessarily look at a denuded blueberry bush and tell you if a bigfoot or a bear ate the berries.

rockinkt

24th February 2010, 01:36 PM

It's interesting what happens when we befriend a person. It's like they get put into a different part of our mind. I wasn't close to him like you were. I would just stick him (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/mack.htm) in the same pile as others I would call Bigfoot *************ers - those grand storytellers of the giant hairy wildman. They aren't bad people and are probably good. They just decided (for whatever reasons) that fabricating Bigfoot encounter stories is a better thing to do than not doing it.

I'm reminded of Longtabber PE. How were your feelings about his honesty and righteousness before being outed as a military fraud? Do you think he really was a professional investigator (like you) or was that made up too?

You are right. My opinion of Clayton will always be skewed by my childhood memories.

Funny thing though - and I have commented on this in the past on the BFF - my father's bushcraft was just as good as Clayton's but he never, ever entertained the idea that sasquatch/bigfoot was real.
He was of the opinion that based on his personal experience and the experience of the trappers/explorers that taught him his bushcraft - no such creature could have escaped their notice; especially since people like Martin Starret and my dad also traipsed around a helluva lot more of BC that Clayton did.

William Parcher

24th February 2010, 01:40 PM

Which is?

Never mind that. The burden is upon you. You plead that such sign would not be recognizable. It's a huge bipedal primate with hands. It doesn't have claws like a bear. You plead that no person, no matter how qualified they are, would look at found feeding sign and say "that ain't a bear". Never in the history of modern human habitation in North America. Not even once.

rockinkt

24th February 2010, 01:50 PM

<snip>

The distinction I'm trying to make is that I can't necessarily look at a denuded blueberry bush and tell you if a bigfoot or a bear ate the berries.

I am guessing that you are referring to casual looking - not a serious (and time consuming) investigation of the area.
Based on your posts and the knowledge/experience that you obviously possess - I am quite confident that you should be able to find tracks or trackways, hair, or at least scat in the general area that identifies the culprit.

Too many people (not necessarily you) think that something must remain unknown because they won't put in the time and effort necessary to search for the answers.

William Parcher

24th February 2010, 01:50 PM

The distinction I'm trying to make is that I can't necessarily look at a denuded blueberry bush and tell you if a bigfoot or a bear ate the berries.

Forget the bush. You see this on the ground around the bush...

The Shrike

24th February 2010, 02:12 PM

You plead that no person, no matter how qualified they are, would look at found feeding sign and say "that ain't a bear". Never in the history of modern human habitation in North America. Not even once.
No I don't; bigfooters claim to find such things.

What I'm "pleading" is that not finding sign of feeding bigfoots is a poor skeptical argument against the backdrop of having no physical evidence of such creatures. The lack of "feeding sign" is easily countered by the 'footers requiring little more than the innocuous presumption that bigfoots occur at low density. It also sits in contradiction to 'footers claims that they do find feeding sign - including scat. Weak skeptical arguments = kerosene for 'footers belief.

The Shrike

24th February 2010, 02:15 PM

- I am quite confident that you should be able to find tracks or trackways, hair, or at least scat in the general area that identifies the culprit.
Sure, but aren't these the exact things that bigfooters claim to find?

Why, from a skeptical perspective, does it do us any good to focus on the lack of feeding sign when we have no evidence that there's any feeder in the first place?

Drewbot

24th February 2010, 02:21 PM

Why, from a skeptical perspective, does it do us any good to focus on the lack of feeding sign when we have no evidence that there's any feeder in the first place?

Because people shoot animals that kill their livestock, or eat their crops, People park their cars by dumps to see the cute bears, Millions of hunters are out in the field and never get a chance to whack a Bigfoot grazing on their 'DEER CRACK', Bigfeets allegedly cross interstates, peek in windows, and don't get nabbed.

It demonstrates the absurdity of such a large animal existing alongside rural America without leaving any verifiable sign of their presence. i.e. Scat, Hair, Good Video, A dead specimen.

kitakaze

24th February 2010, 02:29 PM

It certainly isn't boring. Even if I never find the definitive proof of Bigfoot the experiences I have had learning and observing about all the other flora and fauna out there has been its own rich reward.

This is the one thing I would hope for all people getting out in the woods looking for Bigfoot.

...Oh yeah, and that they would have some luck finding Bigfoot.

rockinkt

24th February 2010, 02:45 PM

Sure, but aren't these the exact things that bigfooters claim to find?

Why, from a skeptical perspective, does it do us any good to focus on the lack of feeding sign when we have no evidence that there's any feeder in the first place?

That is why one must never let the casual claims of "sasquatch/bigfoot evidence" get a free pass.
Rigorous questioning of all such claims must be made - even if it causes people angst.

kitakaze

24th February 2010, 02:54 PM

Let's assume that bigfoots eat pretty much the same thing as black bears, are about the same size, and need about the same calories. Typical home range size (upper estimate) for male black bears is about 60 square miles. (Females' are smaller and generally contained within one or more males' home ranges.) So you might be able to support a population of 50 males - and at least 50 females - in a wilderness area of 3000 square miles. That's 100 bears at a density of 0.033 per square mile.

Now let's put some bigfoots in there. All you have to assume to hide their impact that the density is really low, but the animals are mobile enough to find each other every few years for mating. So how 'bout 10 of 'em? That's a density of 0.003 per square mile.

The point is that I (or anyone) could make opposite probability claims.

1. In spite of a small population density, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that "recognizable feeding sign" would be stumbled upon in the totality of hundreds of years and millions of wilderness visitors.

2. In spite of a small population density relative to bears, across hundreds of years and with millions of wilderness visitors it is HIGHLY LIKELY that found Bigfoot evidence would not simply be written off as bear evidence.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=314&pictureid=2476

California - 163,696 sq mi (423,970 km2). Wolverine population density - 0 per square mile.

Origins Of Wolverine In California Genetically Verified. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090429152428.htm)

William Parcher

24th February 2010, 02:57 PM

Sure, but aren't these the exact things that bigfooters claim to find?

Isn't it interesting that for the most part, Bigfoot evidence is found and presented by Bigfoot believers? There is something very fishy about that. Millions of people going into the PNW wilderness and who walks out with the huge plaster casts? Bigfooters.

Lyle Laverty was a forestry worker who spent every day in the Bluff Creek watershed. He never saw any sign of Bigfoot. Well, he wasn't a Bigfooter. But Titmus, Patterson, etc. were Bigfooters before even going to that area. They never came away empty handed.

The Shrike

24th February 2010, 03:19 PM

It demonstrates the absurdity of such a large animal existing alongside rural America without leaving any verifiable sign of their presence. i.e. Scat, Hair, Good Video, A dead specimen.

This is where I'm not following this logic. How is a farmer not finding missing ears of corn and an associated suspicious pile of poop an argument against the existence of bigfoot on par with the fact that we have no physical specimen of such a creature in the first place?

The Shrike

24th February 2010, 03:26 PM

Origins Of Wolverine In California Genetically Verified.
Exactly. This wolverine was obviously eating, pooping, urinating, etc. in California without anyone noticing its "sign." We know it's there because it was photographed. Ergo, the better question to put to 'footers is not "How come we don't find leaves that were chewed by bigfoot," but rather "How come we can't photograph one?"

A retort for the former question requires no great effort on their part. In contrast, the mental gyrations needed to explain away the latter question send them to the central square of Woo City.

kitakaze

24th February 2010, 03:27 PM

No I don't; bigfooters claim to find such things.

What I'm "pleading" is that not finding sign of feeding bigfoots is a poor skeptical argument against the backdrop of having no physical evidence of such creatures. The lack of "feeding sign" is easily countered by the 'footers requiring little more than the innocuous presumption that bigfoots occur at low density. It also sits in contradiction to 'footers claims that they do find feeding sign - including scat. Weak skeptical arguments = kerosene for 'footers belief.

Personally, my argument about Bigfoot and feeding has nothing to do with passing by some denuded blueberry bushes or recognizing what took a dump in the woods. I don't care if they eat apples and cats or dirt and sticks, it's not the sign of the animals feeding but the animals feeding. Bigfoot living across North America from Florida to Alaska in the course of its searching for sustenance, mates, habitat, etc would have produced specimens many times over. What precedent is there for a massive terrestrial mammal to live across major industrialized nations in sustainable breeding populations with out yielding a type specimen? How does one of the biggest land mammals in NA continue living across Canada and America since the founding of those nations when we have type specimens for every single living land mammal from Louisiana black bears to the Vancouver Island marmot to the Florida Salt marsh Vole?

It's ludicrous and absurd and a slap in the face to the people who make it their lives to study and protect such animals.

kitakaze

24th February 2010, 03:39 PM

Exactly. This wolverine was obviously eating, pooping, urinating, etc. in California without anyone noticing its "sign." We know it's there because it was photographed. Ergo, the better question to put to 'footers is not "How come we don't find leaves that were chewed by bigfoot," but rather "How come we can't photograph one?"

A retort for the former question requires no great effort on their part. In contrast, the mental gyrations needed to explain away the latter question send them to the central square of Woo City.

Now we are in full agreement and on the exact same page. One single wild wolverine in all of California and boom, we have its pictures, video, poop, DNA, place of origin, done. A vast array of camera traps and track plates set up across Northern California for the study of martens and fishers. Every single animal of significant size across the state is photographed and documented, including, holy crap, the first wolverine in over 80 years, and yet where the heck are the massive bipedal wood apes in what is supposed to be their prime habitat? BFRO lists 413 total sightings. Whaaa?

William Parcher

24th February 2010, 03:46 PM

Also know that we don't need a specific individual Bigfoot for scientific confirmation. Any Bigfoot from any place will suffice. We don't need an out-of-typical-range individual like this wolverine.

kitakaze

24th February 2010, 06:05 PM

Real animals, real issues...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=314&pictureid=2477

kitakaze

24th February 2010, 07:56 PM

This guy holds the North American land speed record and can do 60 mph...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=314&pictureid=2478

Learn more about Sonoran pronghorn conservation here. (http://www.fws.gov/news/NewsReleases/showNews.cfm?newsId=9F8CD2B3-BD5D-E864-57F02A0868ED4688)

Imaginary animals can do whatever speed you want.

HarryHenderson

24th February 2010, 08:57 PM

...Imaginary animals can do whatever speed you want.
That exact notion was the initial 'sin' that ultimately broke my Bigfoot Faith™. At one time there was a 'serious discussion' on the BFF about Bigfoot's ability to run really fast. People I had previously thought to be partially intelligent were seriously discussing (and proposing) Bigfoot's ability to run 30-40-50-60 MPH. Seriously! Apparently there's been any number of 'reports' over the years of Bigfoot literally running alongside of or trailing-but-keeping-up with trucks and cars as they were going down the road at normal highway speeds. So outrageous are the stories that they must be true, right? Other reports claimed witnesses high-tailed it out of some-where as a Bigfoot chased after them and was 'gaining' on them...and they were in a Ferrari®. :eek:

I of course subsequently totally lost it when they started to discuss 'Does Bigfoot Have Pets', but 'Bigfoot Does 60 In a School Zone' was definitely the original beginning of the end.

GT/CS

24th February 2010, 09:35 PM

Is that in 4x4 mode?

LTC8K6

24th February 2010, 10:14 PM

Yes, he can run 50mph, and lift very heavy items, but he doesn't need very many calories to stay alive...

GT/CS

25th February 2010, 07:23 AM

Can anyone imagine Patty running at 50mph, or moving at all in 4x4 mode, even with her <que Sweaty> "inhumanly long" arms? :boggled:

William Parcher

25th February 2010, 07:30 AM

Is that in 4x4 mode?

That's only done consistently by the Bigfoots in Skilleyville. Might be a different species there.

Correa Neto

25th February 2010, 09:37 AM

I understand The Shike's position. Not all arguments and evidence pieces have the same weight.

The problem with the "no signs" (poop, hairs, chewed food, etc.) or "no impact" line of reasoning is that a footer will quickly say that there are indeed signs and impacts. He/she will then quickly point towards the same material which has been refuted and/or had its weaknesses shown countless times before and quite possibly claim the skeptics are either ignorant or close-minded regarding bigfootery. In the minds of those not used to scientific method and/or blinded by faith, unidentified hairs, inconclusive DNA assays, unidentified footprints, unidentified turds, chewed apples, etc. are good or compelling pieces of evidences which add to sighting reports and/or experiences.

So, the best path may be to directly address the core of the issue- the evidence pieces themselves. Example- "inconclusive DNA results" is not equal to "unidentified giant bipedal ape DNA".

Personally I think that quite often its is interesting to show all the weaknesses in the "theories" built by footers over bigfootery lore - not only the weaknesses of the evidence but also those flaws related to poor knowledge of logic and science. It may be important to show them how to build properly a case.

Example- one can build a number of models to explain scattered bigfoot populations (be them nomadic or not) all along North America territory. Of course all of these models will meet the same fate, dictated by the absence of reliable data to support the existence of bigfeet. Despite of this fact, some of these models, will be plausible, while some others not. And to do so, we will not address the core (the evidence) but its surroundings.

kitakaze

25th February 2010, 03:47 PM

This guy was actually the rarest mammal in the world in the 80's and the entire population had to be taken for captive breeding. Through those efforts the animals number in the hundreds, not the tens, now...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=314&pictureid=2488

Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program (http://www.blackfootedferret.org/history-decline.htm)

William Parcher

25th February 2010, 04:00 PM

So when I say 100,000 Bigfoot in North America, in my humble opinion, that is a drop in the bucket, as North America is a bloody massive land mass. Anyone who has flown from, say, Los Angeles to Washington, D.C. has an opportunity to see how vast the land is just in one "plane" corridor in the United States. In other words, as far as your eye can see from the window of the plane. People see one hundred thousand and think that is a big number. Well, yes, it is. But put that number in perspective… all of North America with an estimated size of 9,460,000 square miles and all of a sudden 100,000 looks like just a very, very small amount.

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/66f42264.gif

kitakaze

25th February 2010, 05:11 PM

:D

LOL. And Matt "5-10,000 Bigfoots" Moneymaker just named him one of the best bloggers on BF. Scroll down...

http://bfro.net/

JcR

25th February 2010, 07:42 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_283964b872c9bcf73c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19237) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_283964b872fa053f09.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19238)
Paging Dr. Jeffrey! ... You have a urgent call from Dr. Sarmiento. He wants his picnic basket and corn biscuits back. Dr. Jeffery! ... Are the grouse really that interesting?

RayG

25th February 2010, 09:08 PM

:D

LOL. And Matt "5-10,000 Bigfoots" Moneymaker just named him one of the best bloggers on BF. Scroll down...

http://bfro.net/

Jeebus, did you read his rant about the Wikipedia entry?

He thinks Philosopher Dr. Sherrilyn Roush should be the one to cast the final opinion on bigfoot.

She might want to hang out at the BFF for awhile first, and read through all sorts of philosophical threads about bigfoot.

Does bigfoot keep pets? Does bigfoot have language? Do female bigfoot have hair on their breasts? What would you do if you met a bigfoot? What kind of weapon would be most effective against bigfoot? Would bear spray be effective on a bigfoot? Do bigfoot bury their dead? Do bigfoot migrate? Do bigfoot use infrasound? Are dead/missing hunters killed/abducted by bigfoot? Why won't dogs track bigfoot? (and so on and so forth)

Maybe then she could then give her opinion on whether or not bigfoot thinks of himself as a handless brain in a vat.*

RayG

*http://philosophy.berkeley.edu/file/394/Closure_on_Skepticism_for_publication.pdf

kitakaze

26th February 2010, 12:13 AM

Jeebus, did you read his rant about the Wikipedia entry?

He thinks Philosopher Dr. Sherrilyn Roush should be the one to cast the final opinion on bigfoot.

I was going to go through Money's hissy fit in the BFRO thread. Hey, Money, you douchebag, did it ever occur to you that that professor who has no idea you've plastered her face on a Bigfoot website in a manner that could give the impression that she is a Bigfoot/BFRO proponent, may not want such attention? Misinformation from wikipedia? It is to laugh...

Sir Fricking King Money A-hole of misinformation is whining about wiki stating that scientific establishment considers Bigfoot an imaginary animal...

-- Sightings of sasquatches are unpredictable. They occur only in rural areas. Very few people in rural areas keep a decent camera handy at all times.

-- Very few people go out looking for these animals for the purpose of photographing them. Most bigfoot researchers are "arm chair" researchers.

http://bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=412

Very few people go out looking for these animals for the purpose of photographing them... Mmhmm. Ahhh, yeah. Wait a minute, what does that make me think of?

Over the past five years BFRO expeditions have steadily grown in size. People who attended one expedition usually attended more, while new people were signing up. Over the course of time the number of participants, especially in particular regions, grew so much that the expeditions became difficult to wrangle. It became obvious that BFRO expeditions can and should be more spread out in terms of geography and the calendar. The 28 expeditions per year around North America might multiply to over 100 smaller expeditions in that scenario. That would help us along in some ways, but it would make the task of newbie matriculation much more difficult. It is already a challenge with 28 expeditions per year.

http://bfro.net/news/expeds_2010.asp

Very few people go looking to photograph Bigfoot not counting the 100 $300 a head expeditions (they call them small at 40 person max) we do. That's quite the rub n' tug, Money, giving us the hobo face "there's nobody out there" while they're traipsing around two countries with 40 max "small" expeditions all over the fricking place. Mmhmm, oh, you've got a little something by your... no... right there on your face. Yeah, it was just from the bull$#!% that was coming out of your mouth.

kitakaze

26th February 2010, 12:39 AM

In 2003 the number of Vancouver Island Marmots in the wild was about 1/3 the number of pages in this thread...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=314&pictureid=2491

Marmot Recovery Foundation (http://www.marmots.org/pdf/Marmot_fall2008.pdf)

You know your $#!% is set on FAIL when the dollar amount of the minimum donation the organization representing you is asking for is higher than the total number of your species in the wild.

rockinkt

26th February 2010, 02:22 AM

I'm reminded of Longtabber PE. How were your feelings about his honesty and righteousness before being outed as a military fraud? Do you think he really was a professional investigator (like you) or was that made up too?

Sorry - I was looking for another post of mine and discovered that I had not answered this part of your post.

I posted this on the BFF:

This board is a board that deals with claims regarding Bigfoot related claims. I explained my reasons to you in the PM. If you had any further questions - you could have made those known there.

Oh well - you wanted to make it public...

I had questions about a board member's PERSONAL life history. That is not germane to discussions about Bigfoot.
I had neither the inclination nor the connections to find out the facts until I was contacted on the JREF by a person who explained that it was an actual criminal offense to be claiming false military service in the US.
That person had pretty sound evidence that made me choose - at that time - to get involved BEHIND THE SCENES.

Now that it became public knowledge - I see nothing wrong in discussing it. AFTER ALL COUNSELOR - YOU WERE THE ONE WHO WANTED ME TO TO JUST THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Remember - you sent me a PM out of the blue asking me to start a thread about Longtabber in the member's forum.
It was an obvious attempt at a jab because you thought for some deranged reason that I was friends with him. The fact that we had a common enemy who was bullying the both of us with outrageous tactics and falsehoods did not make us friends. United in a common cause would be a better descriptor.

I explained that I am not friends with everybody who agrees with me on an internet board (no more than I am an enemy of someone I disagree with) and that I have been looking into his claims with another member of this board (whose name I gave you).
I also told you I did not "out" people's true identities on boards. I think such an act is despicable unless an obvious case of illegality is taking place. I also don't out locations of research projects either.

You have a personal grudge against me COUNSELOR - and it shows. Why are you trying to stir things up? One might conclude that you are the bully trying to play games with the power you have. However - I would never speculate or accuse you of such a thing because it would be against the forum rules.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28053&view=findpost&p=566771

Apologies for the long post and the excess of personal argument between a particular mod and myself. However - I did not want to edit it because I did not want it to appear that I was trying to hide something.

In the following post - I refer to the fact that I had correspondence with another member of the BFF regarding our doubts about Longtabber's claims regarding his LEO and military service in 2008
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28053&view=findpost&p=566626

Longtabber was familiar - but not very practiced - in a number of things relating to investigations. That is what gave him away to me at least.

He was very intelligent - that was obvious.

I thought a member of this board who was one of the latter people to contact me regarding Longtabbber was a sock puppet of his - but I was mistaken. :o

kitakaze

26th February 2010, 02:53 AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I can not say I got to a point of undoubtedly thinking Longtabber was a lying poseur before it was served to me on a platter by people who were paying more attention. Most of the uncertainty I had was based on answers from him regarding military protocols that did not compute based on my own very limited military experience. I blame most of my ignorance based on my revulsion at Longtabber's Usenet style of posting. It made me want to pour bleach in my eyes.

I gave him the respect I thought appropriate for someone who was serving his country in Afghanistan. The respect was not high enough to muck through a bunch of Usenet textbergs. I often briefly thought to myself as I was scrolling past a Longtabber post, am I missing something important by not reading this? which was invariably followed by I'll live.

I have no doubt Longtabber continues to follow things at JREF, and to him I would ask this most important question...

How much chicken could a chicken farmer choke if a chicken farmer would choke chicken?

The Shrike

26th February 2010, 08:39 AM

I often briefly thought to myself as I was scrolling past a Longtabber post, am I missing something important by not reading this? which was invariably followed by I'll live.

OK, now I'm starting to believe in deja vu.

William Parcher

26th February 2010, 09:36 AM

He was very intelligent - that was obvious.

We have to make a note of this. A very intelligent person who decided to tell lies about encountering Bigfoot. His encounter story from the military base must be pure fabrication because he was never in the military. He obviously had nothing material to gain from his hoaxing. He just wanted to do it out of personal enjoyment... a hobby or pastime of sorts. IMO, this constitutes the bulk of amateur Bigfootery. Tell lies about seeing Bigfoot because it's fun.

Longtabber wanted to be one of those so-called "BFF meanieheads". He must have already seen them bumping and grinding on the forum. "I can be one of those guys too." So he made up a couple of encounter stories, each of them including other witnesses besides himself. Then the brilliant part.... don't claim certainty. Don't say stuff like 100% or even 99%. Make your stories extremely tempting and convincing to other Bigfooters. Let them insist that you saw Bigfoots. Perfect. Then proceed to cut-and-dice almost every other encounter report you come across. "My encounters are awesome but yours suck and I bet you are a liar!" :D

IMO, LTPE fully understood that Bigfoot does not exist. He saw that there is an internet game that can be played called Bigfootery. He understood that nearly everybody else is playing that game too. Gimmee my fun. He ran with it for a long time and probably would still if not for that nasty background check after getting lazy with his personal info.

I think the BFF and Bigfooters in general do not want to look too closely at the Longtabber debacle. Thrash him for military fraud, but not Bigfoot fraud. Why? Because to examine his Bigfooter persona and lies is to look into a mirror.

tsig

26th February 2010, 10:22 AM

Is that in 4x4 mode?

second gear:

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/the-playmates/beep-beep.html

Óðinn

26th February 2010, 11:04 AM

We have to make a note of this. A very intelligent person who decided to tell lies about encountering Bigfoot. His encounter story from the military base must be pure fabrication because he was never in the military. He obviously had nothing material to gain from his hoaxing. He just wanted to do it out of personal enjoyment... a hobby or pastime of sorts. IMO, this constitutes the bulk of amateur Bigfootery. Tell lies about seeing Bigfoot because it's fun.

Longtabber wanted to be one of those so-called "BFF meanieheads". He must have already seen them bumping and grinding on the forum. "I can be one of those guys too." So he made up a couple of encounter stories, each of them including other witnesses besides himself. Then the brilliant part.... don't claim certainty. Don't say stuff like 100% or even 99%. Make your stories extremely tempting and convincing to other Bigfooters. Let them insist that you saw Bigfoots. Perfect. Then proceed to cut-and-dice almost every other encounter report you come across. "My encounters are awesome but yours suck and I bet you are a liar!" :D

IMO, LTPE fully understood that Bigfoot does not exist. He saw that there is an internet game that can be played called Bigfootery. He understood that nearly everybody else is playing that game too. Gimmee my fun. He ran with it for a long time and probably would still if not for that nasty background check after getting lazy with his personal info.

I think the BFF and Bigfooters in general do not want to look too closely at the Longtabber debacle. Thrash him for military fraud, but not Bigfoot fraud. Why? Because to examine his Bigfooter persona and lies is to look into a mirror.

Longtabber was a BF cynic in all regards except for his own sightings. Calling BS on everything was always the safest bet. But he left himself in the "not sure" category so he never had to defend himself. I don't recall much fanfare from the BFF towards his sightings. Funny how Mak was the only one here calling him on his sightings. I called him on just about everything but no one here ever backed me up, because he was telling you what you wanted to hear. He was an uber-skeptic with credentials up the wazoo that was raggin on "bigfoot science". What's not to love? So where's that mirror?

The Shrike

26th February 2010, 11:12 AM

Longtabber was a BF cynic in all regards except for his own sightings. . . . He was an uber-skeptic with credentials up the wazoo that was raggin on "bigfoot science". What's not to love? So where's that mirror?
Guilty as charged, Odinn. Though I thought him a nut of a different ilk, there were many threads at the BFF in which I was happy to hand the reins over to LT for a while to deflect the woo. I simply perceived him as one of several skeptics prone to belief (or "not suredness") from some odd personal experience.

William Parcher

26th February 2010, 11:21 AM

Funny how Mak was the only one here calling him on his sightings.... I called him on just about everything but no one here ever backed me up, because he was telling you what you wanted to hear. He was an uber-skeptic with credentials up the wazoo that was raggin on "bigfoot science". What's not to love? So where's that mirror?

You must not recall my treatment of LTPE in this thread concerning his encounter reports. Go back and look at my grilling of him.

I always regarded him as a wonky crooked Bigfoot skeptic. How can you be a BF skeptic when you have 75% confidence that Bigfoot does exist?

Óðinn

26th February 2010, 11:28 AM

You must not recall my treatment of LTPE in this thread concerning his encounter reports. Go back and look at my grilling of him.

I always regarded him as a wonky crooked Bigfoot skeptic. How can you be a BF skeptic when you have 75% confidence that Bigfoot does exist?

Yes, you were the exception, but you run this place. ;)

William Parcher

26th February 2010, 11:30 AM

I called him on just about everything but no one here ever backed me up, because he was telling you what you wanted to hear.

My recollection is that your call-outs of him were technically related to photogrammetry (or whatever that is) and analyzing photos - not about the existence of Bigfoot. IOW, when he expressed the likelihood of Bigfoot existing (because he probably saw two of them) you did not respond with "Bigfoot ain't out there buddy"... like I do.

I have no experience with photogrammetry or military. But about the North American megafauna? Oh yes. You did not see Bigfoot while duck hunting. Buddy. You did not see Bigfoot at a military base. Buddy. Bigfoot does not exist. Buddy.

William Parcher

26th February 2010, 11:36 AM

I also called him out in the Michigan Recording Project thread. IMO, he lied about previously analyzing their recordings using professional equipment along with his son. IMO, his support (vouching) for the MRP team was a throwaway token that wasn't even worth the pixels that composed it.

A Bigfoot hoaxer vouching for another Bigfoot hoax.

Drewbot

26th February 2010, 11:37 AM

Does THIS look familiar LT? I mean, you are talking about an extremely large object. probably bigger than a grizzly bear, probably the 4th or 5th largest land mammal on the planet.

Was the width proportional with the height? or could the M113 been parked next to a berm that it was walking on? The M113 Hull tops out at six feet, so if it was 'Chest Shoulders and Head' above it, it must have been 9-10 feet tall. and just huge. Did it look like this http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_197054a4a1f2cbbe95.jpg

I guess this doesn't qualify as calling him out...

LT- just using a little Longtabber questioning on this, but why would you be carrying Magnum Duck Loads, AND 00 Buck shot? Here in Michigan, carrying buckshot while duck hunting is illegal, don't know about NC. But the two loads don't normally go together.

Re:1st encounter (were you in the Military at the time?) if not then ignore this.
Also, you have said that pranking goes on at the bases quite a bit, knowing that fact, wouldn't you be inclined NOT to shoot at an unidentified creature, knowing that it quite possibly could be one of your buds playing a prank on what he assumed was a couple of new guys?

William Parcher

26th February 2010, 11:44 AM

Mak would believe or not depending on the tides and day of the week and if the trolling was good. Here he states that it is only LTPE that gives him pause to reconsider...

I am 99.9% convinced there is no hairy monster alive, but that .1% I can attribute to Longtabber Pe's 2 sightings, whose conviction in bigfoot remains hanging by a thread...Based on HIS two encounters.

Vortigern99

26th February 2010, 05:43 PM

I never saw a reason to question LT because he allowed that "maybe" his sighting was a bigfoot, that "maybe" bigfoot existed and maybe it didn't, and "maybe" he saw one.

That to me is the essence of skepticism: Yeah, "maybe" he saw such an animal, but where is the evidence that the animal even exists? Let's try to pin down the evidence first -- "show me the data" was LT's mantra -- and then we can re-visit the sighting and try and determine if it was a legitimate sighting of a real, flesh-and-blood animal.

I debate with witnesses, such as 154 and WGBH, who insist that they saw what they saw -- namely, a bigfoot -- and that any other explanation for their experience is pseudo-skeptical nonsense. Their dogmatic assertion that there can be no other plausible explanation is what needs to be refuted/contended/debated with every tool at our disposal... not the "maybe" witnesses, like LT, who professed to having possibly seen something that might have been a bigfoot.

rockinkt

26th February 2010, 05:55 PM

I agree, Vort...
You can waste a lot of time questioning somebody who can't identify what they saw and will NOT say that it was a sasquatch/bigfoot.

Unless someone is making a specific claim - why bother?

rockinkt

26th February 2010, 06:47 PM

Longtabber was a BF cynic in all regards except for his own sightings. Calling BS on everything was always the safest bet. But he left himself in the "not sure" category so he never had to defend himself. I don't recall much fanfare from the BFF towards his sightings. Funny how Mak was the only one here calling him on his sightings. I called him on just about everything but no one here ever backed me up, because he was telling you what you wanted to hear. He was an uber-skeptic with credentials up the wazoo that was raggin on "bigfoot science". What's not to love? So where's that mirror?

That appears to be straight out of the BFF whine manual. :D

There are a lot of reasons why people post or do not post.
Quit trying to read too much into it and fer cryin' out loud - don't take it personally! :)

ETA: Everything that Longtabber said about the absolutely lousy science and scientists involved in the Bigfoot bandwagon was right on. I don't care if he only really had a grade 3 education. When you're right - you're right!

tsig

26th February 2010, 11:26 PM

Yes, you were the exception, but you run this place. ;)

No he wasn't and no he doesn't.

Óðinn

26th February 2010, 11:48 PM

That appears to be straight out of the BFF whine manual. :D

There are a lot of reasons why people post or do not post.
Quit trying to read too much into it and fer cryin' out loud - don't take it personally! :)

ETA: Everything that Longtabber said about the absolutely lousy science and scientists involved in the Bigfoot bandwagon was right on. I don't care if he only really had a grade 3 education. When you're right - you're right!
Whether LT was right or not is irrelevant. Christ, I could gripe about him far more than I have. I never took him personally. I knew what he was, long before you did. You claim that you were on to him in 2008, yet you continued to support him into 2009. Howz that?
[Regarding the Duke Rape Case]
IIRC - Longtabber was one of the experts that the defense team brought in.
Did you believe this when you wrote it in 2009?

With the connections that either Longtabber or I have - I can pretty well guarantee that we could find out the names and addresses of almost anyone on this site if we really wanted to.
Did you believe that LT had the LE experience to pull this off?

Longtabber and I have posted on this type of thing before. If there is no offical paperwork signed by the police officer(s) - then it is nothing more than a story. Period.

Did you include LT because he was an LE like you?

Óðinn

26th February 2010, 11:53 PM

No he wasn't and no he doesn't.

Who else then? And yes he does. He's the Sheriff of Bigfoot Town :D

William Parcher

27th February 2010, 09:01 AM

I posted this on the BFF:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28053&view=findpost&p=566771...

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28053&view=findpost&p=566626

I can't access those links. I think they might require BFF registration and login.

FWIW, LTPE's encounter stories were discussed on JREF at about here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71572&page=20). His stories showed up previously on BFF at about here (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=3996&st=693).

The only reason my personal scale tips toward BF is because of the height ( bears can stand and walk but they generally dont move that fast and negotiate that kind of terrain- we do get a rogue bear every few years so it realistically could have been one) and the unrelated news story about a month later.

I dont know what ( if anything) we interrupted- I DO know what happened that morning. I also stated to MOI I understood what his friend experienced. I know ( from my perspective) that was the most terrified I was in my life ( even in war, i used this experience to "calm" me).

I know it altered my perspective ( I'm the guy who would bring a mini gun to a dove shoot- just in case). I dont pretend to say I remember detail ( I dont) and i cant say for sure it was a BF ( even after all the times I have run this thru in my mind- we never established a clear visual).

I do know this- this experience resulted in me arming myself different than others and if it ever occurs again- there will be something to autopsy. I'm going to kill it or it is going to kill me. I have had decades to think about this- forget science, if the opportunity ever presents itself to me again, I'm going to put an end to it- not for science but to put a nightmare to bed.

The above statement may not be popular, PC or whatever- it doesnt matter, I have a point to prove to me.

Pure Bulls***. But this stuff is perfect for Bigfootery.

WGBH

27th February 2010, 01:12 PM

I see a lot of Bigfooters who claim sightings and are flailing woos that have the Fortean addiction bad. Bigfoot is just one of their fixes. They have the UFO/lake monster/whatever cryptid things on the burner, too. We can see this with people like Sweaty (doesn't claim a sighting) with the Martian civilization/Earth connection and UFO battles overhead drool. You can look and quickly discern that they have the woo bad.

I don't think of John as woo. I would have said conviction rather than woo-ness. I never see John talking about any other woo topics and when it comes to Bigfoot, and he will always maintain that the subject does him no favors and that he only wants answers. Everything about John's encounter says to me he experienced something that wasn't actually a Bigfoot in front of him, and John will have nothing but something having been in front of him. There are a number of reasons to be that way. John's encounter story makes up a significant part of his social identity now. Yeah, I'm that guy that had the poop scared out of me by Bigfoot. No, it's not cool, thank you.

John's experience is placed in 1982. I was 4 in 1982, he was 17. Prince just put out 1999 and Blade Runner was in theatres. My memory from when I was 17 is pretty hazy and I'm a lot younger than John (though I never claimed to see a Bigfoot). John does not hide that he was drinking a lot in the years between now and then, and I would say that certainly does not help in terms of accurate memory.

Along with some sort of neurological experience, I'm perfectly willing to consider John had a false memory. He could have experienced something else and that subconciously his mind can't or won't recall. I'm no psychologist and I can't say. It goes without saying that the professional that John has seen isn't inclined to accept Bigfoot. All we can do is evaluate the case for John actually having seen a gargantuan Bigfoot along the Pasquotank River in the midst of an extremely developed area just outside Elizabeth City, NC. This was not something that happened at night. He was supposed to see this giant feeding on a mulberry bush in front of him. He might as well have claimed to see a giant ground sloth. At least for those we could say that there was physical evidence for such creatures recently living in North America at least 10,000 years ago.

In any case, there is unfortunately no hard evidence to believe that Bigfoot has ever lived in NC or anywhere else. John knows that and because of his conviction, he is determined to try and find some. Though I think he is definitely barking up the wrong tree for answers, I can still respect that.

Kit,

This is a nice post. Thank you. I am sorry I missed it but as you know I have been sick lately. I wanted to address my perspective on a few topics you mentioned.

Woo-ness: I had no idea what this was until I was a member here at the JREF. I never came here to woo anyone to my point of view or to discourage anyone's beliefs. I just came here to discuss Bigfoot.

Evidence: What evidence? There is none. My story, regardless of my conviction about what I saw, is just that, A story. I have never expected my encounter to be proof of the existence of Bigfoot. That would just be stupid and arrogant on my part. I attempted to get involved in Bigfoot to be able to talk about what happened. Something that I was unable to do for 25 years. It was something I needed to do to try to help myself cope.

My social identity(regarding Bigfoot): I will admit I was not ready for the culture shock that is the Bigfoot community. I made huge mistakes in judgment, but It was not for a lack of honest effort. It was trial and error for me all the way. I am not someone used to dealing with people who are negative, are liars, are hoaxers or just plain dishonest. Live and learn.

To Skeptics I am "that guy that had the poop scared out of me by Bigfoot" and will never be taken seriously. Someone to point and laugh at.

To Footers I am "that jerk who does not care about the weak evidence being presented". Someone rude enough to question these jokers who claim to be "Bigfoot experts". They think I need help to believe. Some don't even get the WGBH joke. Someone to point and laugh at.

I am just someone who wants answers that I suspect are not coming. I am just someone who enjoys learning and experiencing just being out in the forest with my friends. I hope I am well enough to get back out there soon.

kitakaze

27th February 2010, 05:50 PM

I couldn't decide which I liked better so I made two.

This image was taken just before this creature charged a group of campers...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=314&pictureid=2538

In hibernation...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=314&pictureid=2539

WGBH

27th February 2010, 11:04 PM

:D

Thanks for the smile, I needed it.

kitakaze

27th February 2010, 11:24 PM

:D

Thanks for the smile, I needed it.

It was for the WGBH Recovery Project.

William Parcher

7th March 2010, 10:45 AM

That is where the difference in our perspective lies. In your message above, you mentioned "society as a whole" and what they think about the existence of Bigfoot. This concern is the void that separates witnesses from researchers, and researchers who have never been a witness, never seen a Sasquatch and felt the effects of that often have a difficult time understanding that. Witnesses, when push comes to shove, are FORCED not to care what society - or researchers, for that matter - think. They OWN their truth. They know what they have seen, know what they have experienced and if we push them on it, they'll throw up their hands and walk away in disgust.

When we behave as "researchers", when we tromp through the forests with a hard and fast agenda, our mind set on the goal of PROOF, our behavior is often COMPLETELY COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE to close contact. Long-term witnesses understand this. So when we, as researchers, get glassy-eyed and greedy over the thought that perhaps this witness can finally provide US the PROOF that we can take to "society as a whole" to rub their noses in, we push these witnesses to provide that "proof", and we begin to perpetuate a sort-of emotional blackmail on the witness. "Show me the money NOW, or I won't believe you and I will try you without mercy in this court of public opinion to thank you for coming forward."

...if you're asking "Does it or does it not exist?", I would ask you again to clarify your question: Do you want to know WHAT they are and experience that for yourself so that you don't have to take someone else's word for it, or do you want to be the one to simply PROVE their existence to the world? And if I suggest to you again that those two things are mutually exclusive - that the greatest irony in this quest is that the harder you try to prove it, the less you will ultimately experience and the fewer opportunities you'll have to "gather evidence" because of the very nature of these creatures - would that change your answer?

Say what? It sounds like a religion thing. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=29005) It really is all just a big game played by adults.

Skeptical Greg

7th March 2010, 11:08 AM

Yep, just trust Bigfoot, and he will come into your heart ..

Sometimes you have to give trust to get it. Witnesses know this. That's how they end up building a rapport with a Sasquatch. And they WILL expect the same from you.

RayG

7th March 2010, 11:11 AM

It sounds like she's starting to travel down the same road as Robert Morgan (http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Snatchers-Quest-Human-Beings/dp/093766314X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267985372&sr=8-1) and Henry Franzoni (http://blogsquatcher.blogspot.com/2009/05/henry-franzoni-and-bigfoots-puzzling.html)... giving up on the belief in a physical beastie, and hanging their hats instead on a spiritual, metaphysical, and psychological being.

At least that was my quick take on it.

RayG

Moss

7th March 2010, 11:20 AM

Replace Bigfoot/Sasquatch in that text with Jesus.... And you have a christian mystic.

rorylee

11th March 2010, 10:50 PM

LTC8K6

11th March 2010, 11:00 PM

Haven't looked through the 59 pages so i hope this question i pose hasn't already been asked:

If you have a Bigfoot in sight, would you attempt to hunt it down / kill it or just photograph/tape it? (Given they don't attack, anyone would defend themselves if the occasion arises)

Well, I would not shoot it, out of certainty that it was a human in a suit.

I would use a camera if I had it, but my rifle would have priority until I was certain of the situation. So, I'd probably not get it on camera.

If it seemed to be coming for me, and the sight of my rifle didn't make it stop, I'd have to then assume it was not a human, and shoot it for self preservation. I presume a human in a suit would not threaten a person with a rifle.

If, for some reason, I am certain that it is actually a bigfoot, I probably still wouldn't shoot it unless I had to. It's a very rare creature, so I'd probably settle for camera evidence and whatever other evidence it left behind.

RayG

11th March 2010, 11:13 PM

Grenades. And if I didn't have grenades, a bazooka.

RayG

LTC8K6

11th March 2010, 11:19 PM

Yeah, given what we've heard, anything short of a 40mm Bofors is useless...

Trent Wray

11th March 2010, 11:31 PM

I would run up to it, and measure it. If it met the 8foot tall or above mark, I'd shoot it and stuff it. If it was too short, I'd release it.

Maldon

12th March 2010, 02:55 AM

As I don't believe in BF, I'm pretty sure (even though I've never been in a situation of that sort)
that I'd hesitate to pull the trigger on anything with a "human-like" appearance.

GT/CS

12th March 2010, 07:14 AM

Darwinism.

Anyone stupid enough to wear a bigfoot costume in the woods.........

Correa Neto

12th March 2010, 08:51 AM

Tell that to Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlim and Bob Heronimus. Not to mention Marx (not the Commie one), Freeman and others of lesser fame.

GT/CS

12th March 2010, 11:16 AM

Tell that to Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlim and Bob Heronimus. Not to mention Marx (not the Commie one), Freeman and others of lesser fame.

Heronimus said he half expected a bullet in his butt.

KingOfWings

15th March 2010, 07:13 PM

kitakaze

15th March 2010, 08:44 PM

http://www.wtol.com/global/story.asp?s=12143672

MINDEN, Mich. (AP) - The Wolverine State has lost its only known wild wolverine.

The body of the 28-pound female was found Saturday along a trail in Michigan's Thumb. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment is investigating the cause of death.

So, I wonder why they can't find a giant bigfoot corpse?

Great link, KoW. Michigan just lost its one wild wolverine. I think we know how that happened. That's right. Tossed by a Bigfoot.

Will California's one wild wolverine be next? And just how the heck do they find these things and miss the Bigfoots?

Drewbot

16th March 2010, 01:38 PM

Great link, KoW. Michigan just lost its one wild wolverine. I think we know how that happened. That's right. Tossed by a Bigfoot.

Will California's one wild wolverine be next? And just how the heck do they find these things and miss the Bigfoots?

Wolverines don't bury their dead. DUH!

Drewbot

5th April 2010, 06:45 AM

http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/giantman.asp

Obviously, a conspiracy to cover up the discovery of Giant Humans in Saudi Arabia.

JcR

8th April 2010, 08:22 PM

This Bigfoot (http://www.pattersonfilm.com/page20/page20.html) forgot to subscribe to the Paulides: "Evasive Game Cam Maneuvers."

JcR

10th April 2010, 02:49 AM

Thefirstbillyjack found himself a Bigfoot.
Even a cone head to boot.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_283964bc0384eefbbd.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19675)

He was brave enough to approach this blob and identify it
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_283964bc0391505f48.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19676)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_283964bc03929f38f2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19677)

Now he stumbled across another small creature in a tree
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_283964bc039a249c2d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19678)

You would think that he would move in real close for a possible, and more clear identification (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41fofOBcdyE)?

JcR

10th April 2010, 08:59 AM

The Second Baby Bigfoot

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/283964bc0923db470d.jpg

Drewbot

16th April 2010, 07:20 AM

RE: The porcupine Bigfoot.
I was reading through my Field Guide to North American Mammals yesterday.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vfRgcZIOizEC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=kaufman+porcupine&source=bl&ots=WuaZv_Lb0o&sig=R1nZo2pedjheQ-N-nqx2rV3XvJY&hl=en&ei=HVzIS8HYHYXw9gTN_OGbCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=kaufman%20porcupine&f=false

Not easily confused with any other mammal.

Perhaps BF is not a mammal?

William Parcher

21st April 2010, 12:06 AM

Is "norcal logger" a liar?

Mithra

21st April 2010, 12:42 PM

Is "norcal logger" a liar?

Don't know, but his recent escalation of claims reminds me greatly of reading Longtabber's posts just before the "end."

BTW, Hi all.

William Parcher

22nd April 2010, 12:39 PM

Bigfoot fiction for profit. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=29332)

The BFF poster "JX99" writes and sells Bigfoot story books (http://bigfootballyhoo.blogspot.com/2010/04/soon-vanfossen-photo-will-be-available.html).

Spektator

22nd April 2010, 12:50 PM

Might not be all that profitable. How many of the dang critters are even able to read?

HarryHenderson

22nd April 2010, 05:56 PM

The area I've roughly outlined in red is probably what they're talking about when they ask 'could this be be Bigfoot?'. If that's not it, I'm not sure what they're talking about. And it kinda looks like 'the Bigfoot' is ready to swoop down and kick the guy standing there in that cheap Halloween costume.

parnassus

22nd April 2010, 09:27 PM

When I was a boy, and throughout my childhood, our gang spent time camping out in various backyards and fields, and I learned all about how to hoax and play tricks and scare kids. Sort of like Snipe hunting 101. Included were claiming to see wild dogs, bears, wildmen, making shrieking noises, throwing stones, stealing other kids food and gear, and the like. I don't recall we ever made fake footprints, but the rest of the arsenal of Bigfootery, we made use of. Then when I got older, I started hunting, and it was a whole nother level of trickery, involving planted poop, car shaking, and disguises.
So I find it hard to believe that thousands and thousands of people are being fooled every year by these same tricks, into believing that there is some sort of monster out there doing the same things. Don't kids learn this anymore?

Óðinn

24th April 2010, 12:58 AM

clayflingythingy

24th April 2010, 01:28 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/22/tech/main6421002.shtml

Just a handful of Sumatran rhinos on Borneo believed to be left in the wild, yet here's a picture of one plain as day.

One such clear photo sure would help the cause of the BF proponents. Of course, its kinda hard to take a pix of an imaginary creature.

parnassus

25th April 2010, 12:04 PM

well-known 'footer calls bullsh**, quits the game.
DB Donlon, who had the well-known blog "Blogsquatcher," (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:TRVSK5yyCUAJ:blogsquatcher.blogspot .com/+blogsquatcher&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a) has folded his tent and left this behind (cached):
I leave you with this last thought -- if, as it seems to me, there is something deliberately deceptive about the bigfoot phenomenon, there always remains the possibility that your best interests are not taken into account when you participate in it.

If I look at a squirrel outside my window right now, I am sure that what I'm observing is a squirrel. I am confident that I am not deceived. But if I look at a bigfoot, or any other mystery humanoid, I do not know what I am looking at. Indeed, I am sure that I am being deceived in some way. It is my intention not to participate in that deception any further, for I recognize that by blogging about it, I am fostering that deception, even if it isn't my wish.

I do not desire to be used by something when I am completely ignorant of the motives, or even the essence of what I'm being used by.

I do not know that investigating bigfoot or other mystery creatures is a harmful exercise, it's just that I don't want to wander around blindly, not knowing who or what I am bumping into, or stepping on (or what I am stepping in!) in a karmic sense.

I bid you all a fond farewell. I have enjoyed interacting with you. Good luck to you in all of your endeavors, and may God bless you and yours in fullness.

All the best,
db donlon

William Parcher

26th April 2010, 05:11 PM

well-known 'footer calls bullsh**, quits the game.

WTF is he talking about? This guy has always been a major weirdo. It's no surprise that he was attracted to Bigfoot as a believer. Now, he doesn't even seem to be saying that Bigfoot is only a myth. It's just gobbledy-gook.

But if I look at a bigfoot, or any other mystery humanoid, I do not know what I am looking at.

Shoot it with a gun and then find out what it is.

Indeed, I am sure that I am being deceived in some way.

By your own eyes? You just said "if I look at a Bigfoot"... if you can look at a Bigfoot, then one is in front of you. If I look at a Tyrannosaur, then one is in front of me.

Is he just sick of Bigfooters, or does he now think the creature is only just a myth, or what?

William Parcher

27th April 2010, 10:25 AM

Drewbot

27th April 2010, 10:43 AM

There is a blog on Cryptomundo (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/people-leave/) about why people leave Bigfootery and it features DB Donlon. Coleman and others talk about how he drifted into the paranormal/supernatural thing. Maybe Donlon had to get out of conventional Bigfootery because he now thinks that Bigfoot is a paranormal thing.

I was thinking the same thing. I went back and read some of his stuff, mostly it was about if bigfoot is so amazingly fast, and elusive it must be interdimensional or alien or paranormal.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:TRVSK5yyCUAJ:blogsquatcher.blogspot .com/+blogsquatcher&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Now that we have covered most of the ground I had intended to in Living Anomaly, forgoing only such familiar matters as the uncommon strength, speed and dexterity of bigfoot often displayed in sightings, we are in a position to speak of what conclusions, if any, we can draw from our investigations.

First we must admit that our investigations into the bigfoot/UFO connection, the electric sasquatch, the telepathic bigfoot, and the infrasound hypothesis, as well as our foray into the philosophical underpinnings of theories that might account for bigfoot, have always depended upon human observation and our interpretations of those observations. There is no sense in which we can be sure that we have touched "the thing itself" in our search.

I think this is a crucial thing to understand.

kitakaze

27th April 2010, 03:52 PM

Award-Winning Wildlife Photos from the National Wildlife Federation's Photo Contest (http://lifestyle.ca.msn.com/earth-day/hearst-gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=23999694).

@#$%ers. No Bigfoot and no Hakuna Matata...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=314&pictureid=2935

HarryHenderson

27th April 2010, 05:59 PM

WTF is he talking about? This guy has always been a major weirdo...

There is a blog on Cryptomundo (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/people-leave/) about why people leave Bigfootery and it features DB Donlon...
At the risk of dissin him, which I'm probably hopin' for, WhyTF would anyone listen to DB Donlon anyway? I remember him but only vaguely (which is to say I remember his 'handle') and I was a mod. I certainly don't remember him being funny or clever or savvy or espousing great insight and knowledge of Bigfoot. Then again, Coleman isn't any of those either, he just can't shut the **** up. Apparently DB Donlon can. Should we applaud his restraint?

All hail there now being one less Bigfooter™ that we never knew about in the first place! ;)

William Parcher

29th April 2010, 07:53 AM

Oh yippee, some more pseudo-intellectual blather yap from the ever-goofy, Roger Knights. Excuse me while I pummel that stupidity...

I think Roger Knights fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.

See, now I'm being insulting. I think Roger Knights is an idiot.

Roger Knights is one of those people that isn't half as bright as he thinks he is.

Make Public Funding of (Bigfoot) Investigations Central to the Debate with Skeptics (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/rk.htm) by Roger Knights

The question of investigative funding should be what is central to the debate with skeptics, not the question of belief.

The government funds a great many scientific research projects, more than a few of them involving truly piddling topics-stuff like the courting rituals of some obscure foreign frog, for instance.

Skeptics, if they have an ounce of political sense (doubtful), should therefore give themselves an "out" now by supporting funded fact-finding. Otherwise, when this ship goes down, they'll be tied to it.

bit_pattern

29th April 2010, 07:55 AM

My Dad used to take size 15... Does that count?

William Parcher

29th April 2010, 09:14 AM

Not only saw one but saved its life...

Bigfoot saved from drowning in icy Siberian river (http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-04-29/russian-hunter-saves-bigfoot.html)

A Russian hunter claims he has saved something that can only be described as Bigfoot from a frozen river in central Siberia.

...professional hunter Afanasiy Kiskorov together with several other hunters was fishing when they heard a loud cracking of ice and a howl. When they approached the source of the noise, the hunters saw an unusual creature described as "like a huge man covered in dark brown fur." The creature was in the river, about 10 meters from the bank and it unsuccessfully tried to get out of the water and stand upright.

Kiskorov rushed to the rescue and reached out for the drowning creature with a dry tree branch. "Bigfoot" then grabbed the branch, got onto shore, and walked away.

Drewbot

29th April 2010, 09:33 AM

As if BIGFOOT couldn't get out of the icy water in a single porpoising leap.

Óðinn

29th April 2010, 09:49 AM

JcR

29th April 2010, 10:20 AM

Not only saw one but saved its life...

Bigfoot saved from drowning in icy Siberian river (http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-04-29/russian-hunter-saves-bigfoot.html)

Those Russian Hunters could have been famous. They still could have tried to help it. Not in time! Too late! Poor Bigfoot. (specimen)
Do they make good freezers in Siberia?

William Parcher

29th April 2010, 10:44 AM

I see Knights' arrow found its mark.

Arrow? That guy is hilarious. Is it called navel gazing? Dude, get out of the house and take a look at a world that does not contain Bigfoot.

I wish he was still posting on BFF. So much entertainment for a Bigfoot skeptic. He even has an account here.

xblade

1st May 2010, 12:10 AM

"Bigfoot" then grabbed the branch, got onto shore, and walked away.

What, no thank you? How rude. You'd think such a highly intelligent creature would know better.

JcR

1st May 2010, 08:48 PM

here is my Bigfoot picture. There is two.

http://i755.photobucket.com/albums/xx200/JamesChristopher_photos/JcR_Bigfoot.jpg

Drewbot

4th May 2010, 07:32 AM

This is funny.
A cigar website, and in the upper right corner, a link that says 'Bigfoot', if you click it, it takes you to a Youtube of the PGF.

Just thought it was weird and cool
http://www.junkyardsamurai.com/

Drewbot

4th May 2010, 11:29 AM

Frikkin MEATLOAF had a Bigfoot encounter.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/786820/EXCLUSIVE-INTERVIEW-WITH-MEATLOAF.html
Meat, is it true that Bigfoot stole your first wife?

Yeah, it's actually true. We were on tour in the upper part of Michigan. We were staying in this motel and we were in room 13 and there was a noise out the back. Me and the other guys went to have a look and my wife kind of followed me. All of a sudden we heard a scream. She disappeared and I haven't seen her since then. All we had were these big footprints which we followed. They ran into the river and that's all we know. But I did get a postcard from her. I said I'm leaving happily up state in Michigan. I know have three small, big feet. Ah, you're from the sports section! Well, what f***ing good is that?!

parnassus

5th May 2010, 12:10 PM

Arrow? That guy is hilarious. Is it called navel gazing? Dude, get out of the house and take a look at a world that does not contain Bigfoot.

I wish he was still posting on BFF. So much entertainment for a Bigfoot skeptic. He even has an account here.

This is the guy who spent half a dozen Munns-sized posts listing typos or spelling variations/errors in Greg Long's book. Whack.
The funding post, however is like 9 years old.
A lot of the necessary research on the bigfoot phenomenon, however, has and is being carried out. It's called eyewitness reliability. Bigfooters actually have the science idea backwards, by excluding the patently crazy "eyewitnesses" from their "databases." It is only by studying the crazies that science can get enough clues to move on to diagnosing the "reliable" eyewitnesses.

Oh, and the "foreign frogs" are at least REAL. How would be study the mating habits of bigfoot? lets see, imaginary penis inserted in imaginary...well, you get the idea....It's like Meldrum, thinking he's studying bigfoot feet, when he really isn't. There is no bigfoot for science to study. There are only bigfoot witnesses to study.

Drewbot

7th May 2010, 09:52 AM

Here is a guy that has found 'evidence' of Bigfoot in Florida.
He is a rebel though, he calls out the Bigfoot establishment, including Loren Coleman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TYAtj2V9a4&feature=related

At 3:08 he shows a photo, he says he can see "face, eyes, biceps, triceps, forearm, buttocks, right arm, left arm, left leg, right leg"... and that he doesn't "know how anyone can debunk this."

At 4:24 he shows a video, and he says "you'll see him turn right here"

At 4:39 he says look at this video, "it can speak for itself"

Spektator

7th May 2010, 09:58 AM

Drewbot

7th May 2010, 10:01 AM

Evidence that John Lennon is/was a Bigfoot Alien
http://arealiensreal.org/john-lennon-was-space-alien-sasquatch/

Toke

8th May 2010, 04:40 AM

Jack by the hedge

8th May 2010, 04:48 AM

What does bigfoot do?
Hibernate during hunting season?

Wears a costume that looks like a hunter (made from the clothes and skin of the first hunter of the season he catches). Highly evolved natural camouflage. Obvious really.

Toke

8th May 2010, 04:55 AM

Wears a costume that looks like a hunter (made from the clothes and skin of the first hunter of the season he catches). Highly evolved natural camouflage. Obvious really.

Ahh, yes I should have thought of that myself, a bit like a furry predator.

Sorry about the stupid sounding questions, I am just not that well read on the bigfoot subject and you will have to live with it.

Drewbot

10th May 2010, 05:56 AM

What does bigfoot do?
Hibernate during hunting season?

Toke- BF can sense when guns are about. In other words, He has an uncanny ability to sense hicks with rifles.

LTC8K6

10th May 2010, 08:02 AM

I read somewhere that you should wear a reflective west when camping in north America during the hunting season.
It is supposed to be crawling with trigger happy hunters and it helps you distinguish yourself from game animals.

What does bigfoot do?
Hibernate during hunting season?

Bigfoot is naturally blurry.

Unless you are Roger Patterson.

The Shrike

10th May 2010, 09:21 AM

Apparently, the safest thing to wear in the woods during hunting season is a bigfoot suit.

William Parcher

11th May 2010, 12:39 PM

Now wait a minute, Scott (Herriott) welcomes disbelief in the film, as well as skepticism. He doesn't expect anybody to accept it as evidence. He has been one of the most skeptical people of most, if not all, of the "evidence" of sasquatch long before you started even posting here at JREF. He's one of the rare people who have applied that skepticism with believers and more times than not has faced the usual attempts at ostracism that goes along with that, and yet his sense of humor and level headedness has risen above that.

So he's not fitting into what you have described here.

Sure he does. Remember it's my opinion that he pretends to believe. I can't prove that as a fact any more than you (or he) can prove that he truly believes.

Here are two things that I think are true: Scott won't say that he thinks Bigfoot does not exist. Scott won't say that his video does not show a Bigfoot.

Scott seems to really enjoy Bigfooting though most is done from a keyboard. I read that he was a Bigfooter for about 10 years before he got his video footage.

Here is a Zenor-stabilized clip of his Bigfoot with one version showing where the eyes are supposed to be. I don't know if Herriott agrees with this interpretation.

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/d1b73ad4.gif http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/8ebb1edf.gif

Yes, Scott shows some skepticism towards believers. But I think he still counts as a believer rather than a skeptic - and I'm not sure he would even qualify as a fence-sitter.

I think the BFF crowd kisses his ass with the two thread stickies of his video encounter and allowing him the commercial presence (he sells a Bigfooter DVD) outside of the "Marketplace" forum. Tom Burnette was forced to have his whole encounter experiences placed into that forum because he was selling a related book about it. Not Scott, he can keep his threads as stickies in the video forum even with the for-profit DVDs.

William Parcher

11th May 2010, 12:59 PM

Who would pretend to believe in bigfoot?

I gave an answer in the Bob Heironimus thread but I'll say more. I guess a certain personality type might want to become a Bigfooter but not actually be a believer. It's a kind of role-playing game and there is already a tradition. Folks have been Bigfooters since at least the 1950's and you can follow in the footsteps of some interesting characters from the Classic Bigfoot Era.

We could even ask an interesting related question. Who would hoax a Bigfoot? Why would anybody do that?

Correa Neto

11th May 2010, 01:34 PM

Ask yourself how many religious people (including priests, pastors, whatever) actually believe in all the stuff they are supposed to believe (god included).

Ask yourself how many religious folks have falsified relics, tales, etc. and what could have been their motivations.

The same thing, I believe, happens with bigfootery. Blurred, very blurred.

William Parcher

11th May 2010, 03:57 PM

Somewhere around here is Scott (Herriott) talking about the video. I'm undermotivated to go and find it right now. He was very forthright about it and made clear that he was more caught up in the other guy's emotional meltdown. Scott is into talking about Bigfoot, just as you and I are, yet he is simply more open, or simply open, if you will, to the possibility Bigfoot being a real animal. I'm glad he's around. I think he's one of the best people Bigfootery has.

Scott aside, I had a really interesting conversation with Phil Morris a few nights back. He thought it was loopy to think that Patterson ever actually believed in Bigfoot. I made the case that he most certainly did believe in Bigfoot, and all the hoaxing he did was to further the cause to look for the creature.

I'm interested to know what you think. Yes, I did change the subject. But we can talk about Scott in the "Anybody seen one?" thread if you like.

He says that he thinks he filmed a Bigfoot and found a nest. He watched it for about 10 minutes and then the eyes glowed red...

Since I was there that day on the hill and saw the eyes from approx. 40 ft. away and also saw them glow red after about 10 minutes I know, basically, where stuff in the video is.

Yeah. He's good-to-go as the moderator for the Bob vs. Bob fight.

River

11th May 2010, 08:27 PM

manofthesea

12th May 2010, 12:41 AM

Toke- hicks with rifles.

Genetically challenged persons that inhabit temporary housing facilities who are expressing their constitutional rights.

Correa Neto

12th May 2010, 09:55 AM

Although this image addresses religion, it very much applies to "bigfootery" as well.

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k273/iammenotu/religion.jpg

I believe there are many different possible combinations of hoaxing motivations and bigfoot belief levels within bigfootery. The same is valid, I think, for any other forms of woo. And yes, religion, I think, is woo too.

Some footers are on it just for profit -belief is not needed. And the profit may or not be monetary. Others might have started believing but now are only in it for the money.

We must keep in mind that the vast majority of footers have little if any clues when it comes down to science and it's methods. A number of these people will not see any problem in performing some data tampering (exagerations, ommitions, cherry-picking, etc.) while attempting to present their cases. Add some "the ends justify the means" and "fighting the good fight" spice and you have a recipe for hoaxing from the part of a believer.

Cainkane1

12th May 2010, 10:27 AM

people "see" things all the time. South georgians claim they see a extinct dire wolf from time to time in the swamps. People in Pennsylvania claim they see bipedal four foot frogs. canadiens claim hugh snakes inhabit remote lakes. Also in pennsylvania they say they see creatures with dogs heads and human bodies eating road kill. I personally like the walking frog myself. Ok so Bigfoot got popular. Trouble is there are no reliable sightings of this thing and there is really no reason for this creature to hide. If bigfoot existed I believe contact with humans would be good for it.

parnassus

12th May 2010, 12:08 PM

My Dad used to take size 15... Does that count?

careful, tinyfoot.

Bigfoot wears about a size 21.

parnassus

12th May 2010, 12:15 PM

I read somewhere that you should wear a reflective west when camping in north America during the hunting season.
It is supposed to be crawling with trigger happy hunters and it helps you distinguish yourself from game animals.

What does bigfoot do?
Hibernate during hunting season?

it is during hunting season that Bigfoot moves into the suburban areas, scares homeless people and eats from dumpsters. Or they could swim into beaver lodges.

parnassus

12th May 2010, 12:17 PM

Toke- BF can sense when guns are about. In other words, He has an uncanny ability to sense hicks with rifles.

seriously, some 'footers believe the beast can sense metal from a distance. They could work at airports.

parnassus

12th May 2010, 12:25 PM

I believe there are many different possible combinations of hoaxing motivations and bigfoot belief levels within bigfootery. The same is valid, I think, for any other forms of woo. And yes, religion, I think, is woo too.

Some footers are on it just for profit -belief is not needed. And the profit may or not be monetary. Others might have started believing but now are only in it for the money.

The epicenter/navel of the Bigfoot world is Willow Creek, CA, near where the PG movie was shot (at least part of it.)
To get a flavor of the economic impact of "footers" see this blog (http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/), from the guy who sells Bigfoot books there.

The Shrike

12th May 2010, 02:26 PM

Here is a Zenor-stabilized clip of his Bigfoot with one version showing where the eyes are supposed to be. I don't know if Herriott agrees with this interpretation.

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/d1b73ad4.gif http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/8ebb1edf.gif

I don't know that I've ever seen this clip. So that blob is supposed to be a bigfoot's head? Why is it shaped like the head of the creature in Alien? Rather than the head of a bigfoot, this looks a lot more like the entire body of a much smaller creature to me.

HarryHenderson

12th May 2010, 05:51 PM

He says that he thinks he filmed a Bigfoot and found a nest. He watched it for about 10 minutes and then the eyes glowed red...
Yeah. He's good-to-go as the moderator for the Bob vs. Bob fight.
Although I've never really thought bad of Scott Herriot, or maybe thought of him at all, nor had any 'problems' with him that I recall, WP you've made a pretty compelling case, say, for him being due a little less 'credit' than he seems to otherwise receive (at least for his Bigfooting). I'm sure it's mentioned right up above, but is the original 'question' really about him moderating a Bob vs. Bob debate type broadcast?

...this looks a lot more like the entire body of a much smaller creature to me.
That's what I thought too. I've never got 'the Bigfoot' in Herriot's video.

manofthesea

12th May 2010, 08:06 PM

it comes down to science and **it's** methods. .

A vast majority of posters here would automatically discredit you for your ignorance of basic grammar skills.

RayG

12th May 2010, 09:07 PM

To get a flavor of the economic impact of "footers" see this blog (http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/), from the guy who sells Bigfoot books there.

Hey, I've got a bunch of those books already, and more on the way. Still no bigfoot though. :(

RayG

kitakaze

14th May 2010, 02:43 AM

Yeah. He's good-to-go as the moderator for the Bob vs. Bob fight.

I just got off talking on te phone with Scott for just under two hours. We talked about a bunch of things including possible collaborations on certain things. Surprisingly we did not discuss that at all, though we did discuss at length the Bob vs Bob interview. Scott is just the most fantastic guy and someone I admire and respect.

Scott went into great detail about the experience he had in the Klamath mountains. I didn't ask to discuss it and he didn't ask to discuss it, but it inevitably came up in a discussion between a strong Bigfoot proponent and a strong Bigfoot skeptic. The story is just bonkers and does not compute. When I say does not compute, I don't mean it's fishy. I mean it is messed up and makes no sense at all. Scott swears that he saw a large dark greyish figure with glowing, not reflecting, red eyes. He described the intensity of the glow to be about 60% of an exit sign in a darkened movie theater. He said it happened at about 2:30 in the afternoon. I told Scott that I don't know what to do with it as it doesn't even anatomically make sense to me. Scott did not try and make it make sense either.

Scott and I have very similar personalities and once we started talking, even though he was wiped from hiking and suffering an onset of allergies, we could not stop yakking together. It was the first time we ever spoke and we talked as if we had been close friends for years. I think Scott saw something or at the very least has convinced himself he saw something. Scott is a creative and talented man, but I don't think he is playing Woods & Wildmen in the sense that he's making up stories because it's fun to tell. Scott has far better things to do than talk Bigfoot, but he had a personal experience that keeps him involved and interested in the subject. He is very skeptical of the PGF even though he met Gimlin personally and spoke with him and came away with the impression that Gimlin seems very believable.

Scott as a filmmaker was an invaluable contact for me to discuss my Walking With Bigfoot project and had excellent advice for me. I'm now going to be that guy that comes to his defence when somebody says he makes things up. Not that WP has insisted he is. Did Scott see a grey Bigfoot with glowing red eyes? I don't think so. But I do think he saw something that freaked him out.

JcR

16th May 2010, 06:09 PM

http://i755.photobucket.com/albums/xx200/JamesChristopher_photos/OOMGBigfoot.jpg

William Parcher

19th May 2010, 10:27 AM

I'm not convinced by much of the photographic evidence, am a fence-sitter on the PGF, and still believe just about the best piece of film evidence (that nobody ever talks about!) is the 1992 Scott Herriott Klamath hillside video.

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/8ebb1edf.gif

Hannibal

19th May 2010, 10:29 AM

Bear - next!

Vortigern99

19th May 2010, 11:16 AM

Unidentifiable mass of light and shadow with imaginary laser eyes -- Next!

JcR

19th May 2010, 12:57 PM

http://i755.photobucket.com/albums/xx200/JamesChristopher_photos/gimlaser.gif
Definitely a Gimbush.

William Parcher

20th May 2010, 10:23 AM

I think Scott saw something or at the very least has convinced himself he saw something. Scott is a creative and talented man, but I don't think he is playing Woods & Wildmen in the sense that he's making up stories because it's fun to tell. Scott has far better things to do than talk Bigfoot, but he had a personal experience that keeps him involved and interested in the subject. He is very skeptical of the PGF even though he met Gimlin personally and spoke with him and came away with the impression that Gimlin seems very believable.

Scott as a filmmaker was an invaluable contact for me to discuss my Walking With Bigfoot project and had excellent advice for me. I'm now going to be that guy that comes to his defence when somebody says he makes things up. Not that WP has insisted he is. Did Scott see a grey Bigfoot with glowing red eyes? I don't think so. But I do think he saw something that freaked him out.

We simply cannot know if Scott and his friend didn't intentionally turn witnessed and videotaped pareidolia into a Bigfoot story. His story is actually quite ridiculous and not something that a critical thinker would believe. It's like a story that is custom-made for Bigfooters. Scott was already a Bigfoot believer before he had his "encounter". There is a distinct ordered pattern that we see in many Bigfooters...

1. Start out believing in Bigfoot.
2. Get yourself a Bigfoot encounter out in the field.

What's really weird to me is why the BFF crowd has not kicked him out of the circle. His encounter includes glowing eyes and a majorly blobby blobsquatch. The footers love to hate that stuff. But Scott is somehow kept around as a buddy and even has his threads stickied. I think he may have been grandfathered-in by BFF bigwigs and just remains there even after guards have changed.

It's not that he appears to be an obvious liar or hoaxer. It's that his videotaped encounter and story is so stupid and worthless. It's ironic because the BFF tends not to sticky and covet stupid blobs for very long. Even more ironic is that they let him peddle his DVD in their non-commercial forum sections.

HarryHenderson

20th May 2010, 03:07 PM

...It's like a story that is custom-made for Bigfooters. Scott was already a Bigfoot believer before he had his "encounter". There is a distinct ordered pattern that we see in many Bigfooters...

1. Start out believing in Bigfoot.
2. Get yourself a Bigfoot encounter out in the field.
Which is in fact the underlying premise of Kitakaze's present-day Roger Patterson Persecution™. RP surely deserves it cause he even drew (plagiarized) exactly what his Bigfoot was gonna look like. Personally, I've always been pretty skeptical of the 'Bigfoot believer turned Bigfoot witness' stories. Patterson being one of the few exceptions I think (back when/then).

What's really weird to me is why the BFF crowd has not kicked him out of the circle. His encounter includes glowing eyes and a majorly blobby blobsquatch. The footers love to hate that stuff. But Scott is somehow kept around as a buddy and even has his threads stickied. I think he may have been grandfathered-in by BFF bigwigs and just remains there even after guards have changed.

It's not that he appears to be an obvious liar or hoaxer. It's that his videotaped encounter and story is so stupid and worthless. It's ironic because the BFF tends not to sticky and covet stupid blobs for very long. Even more ironic is that they let him peddle his DVD in their non-commercial forum sections.
Okay fine, you've made your Scott Herriot is a Bad Bigfooter case and you've sold me, I now hate Scott Herriot for being the worthless human being that he is. ;) Okay not quite, but if your focus is more that people like Scott Herriot are ultimately 'bad' for Bigfooting Truth, I would absolutely agree. Bad in the sense that because he's such a (seemingly) beloved character in Bigfooting, his words can carry much weight with the general Bigfoot Believer masses, and if he says he might have seen/filmed a Bigfoot, they believe he might have seen/filmed a Bigfoot. The clincher being 'might' becomes as good as 'did' to the wannabe believers after the story is told 347 times. A 'good reputation' such as the one it seems he enjoys, deserved or not, can be a mighty influence to others not quite sure which direction to go. "Scott Herriot's a funny cool guy and he kinda says he saw a Bigfoot There must be a Bigfoot." Such a stupid conclusion to us, but arrived at 'legitimately' by them, and not one they will easily change their minds about.

Toke

22nd May 2010, 03:19 AM

http://wulffmorgenthaler.dk/2009/10/19/bigfoot
Bigfoot's school picture.

atpeace

24th May 2010, 04:05 AM

1. Start out believing in Bigfoot.
2. Get yourself a Bigfoot encounter out in the field.

I had a friend on a BF forum who was uncanny at predicting which newbie would have the next first time encounter. It became very entertaining.

ap

William Parcher

25th May 2010, 01:32 PM

From the Heironimus thread...

Evidently there are active hoaxers, some wearing suits, operating in that park.

I'm skeptical that anyone wore a Bigfoot costume in Salt Fork State Park. Do you have any info on this?

JcR

25th May 2010, 02:04 PM

I'd swear we would be swimming in Bigfoot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXQV87cOJrE

If there weren't so many darn deer.

WGBH

25th May 2010, 04:19 PM

From the Heironimus thread...
I'm skeptical that anyone wore a Bigfoot costume in Salt Fork State Park. Do you have any info on this?

Your skeptical period. Yes the rangers caught some fool wearing a Bigfoot costume in the woods during the conference.

William Parcher

25th May 2010, 04:24 PM

Do you have any more info on this?

HarryHenderson

25th May 2010, 04:53 PM

...Yes the rangers caught some fool wearing a Bigfoot costume in the woods during the conference.
And they charged him with what, unlawful costume rental in a no rental zone? Impersonating wildlife without a permit? Or was it something more sinister...like Bigfoot Blasphemy™? That's big in Ohio.

Also, you'd think the conference participants would see the humor in such a thing, but my DOLLARS to Keating's DONUTS says most of them didn't 'get it' even a little. I'm hoping the scofflaw didn't get 'detained' by the rangers too long as I'd also bet the late charges on that suit rental are sky high. That's how they get ya.

WGBH

25th May 2010, 04:56 PM

Do you have any more info on this?

No specifics, nope. Salt Fork during conference time is a hoaxer's paradise. That is why no one can squatch or can take anything serious that week.
We sit at the bonfire and talk to friends and listen to the newbies go out and call blast and wood knock to each other.:D

William Parcher

25th May 2010, 05:00 PM

WGBH

25th May 2010, 05:25 PM

I'm curious about the knowledge the hoaxer had. Were they certain nobody had a gun? Is this somebody who has been wearing a suit there in the past? Do they specifically target Bigfooters? Is the person a believer or a skeptic? Is it a known Bigfooter? Etc.

Well it's illegal to carry firearms in the park except the designated hunting areas. I dunno if it's been done in the past, this is the first time I have heard about it it my 3 years going. Yes, of course they target Bigfooters, as most hoaxers do. I doubt they are believers. No it's not a known Bigfooter.

Blackdog

25th May 2010, 05:37 PM

You sure it wasn't Sweaty? Were they ever seen in the same place at the same time? :p
This was his first time there right?

Drewbot

26th May 2010, 05:07 AM

Don't forget those of us who didn't get caught.

Seriously, would it be out of the realm of reason to find that Bigfoot bleevers, (folk story-perpetration experts) would be more apt to hoax bigfoot than non-bleevers? They know where the footers will be, they know what footer's actions will be when there is a sighting (Runaway! Runaway!) a non-bleever, just out to fool footers, would not be privy to the insider knowledge needed to pull off a good bigfoot prank.

EHocking

26th May 2010, 05:30 AM

You sure it wasn't Sweaty? Were they ever seen in the same place at the same time? :p
This was his first time there right?And how far from his body did his elbows extend?

William Parcher

26th May 2010, 08:20 AM

Well it's illegal to carry firearms in the park except the designated hunting areas. I dunno if it's been done in the past, this is the first time I have heard about it it my 3 years going. Yes, of course they target Bigfooters, as most hoaxers do. I doubt they are believers. No it's not a known Bigfooter.

Why would they target Bigfooters? Do the Bigfooters have special problems with gullibility? Why are you calling the hoaxer a fool? It's not because they risk being shot is it?

Is there anything to this story beyond anecdote? How do you know it wasn't a Bigfooter that posts on forums?

WGBH

26th May 2010, 10:30 AM

Why would they target Bigfooters? Do the Bigfooters have special problems with gullibility? Why are you calling the hoaxer a fool? It's not because they risk being shot is it?

Is there anything to this story beyond anecdote? How do you know it wasn't a Bigfooter that posts on forums?

Why would they target Bigfooters?

You would need to ask the person involved that question.

Do the Bigfooters have special problems with gullibility?

I do not speak for all Bigfooters. For myself that would be a no.

Why are you calling the hoaxer a fool? It's not because they risk being shot is it?

I call all hoaxers fools, regardless of circumstance.

Is there anything to this story beyond anecdote?

It was told to me by a park employee, so yes it could be anecdote.

How do you know it wasn't a Bigfooter that posts on forums?

I was told it was a young person. You can guess if they post on forums if it pleases you.

End of conversation.

SweatyYeti

26th May 2010, 10:38 AM

And how far from his body did his elbows extend?

Not nearly as far as Patty's do. :D

On Saturday, at the Conference, I happened to be sitting directly in front of Aaron Wheeler and David Griffin in the conference room...two people who were interviewed in this episode of Monsterquest...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnMIbUkYaqc

....and had the distinct pleasure of talking to them about their Bigfoot encounters.

It was very interesting, listening to them talk at length...(Aaron, mostly)...about the encounters....and seeing their enthusiasm and the degree to which they were both certain of what they saw.

They were sort-of slightly somewhat believable. :)

tsig

26th May 2010, 10:58 AM

You sure it wasn't Sweaty? Were they ever seen in the same place at the same time? :p
This was his first time there right?

I'll never believe that unless you can show me some blurry photos with red lines drawn on them.

kitakaze

26th May 2010, 03:18 PM

I'll never believe that unless you can show me some blurry photos with red lines drawn on them.

Over at the BFF there has been a flare-up of Bigfoot enthusiasts who have pareidolia issues and the amusing habit of taking pictures of bushes and trees and later picking out faces in the branches and leaves and posting them on the internet. You can see some of their websites here...

http://www.bigfootphoto.net/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=8

http://www.bfrpky.com/PICS.html

http://shadowfolk.com/

The last site there has been taken down since we started discussing the owner's photo manipulation à la Creekfreak and crazy ideas about the "Shadowfolk." In the most recent thread with a pareidolia guy in Kentucky I endeavoured to show him that I was also having a problem with Bigfoots skulking about in the park where I play tennis. The following is the post I made at the BFF and the photos of those Visitors (the third is especially chilling)...

There I was on my way to play tennis in the park close to my home yesterday when it happened. That thing happened. The Feeling. Witnesses, back me up on this. You know what I'm talking about. I couldn't shake the feeling I was being watched. The creatures were there. I knew it. There was no mistaking it. And then it hit me. That wave of uncontrollable panic. Was it infrasound? Had I been zapped? After a few moments, the feeling passed and I had heard rustling in the bushes. Clever monkeys. I know their tricks too well. They were strategically surrounding me, these Sentinels, as I guessed them to be. Assessing the threat. Was I in danger? I considered the situation. My fingers flexed and I gripped the handle of my Wilson BLX Pro Open racquet; light weight, but sturdy from the space age composite materials used in its construction. My mind went to the tube of Dunlop Grand Prix XD hard court balls in my backpack. Three balls per tube, three Sentinel Sasquatches if my ears did not deceive me. Possibly, I could extract a tube, open it quickly, and power off three smash serves in each off their directions - hopefully connecting with a Bigfoot nose and causing a brief blindness and disorientation that would allow me to run by in that direction. Or I could possibly attempt to juggle the balls and mesmerize the creatures with my display of manual dexterity.

My knuckles were white from the grip on my racquet when the wind shifted and I caught a whiff of the Sentinels. Powerful stuff. I supressed the urge to vomit when smelling what can only be described as dirty, wet socks filled with blue cheese and Jiffy markers. I figured they were trying to put the stink on me. If only I could get a look at them and better plan my course of action. That is when I remembered my trusty digital camera. I often brought it to the tennis courts in the hopes for an opportunity to discreetly photograph scantily clad tennis women. I realized my quarry today was much bigger - literally. Slowly I began to take off my backback to get out my camera. As I extracted the camera I suddenly heard more rustling and realized that the creatures had broken the perimeter on me they had made. Damn it! They saw the camera and got spooked. I quickly devised a plan. Putting the racquet in my backpack and some tennis b*lls in my pockets and assuming a non-aggressive posture, I began walking about the park speaking about the sizes of the non-extent cloves of garlic in my pockets. Everytime I heard a rustle, I snapped off a shot with the camera. I didn't realize until later when I reviewed the images on my pc at home that I had images not of a troupe of Sentinels as I had thought, but rather a simple family unit with a youngster in tow. This explained to me why the creatures tried so hard to evade me. One of the last shots I took, I was able to actually photograph the little one. So adorable! You'd never guess when they are babies that they will growing into great beasts that delight in throwing pigs and tearing dogs in two. I present the pictures here for members to enjoy and tell me their opinions of. Please keep in mind that I have never said these photos are proof of Bigfoot. Hope you like them...

kitakaze

26th May 2010, 03:55 PM

On Saturday, at the Conference, I happened to be sitting directly in front of Aaron Wheeler and David Griffin in the conference room...two people who were interviewed in this episode of Monsterquest...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnMIbUkYaqc

....and had the distinct pleasure of talking to them about their Bigfoot encounters.

It was very interesting, listening to them talk at length...(Aaron, mostly)...about the encounters....and seeing their enthusiasm and the degree to which they were both certain of what they saw.

They were sort-of slightly somewhat believable. :)

:dl:

Sweaty, your believer's heart beats strong within you. David's account is said to have happened in 1972 in Indiana and he said that he had blocked it out before. Uh-huh. And Aaron Wheeler was certain what he saw in Indiana? I guess you tuned out the following...

1) At 5:20 on your link it says that due to the darkness and the fact that he was not facing whatever he said grabbed him, he never got a good look.

2) I guess you didn't bother to watch part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mQWs8IdnQ4&feature=related) of the video where at 00:36 they show the results of the polygraph in which Aaron was found to be deceptive.

I also like the part where Aaron said that he and his friends in the truck were spotlighting deer not because they were poaching, but rather because they just wanted to count how many deer there were.

There must be some 12 step creduloids anonymous group we can find for you, Sweaty, because you have it bad.

atpeace

26th May 2010, 05:32 PM

Awesome encounter, Dude! And great photos! Good call not to confront. It's stuff like this that keeps my heart racin' and me searchin' ya know?

HarryHenderson

26th May 2010, 06:20 PM

:D That's so ******* funny KK. Poor Sweaty just got OWNED™!

SweatyYeti

27th May 2010, 06:10 AM

kitakaze wrote:
And Aaron Wheeler was certain what he saw in Indiana?

It was David Griffin who said he saw the Bigfoot very clearly...with no uncertainty about what it was he was looking at.

You're right about Aaron's encounter, though....I shouldn't have said "both", regarding the "certainty" of their sightings.

Cainkane1

27th May 2010, 06:54 AM

i watched part of Monsterquest last night and a master tracker was employed to track bigfoot. He seemed good at what he did. There were tracks which to me looked merely human. Adult tracks mixed with childrens tracks. The tracker started tracking and guess what? No Sasquatch.

Cainkane1

27th May 2010, 06:58 AM

kitakaze

27th May 2010, 07:30 AM

It was David Griffin who said he saw the Bigfoot very clearly...with no uncertainty about what it was he was looking at.

You're right about Aaron's encounter, though....I shouldn't have said "both", regarding the "certainty" of their sightings.

You can spray bold, italic, colour, elipsis fits and make ransom note posts however you like. What you should have done is finish watching your own video before you made a creduloid fool of yourself. It's not the first time you've been duped by someone claiming a Bigfoot encounter. Sweaty, it will always be your silly desires to believe in Bigfoot, aliens and whatever other woo garbage you prescribe to that will reduce your common sense to Jell-O Pudding Pops...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=314&pictureid=2990

GT/CS

27th May 2010, 07:31 AM

I've asked this question before. Why is bigfoot so elusive? Wouldn't this thing be rummaging through garbage cans, robbing vegetable gardens? If this humanoid monstrousity did exist I feel that it would be in its best interest to interact with humans. More food etc. Gorillas and Chimpanzees and orangtangs do just fine in human company why not sasquatch?

And let's see, what crops are grown in the PNW that our big furry friend would find tasty? Apples, pears, cherries, peaches, berries, hops, and grapes.
Farmers and orchardists should be losing a significant portion of their livelihood to the stinky beasts but the whole time I lived there I never heard anyone complaining about bigfoots eating their way through a row of trees.
A 9' tall critter would have been a great help during apple harvest, though!!

atpeace

27th May 2010, 08:39 AM

SweatyYeti

27th May 2010, 10:54 AM

you've been duped...

Not by Bob Heironimus....:)...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Fun/Letterman2.jpg

Now.....you be a good little kitakaze...and go prove to the world that David Griffin didn't see a Bigfoot....and that Joyce and her daughter didn't see a Bigfoot...and that all the other people in the world who say they've seen one didn't actually see one...and I'll happily admit that I've been duped. :)

Til then....how 'bout that elbow-reach of Patty's??! :D

Dupe-deee-dupe-dee-dupe-deeeeeeeeeee...

xblade

29th May 2010, 01:38 AM

Not by Bob Heironimus....:)...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Fun/Letterman2.jpg

Now.....you be a good little kitakaze...and go prove to the world that David Griffin didn't see a Bigfoot....and that Joyce and her daughter didn't see a Bigfoot...and that all the other people in the world who say they've seen one didn't actually see one...and I'll happily admit that I've been duped. :)

I'll do it, right after you prove I don't fight crime in another dimension while riding a fire breathing dragon.

Basically, this is why no one here should waste a single second more with you. It's like conversing with a child. Maybe one day you'll come across the word "lie" in the dictionary, and finally get a clue. I wouldn't bet on it though.

GT/CS

29th May 2010, 06:11 AM

I'll do it, right after you prove I don't fight crime in another dimension while riding a fire breathing dragon.

Basically, this is why no one here should waste a single second more with you. It's like conversing with a child. Maybe one day you'll come across the word "lie" in the dictionary, and finally get a clue. I wouldn't bet on it though.

'Ignore' works surprising well.

tsig

29th May 2010, 08:34 AM

'Ignore' works surprising well.

I use the "skim" function key. It's activated by depressing the "down arrow" key and holding it for as long as needed.

kitakaze

30th May 2010, 05:13 PM

Now.....you be a good little kitakaze...and go prove to the world that David Griffin didn't see a Bigfoot....and that Joyce and her daughter didn't see a Bigfoot...and that all the other people in the world who say they've seen one didn't actually see one...and I'll happily admit that I've been duped. :)

Til then....how 'bout that elbow-reach of Patty's??! :D

Dupe-deee-dupe-dee-dupe-deeeeeeeeeee...

I don't know what that bit at the end there was, Andrew Lloyd Sweaty, but it looked all crazy person to me. I'm curious about your reaction when you watched part 5 of the MonsterQuest video you linked and saw that Aaron Wheeler bombed the polygraph. Was it a Doh! moment? Was the face and palm coming together? Did the depth of your credulous behaviour dawn on you? Or maybe it was just Damn you, kitakaze! Foiled again!!

In any event, Sweaty, you want proof that David Griffin did not see Bigfoot in Indiana in 1972 and Joyce did not see Bigfoot in New York in 1983. You realize you just did the lamest woo maneuver in trying to reverse the burden of proof off the person making the incredible claim. I see you've dropped Aaron from the lineup. So tell me, what would constitute proof for you that David and Joyce did not see Bigfoot. Obviously, the fact that no reliable evidence for Bigfoot in Indiana and New York has ever been produced is not a problem for you, so please tell me what is. What will satisfy you that they did not see Bigfoot? You know, I am more than willing to interview both Joyce and David by telephone. I would give them the same respect and fair listening that I gave to Scott Herriott when he shared his account with me. Would you like that? I can talk with Joyce, her husband, and their daughter, which you never did, if they are willing. Are you willing?

Also, do I have to prove to you that the "paranormalist" David Koenig did not see a small Bigfoot on Mt. St. Helens in 1973?

I saw a small Bigfoot on Mt. St. Helens in 1973. They are real!Cool! Congrats on your sighting, Professor....you're a very lucky guy! :)

Have you talked about it on this board, before?

Also, will you prove to me that I did not encounter a little Bigfoot in an urban park in Victoria, BC?

WGBH

30th May 2010, 05:33 PM

wolftrax

31st May 2010, 01:38 AM

We simply cannot know if Scott and his friend didn't intentionally turn witnessed and videotaped pareidolia into a Bigfoot story. His story is actually quite ridiculous and not something that a critical thinker would believe. It's like a story that is custom-made for Bigfooters. Scott was already a Bigfoot believer before he had his "encounter". There is a distinct ordered pattern that we see in many Bigfooters...

1. Start out believing in Bigfoot.
2. Get yourself a Bigfoot encounter out in the field.

What's really weird to me is why the BFF crowd has not kicked him out of the circle. His encounter includes glowing eyes and a majorly blobby blobsquatch. The footers love to hate that stuff. But Scott is somehow kept around as a buddy and even has his threads stickied. I think he may have been grandfathered-in by BFF bigwigs and just remains there even after guards have changed.

It's not that he appears to be an obvious liar or hoaxer. It's that his videotaped encounter and story is so stupid and worthless. It's ironic because the BFF tends not to sticky and covet stupid blobs for very long. Even more ironic is that they let him peddle his DVD in their non-commercial forum sections.

I think I'm reading jealousy from you here...

Correa Neto

31st May 2010, 01:47 AM

Regarding the urban park bigfoot...

Kitafreak?
Creekkaze?

Or its something more Beckjordian?

Been hearing any "zaps" lately? That's the noise Historian's bigfeet did, right?

Carefull with crossbows, btw...

William Parcher

1st June 2010, 11:30 AM

I think I'm reading jealousy from you here...

You are wrong. I'm not jealous of Scott Herriott in any way. I'm serious when I say that there is something really screwed up about him thinking that he saw and videotaped a Bigfoot.

Drewbot

1st June 2010, 12:02 PM

I don't think he thinks he saw a Bigfoot. In fact, I think he says he doesn't know what it is. He lets the Bigfooters decide what it is.

William Parcher

1st June 2010, 12:16 PM

I don't think he thinks he saw a Bigfoot.

Oh? (http://txsasquatch.blogspot.com/2006/07/men-in-bigfoot-research-scott-herriott.html)

Hovey: Have you had a sighting? If so please explain.

Herriott: I believe I have. Can I say with absolute certainty? No. But I'm currently 99.87965 percent sure.

SweatyYeti

1st June 2010, 01:51 PM

kitakaze wrote:
What will satisfy you that they did not see Bigfoot?

It's not a question of being "satisfied". It's a question of 'probabilities'.

Your question...as worded...is meaningless.

BTW....kita-kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaze.....you've been DOOOOOooooOOOOOPED.....dooooooooooooped....dee.... dooooooooooooooped.........by Mr. Phony Heirony............I have the prooooooooooooooof...:D :D :D

(The prooooooooooooof.......you can't re-fuuuuuuuuuuuuute....:D )

LTC8K6

1st June 2010, 01:57 PM

I don't think he thinks he saw a Bigfoot. In fact, I think he says he doesn't know what it is. He lets the Bigfooters decide what it is.

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/news/bfhunter.html

SweatyYeti

1st June 2010, 01:58 PM

kitakaze wrote:
You realize you just did the lamest woo maneuver in trying to reverse the burden of proof off the person making the ... claim.

You made a claim.....you can have the burden of PROVING your claim. Of course.....you can't. :D

William Parcher

1st June 2010, 03:29 PM

Photo of Bigfoot nest taken by Stan Courtney (http://www.stancourtney.com/wordpress/).

Right up against a chain link fence. (http://www.stancourtney.com/portfolio/archives/000012.php)

atpeace

1st June 2010, 03:31 PM

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/news/bfhunter.html

"40 feet up the hill...very dark...two big brown eyes staring at us...all you could see was the reflection of the eyes..." Scott Herriott

Some questions: just curious

If the the "eye reflection" as stated in the interview was seen then some white light was present from somewhere, correct or no?

Human and some other animals eyes "glow" red from white light in the dark also, when seen head on as he also mentioned in the article "it never took its eyes off us, just locked on". Correct or no?

So how can one have eye reflections of the creature and also assume that the eyes are glowing red from some kind of bioluminescence or whatever?

Could one tell the eyes were "brown" under these conditions? "40 feet away....very dark"

ap

kitakaze

1st June 2010, 04:50 PM

kitakaze wrote:

It's not a question of being "satisfied". It's a question of 'probabilities'.

Your question...as worded...is meaningless.

BTW....kita-kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaze.....you've been DOOOOOooooOOOOOPED.....dooooooooooooped....dee.... dooooooooooooooped.........by Mr. Phony Heirony............I have the prooooooooooooooof...:D :D :D

(The prooooooooooooof.......you can't re-fuuuuuuuuuuuuute....:D )

You made a claim.....you can have the burden of PROVING your claim. Of course.....you can't. :D

Listen, 12 Monkeys, you've got to not let the cat on the keyboard when you're trying to communicate your thoughts and ideas. Seriously, Sweaty, that just looks like guano. My question isn't meaningless. You want me to prove that David Griffin and Joyce didn't not see Bigfoot and then you'll admit that you were duped. But what I already showed you, and it was hilarious, BTW, is that the other guy you were holding up as an eyewitness first was never supposed to have gotten a good look at anything and second, in the next part of the video you provided, the dude bombed a polygraph. Sweet African Wildass, it doesn't get much better than that. Aaron Wheeler and David Koenig - that's at least two people you've been duped by. The Jell-O pudding pops for critical thinking is what allows that to happen.

So I ask you such a simple question again, Sweaty. You want proof that Dave and Joyce didn't see a Bigfoot in Indiana and New York, respectively. What would constitute proof? How could I prove to you that they didn't see Bigfoot? Is it about probabilities? How do we evaluate the probability that a species of massive wood ape lives all across North America and yet we have no type specimen? And where is my claim? I don't know what Joyce and David Griffin did or did not see, but I definitely don't think it was Bigfoot. There's no reliable evidence whatsoever to suggest Bigfoot does exist in Indiana and New York. You've claimed that Joyce, Dave, and Aaron did see a Bigfoot. *poof* Bye-bye, Aaron. Let's proceed. Let's get Joyce and her daughter on the phone. Let's talk about it and maybe you can stop letting your cat do most of the posting for you.

GT/CS

1st June 2010, 09:22 PM

Kit, learn to resist the temptation. Going cold turkey is best.

wolftrax

2nd June 2010, 12:04 AM

You are wrong. I'm not jealous of Scott Herriott in any way. I'm serious when I say that there is something really screwed up about him thinking that he saw and videotaped a Bigfoot.

Yep, still reading jealousy. You consider his video among the worst of anything having to do with sasquatch, so why would you even give it a second thought? Instead, it's apparent from your posts that you have invested a great deal of personal criticism and dislike for him, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I have yet to have seen any interaction between the two of you to base that on.

That criticism does read as jealousy. You wonder why he is liked by the "Bigfoot community" for something you deem not worthy, why else would it bother you that people like him?

I've seen this kind of thing from you before. Could it be that it bothers you that, for the most part, despite all of your constant posting day after day for a few years about bigfoot, nobody in the "Bigfoot community" really gives you the attention you feel you deserve?

I'll give you two words why, despite the quality of his video, despite his open skepticism of just about anything having to do with sasquatch, people in the "Bigfoot community" still like Scott Herriott.

Great personality.

He's got it, some don't.

Drewbot

2nd June 2010, 05:03 AM

Oh? (http://txsasquatch.blogspot.com/2006/07/men-in-bigfoot-research-scott-herriott.html)

Hovey: Have you had a sighting? If so please explain.

Herriott: I believe I have. Can I say with absolute certainty? No. But I'm currently 99.87965 percent sure.

He is an actor/comedian. If he thinks he is talking to a Bigfooter, he will probably play to the crowd.

SweatyYeti

2nd June 2010, 06:08 AM

kitakaze wrote:
How could I prove to you that they didn't see Bigfoot?

You caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan't.....kitakaze. :)

Therefore......you don't know that I've been duped. :)

On the other hand......I know that you've been DOOO:)OOOOO:D :D :DOOOO:DOOOPED.....and......I can proooooooooooooooooooooooove it.

See the difference? I have proof.....you don't. :D

(How are your BOB-SHELLS coming along, btw??? :D Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuped...)

William Parcher

2nd June 2010, 08:33 AM

He is an actor/comedian. If he thinks he is talking to a Bigfooter, he will probably play to the crowd.

Like he is pretending to believe? I think that was what I originally said.

William Parcher

2nd June 2010, 09:44 AM

his open skepticism of just about anything having to do with sasquatch, people in the "Bigfoot community" still like Scott Herriott.

I can't really regard him as a Bigfoot skeptic because of...

99.87965 percent sure

You see, he is 99+% certain that he saw and videotaped a Bigfoot. Does that mean that he is 1% skeptical of Bigfoot or only this encounter? But you still think of him as a skeptic?

I'm not jealous of him. But I see that I'm no more likely to be able to convince you of that than I am to convince you that Bigfoot doesn't exist. I liken it to the situation of Bigfootery itself. You guys just don't get it.

Hitch

2nd June 2010, 10:48 AM

kitakaze wrote:

You caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan't.....kitakaze. :)

Therefore......you don't know that I've been duped. :)

On the other hand......I know that you've been DOOO:)OOOOO:D :D :DOOOO:DOOOPED.....and......I can proooooooooooooooooooooooove it.

See the difference? I have proof.....you don't. :D

(How are your BOB-SHELLS coming along, btw??? :D Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuped...)
If you have PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOF, let's see it. Why are you hiding it?

wolftrax

2nd June 2010, 01:47 PM

I can't really regard him as a Bigfoot skeptic because of...

You see, he is 99+% certain that he saw and videotaped a Bigfoot. Does that mean that he is 1% skeptical of Bigfoot or only this encounter? But you still think of him as a skeptic?

Aw, it's the "All or nothing" "You're either with us or against us" stance.

I'm not jealous of him.

I think so, here's the post that got you started on this whole thing, Kitakaze saying that Scott would be the perfect host for a radio show with Bob H and Bob G:

You know who would be the perfect host/moderator? Somebody that has the respect of both Bigfooters and skeptics (this one, anyway). Somebody at ease in interviews...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq7_5DZ3Ik8

Somebody with documentary experience and dealing with potentially volatile situations...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o06gFwOZhs0

Someone like me that has been over the mountain and through the woods...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qUoH0OIWqU

Somebody who knows how to get a barometer on the situation and lighten the mood...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htd4pbWaNmg

I think that guy would be perfect. In fact, if that guy ever wanted to collaborate with me on a Bigfootery internet radio show, I would come a-runnin'.
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=29264&view=findpost&p=596050

And you immediately respond:

LOL. Scott Herriott. He's one of the first on my list of "folks who pretend to believe in Bigfoot". He has so much fun acting like he and cry-eyes buddy filmed a Bigfoot in a mountain nest. Rock on, Scott.

The joke is on the true believer. Everybody laughs thinking there are a few people out there who really believe. Hello. Wake up. LOL!
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5918946&postcount=1269

So I guess you got upset here that you weren't immediately thought of as the perfect host for a radio show featuring Bob H and Bob G?

But I see that I'm no more likely to be able to convince you of that than I am to convince you that Bigfoot doesn't exist. I liken it to the situation of Bigfootery itself. You guys just don't get it.

Here's the thing that you just don't get. You wouldn't need to convince me that bigfoot doesn't exist. I find it perfectly acceptable, a lot more so than it existing. I'm just not as hung up on "who believes what" like you are.

SweatyYeti

2nd June 2010, 01:55 PM

If you have PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOF, let's see it. Why are you hiding it?

It's posted in the Heironimus thread.

The essence of it is simple....Heirony's elbows only reach about 21-22" away from his backbone.....maximum...with his arms straight out, fully horizontal...(90 degrees from his side).

Patty's elbows measure approx. 22-24" away from her backbone, with her arms out at an angle of about 45-degrees.....not even at her maximum. Bob's measure 17-18", at that angle.

Add a couple more inches to that 22-24" figure, to get Patty's maximum...and her elbow-reach is up to about 24"-26".

Well beyond Phony Heirony's....:).

KingMerv00

2nd June 2010, 02:08 PM

kitakaze wrote:

You caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan't.....kitakaze. :)

Therefore......you don't know that I've been duped. :)

On the other hand......I know that you've been DOOO:)OOOOO:D :D :DOOOO:DOOOPED.....and......I can proooooooooooooooooooooooove it.

See the difference? I have proof.....you don't. :D

(How are your BOB-SHELLS coming along, btw??? :D Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuped...)

:eye-poppi

:jaw-dropp

:eek:

My God, it's full of stars.

Hitch

2nd June 2010, 02:18 PM

It's posted in the Heironimus thread.

The essence of it is simple....Heirony's elbows only reach about 21-22" away from his backbone.....maximum...with his arms straight out, fully horizontal...(90 degrees from his side).

Patty's elbows measure approx. 22-24" away from her backbone, with her arms out at an angle of about 45-degrees.....not even at her maximum. Bob's measure 17-18", at that angle.

Add a couple more inches to that 22-24" figure, to get Patty's maximum...and her elbow-reach is up to about 24"-26".

Well beyond Phony Heirony's....:).

Oh, your PROOOOOOOF is still based on the fact that elbows don't move? Moving on...

HarryHenderson

2nd June 2010, 04:48 PM

I absolutely understand there is no need for me to defend William Parcher in any way whatsoever, but he did convince me to reconsider Herriot's POV, so I opine anyway...

I'd bet dollars to donuts William Parcher is anything but jealous of Scott Herriot. He's surely confused by Herriot's apparent Bigfoot popularity, but he's just not computing it 'right' is all. "Eh who cares if you can prove there is no Bigfoot we love Scott Herriot and he's ******* hilarious and he's 99.87965% sure he saw Bigfoot too so there." Well, if you put it that way, par doane moi!

I think it's an actual dislike for him. Albeit a righteous one because, given his popularity, it appears SH hasn't been totally straight with everyone. It seems, that's if we go by the evidence, SH believes in Bigfoot depending on which way the wind blows that day. Which is actually 'fair enough' IMO, he just needs to make sure he's not pretending something else.

That is if he wants William Parcher's respect. :duck:

SweatyYeti

3rd June 2010, 07:37 AM

Oh, your PROOOOOOOF is still based on the fact that elbows don't move? Moving on...

It's based on simple measurements. Measurements that no-one has yet been able to refute.....(including you)....and, I'm expecting, a physical model will prove to be legit. :)

Drewbot

3rd June 2010, 08:15 AM

It's based on simple measurements. Measurements that no-one has yet been able to refute.....(including you)....and, I'm expecting, a physical model will prove to be legit. :)

Oh, and the part where you have no idea what the true measurements of any portion of any limb on either subject really are. You don't even have a view which shows the true length of the portions of the limbs.

LuvGodzilla

3rd June 2010, 10:10 AM

Also, will you prove to me that I did not encounter a little Bigfoot in an urban park in Victoria, BC?

I'm not sure that classifies as little Bigfoot KK, looks more like King Kong's offspring. :)

Mike!

3rd June 2010, 01:05 PM

Does this count?

http://www.bigfoot4x4.com/images/bf1-2.jpg

Removed hotlinked image. Please see Rule 5.

I sort of looked to see if anyone else posted this, but come on, this thread is over 60 pages long, who has that kind of time to kill?:gasp:

Drewbot

3rd June 2010, 03:08 PM

Does this count?

http://www.bigfoot4x4.com/images/bf1-2.jpg

I sort of looked to see if anyone else posted this, but come on, this thread is over 60 pages long, who has that kind of time to kill?:gasp:

Are you serious? You bring in a monster truck, and we are here talking about important things like an unclassified, hairy, bipedal North American foot-ape.

Mike!

3rd June 2010, 04:02 PM

Are you serious? You bring in a monster truck, and we are here talking about important things like an unclassified, hairy, bipedal North American foot-ape.

Well it does leave a big footprint and it smells bad, isn't that enough?

:rolleyes:

Hitch

3rd June 2010, 06:37 PM

Resume

3rd June 2010, 06:49 PM

What's the "elbow reach measurement" on that?

Whatever figure you'd like.

Vortigern99

3rd June 2010, 09:18 PM

Does this count?

http://www.bigfoot4x4.com/images/bf1-2.jpg

I sort of looked to see if anyone else posted this, but come on, this thread is over 60 pages long, who has that kind of time to kill?:gasp:

Guy in a suit!

I can clearly see padding behind the tires.

kitakaze

3rd June 2010, 10:07 PM

Does this count?

http://www.bigfoot4x4.com/images/bf1-2.jpg

Yes, it does...

SweatyYeti

4th June 2010, 01:43 AM

Whatever figure you'd like.

"Easier said than DONE".....if you're a fan of Heirony's. ;) :D

Resume

4th June 2010, 06:22 AM

"Easier said than DONE".....if you're a fan of Heirony's. ;) :D

What I'm not a fan of are figures tortured from fuzzy photographs.

Or . . .

Unless we have the suit, your figures are a hoot.

Mike!

7th June 2010, 02:57 PM

Flying Bigfoot? Now that's just silly...

http://www.bigfoot4x4.com/photo-gallery/images/apr10_350.jpg

Removed hotlinked image. Please see Rule 5.

I'm pretty sure it's right there behind the stupid truck, see it?

;)

William Parcher

9th June 2010, 12:07 PM

Aw, it's the "All or nothing" "You're either with us or against us" stance.

No. Bigfoot believer or non-believer. Scott is a believer.

I think so, here's the post that got you started on this whole thing, Kitakaze saying that Scott would be the perfect host for a radio show with Bob H and Bob G:

And you immediately respond:

So I guess you got upset here that you weren't immediately thought of as the perfect host for a radio show featuring Bob H and Bob G?

You believe at least two false things:

1. Bigfoot exists.
2. WP is jealous of Herriott because he wasn't asked to be a radio host.

Here's the thing that you just don't get. You wouldn't need to convince me that bigfoot doesn't exist. I find it perfectly acceptable, a lot more so than it existing. I'm just not as hung up on "who believes what" like you are.

I don't understand why you are compelled to say this. You believe that Bigfoot exists and you also had your own Bigfoot encounter. Why did you select "yes" as a response to Bigfoot encounter? instead of "not sure"? What makes you sure that you encountered a Bigfoot?

William Parcher

9th June 2010, 12:31 PM

IMO, the only way to advance this discussion is to attempt to ascertain what level of hoaxing is indicated by the data.

That presents an immediate problem. The big datasets (BFRO, Green, etc) have already had "obvious" hoaxes excluded. IOW, we are prevented from seeing how truly gung-ho the common folks are about telling Bigfoot lies.

I think I read something written by an ex-BFRO insider who said that about 80% of submitted sighting reports are trashed and not even entered into their database.

A "good" or "credible" Bigfoot encounter report would be just like a good novel or short story fiction. It's almost as if it is real. One can even be convinced or pretend that it is real.

Drewbot

9th June 2010, 12:38 PM

I don't understand why you are compelled to say this. You believe that Bigfoot exists and you also had your own Bigfoot encounter. Why did you select "yes" as a response to Bigfoot encounter? instead of "not sure"? What makes you sure that you encountered a Bigfoot?

Wolftrax, did you positive bigfoot encounter happen in Michigan? at the Michigan recording's location?

William Parcher

9th June 2010, 05:43 PM

Right, doesn't matter to you if he's skeptical of bigfoot, and most things to do with it, if not all things having to do with it. He still has that belief, allows for that belief, and so it's all or nothing with you.

He is 99+% certain that he saw and filmed a Bigfoot... but then you tell me he is skeptical of Bigfoot's existence. It intrigues me because it doesn't make any sense. If he was skeptical of Bigfoot he would have something like 20% confidence in his own sighting - not 99%.

You keep saying it's all or nothing for me but it is Scott that used the 99+% figure, not me.

No, I think you are. You bring up something that has nothing to do with Scott Herriott, my belief in Bigfoot, as some sort of defense mechanism.

I don't want to host any Bigfoot radio show and I never did. Your belief in Bigfoot is related to Scott's belief... mainly I find them to be unusual in that you consider yourselves to be Bigfoot skeptics but ALSO claim to have seen Bigfoot...

Why did I put "Yes" and "Not sure"? Because I believed I had and still believe it. I could be wrong. It could have been my mind playing tricks on me. It could have been my imagination. It is neither credible nor believable, and anyone who has asked me about it I have said the same thing.

What I find odd is that you perfectly describe an uncertain encounter and yet still choose to label it as certain. Don't you understand that "I could be wrong" and "Uncertain" or "Not Sure" are all exactly the same?

If bigfoot doesn't exist, no big deal. What I have seen evidence wise hasn't convinced me of it's reality, but has had every indication that the whole thing is BS. It's been that way for a very long time, long before I came here.

Your point?

Let me ask you this, what is your name on BFF?

I don't do the BFF. I know of your encounter "status" from your public avatar/handle on BFD (see below). I know of your belief "status" from a post on BFF (see below).

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/9567aef5.gif

You had and (presumably) still have the opportunity to say "Not sure" or "Uncertain" after the "Bigfoot Encounter:" question. I find it odd that a person would say they had a (yes) Bigfoot encounter and then claim to be some kind of skeptic. Like saying you were abducted by aliens but don't think that aliens exist.

You said this fairly recently on BFF...

I didn't change my mind about sasquatchs existence, I still believe they exist.

That (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=29383) is just a wee bit different from your quote here just hours ago...

What I have seen evidence wise hasn't convinced me of it's reality, but has had every indication that the whole thing is BS. It's been that way for a very long time, long before I came here.

WGBH

9th June 2010, 06:44 PM

LTC8K6

9th June 2010, 10:13 PM

About 1:57

"Do you really believe in bigfoot?"

"I...I do...well it's not just one."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq7_5DZ3Ik8

wolftrax

9th June 2010, 11:27 PM

About 2:12

"...there's a truckload of BS associated with the Bigfoot phenomenon and there's misperception, hallucinations, showing up at Celtic games and things like that..."

LTC8K6

10th June 2010, 08:26 AM

About 2:12

"...there's a truckload of BS associated with the Bigfoot phenomenon and there's misperception, hallucinations, showing up at Celtic games and things like that..."

Yes and Herriot loads one of the trucks...

Vortigern99

10th June 2010, 11:46 AM

Naw, I didn't resort to posting things that are distorted or with random measurements that don't correlate with anything, and I'm not out to prove anything and when people give up claim it's strong evidence.

Pretty much, I'm telling the guy that I see his posts against Scott Herriott as being motivated by jealousy, and he responds that I should put "Not sure" next to the question of "Bigfoot Encounter" instead of "Yes" next to my username. I explain why I didn't do that. He says it's garble, and instead of accepting that I can see the guy is frustrated and wants to quit.

Examining Heriott's and your claims to have seen BF in a thread with this title is germane and on-topic. Accusing a poster of jealousy as the motivating factor behind that examination is an irrelevant and uninteresting sidebar.

LTC8K6

10th June 2010, 12:20 PM

I think Herriot is a Fair Weather Footer.tm

wolftrax

10th June 2010, 12:32 PM

Whatever that means...

LTC8K6

10th June 2010, 01:05 PM

A Fair Weather Footertm is a believer when the footer seas are calm and the footer weather is fair, and a skeptic when footer seas and weather get rough.

wolftrax

10th June 2010, 01:30 PM

Any examples?

William Parcher

10th June 2010, 04:47 PM

That's exactly what this conversation has consisted of. It's not germane, it's not about Bigfoot's existence. It's about one guy that shows belief but also a lot more skepticism, and yet people really like him, and some other guy who doesn't like him because of that.

I do not dislike Scott. I think his encounter story is ridiculous and wouldn't be believed by anyone other than select Bigfooters. The eyes suddenly glowed red. I think he pretends to believe in Bigfoot or at least in his own encounter. We've discussed it here long before this recent thing.

Scott probably would be a good host for that particular radio show assuming that he studies the details of the claims of both Bobs. I just think it's ironic that KKZ would choose a Bigfooter and especially one with a cornball sighting of his own.

I'm really unfamiliar with your encounter story. I only know you claim to have encountered a Bigfoot and also recently said you think it's (Bigfoot) probably all BS. It seems that you say you believe over on BFF and say you don't believe over here. I could be wrong - but it looks that way. Regardless, I think it would be common human nature to do that just so that one gets along better with the prevailing attitude of the forum.

Is your encounter story posted anywhere?